Conquer Club

Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby MeDeFe on Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:58 am

got tonkaed wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:Then the question really boils down to whether evolution should be taught with a god in it or without a god in it. And since god isn't very scientific, well...

I dont see it nearly as much as a teaching question in the sense of science vs not science, but as a question of legality under the establishment clause.

At least in America, its just not allowable in the current context to teach creationism. Anywhere outside of the public school system, teach what youd like, but its supposed to be evolution in the science class.

I heard philosophy and ethics also aren't allowed to be taught, is that correct?
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby Snorri1234 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:02 am

MeDeFe wrote:
got tonkaed wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:Then the question really boils down to whether evolution should be taught with a god in it or without a god in it. And since god isn't very scientific, well...

I dont see it nearly as much as a teaching question in the sense of science vs not science, but as a question of legality under the establishment clause.

At least in America, its just not allowable in the current context to teach creationism. Anywhere outside of the public school system, teach what youd like, but its supposed to be evolution in the science class.

I heard philosophy and ethics also aren't allowed to be taught, is that correct?


Whut?
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby MeDeFe on Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:03 am

Snorri1234 wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:
got tonkaed wrote:I dont see it nearly as much as a teaching question in the sense of science vs not science, but as a question of legality under the establishment clause.

At least in America, its just not allowable in the current context to teach creationism. Anywhere outside of the public school system, teach what youd like, but its supposed to be evolution in the science class.

I heard philosophy and ethics also aren't allowed to be taught, is that correct?

Whut?

Basically anything that might influence the worldview of the pupils, I don't know if that's correct, but one of the other students said something along those lines in a course last term.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby tzor on Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:15 am

Snorri1234 wrote:I have a question for anyone who knows about creationism. When did the Flood take place?


I'm not a creationist so I can't help you. I've heard that the best possible source for most of the flood stories around the Mediterranean might be explained by the Black Sea deluge theory. That would have occurred around 5,600 BC.

There is, of course a lot of argument against this theory and that water was flowing both ways across the Bosporus long before this time.
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby MeDeFe on Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:33 am

5600 BC is almost twice as long ago as the world is supposedly old.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby Snorri1234 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:40 am

tzor wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:I have a question for anyone who knows about creationism. When did the Flood take place?


I'm not a creationist so I can't help you. I've heard that the best possible source for most of the flood stories around the Mediterranean might be explained by the Black Sea deluge theory. That would have occurred around 5,600 BC.

There is, of course a lot of argument against this theory and that water was flowing both ways across the Bosporus long before this time.


But how did the plants survive?
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby got tonkaed on Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:04 am

MeDeFe wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:
got tonkaed wrote:I dont see it nearly as much as a teaching question in the sense of science vs not science, but as a question of legality under the establishment clause.

At least in America, its just not allowable in the current context to teach creationism. Anywhere outside of the public school system, teach what youd like, but its supposed to be evolution in the science class.

I heard philosophy and ethics also aren't allowed to be taught, is that correct?

Basically anything that might influence the worldview of the pupils, I don't know if that's correct, but one of the other students said something along those lines in a course last term.


Im pretty sure anything including creationism can be taught as part of an elective social studies or humanities course at least under the establishment clause. I think the issue really only applies to science classes. However as far as ethics and philosophy go, your talking more about an issue of comparative quality of high schools more than legality imo.
User avatar
Cadet got tonkaed
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby DangerBoy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:56 pm

Backglass wrote:Of course. You should instead take legend & lore handed down for generations as fact. :roll:


For example: Once upon a time there was nothing. Nothing came together, exploded, and caused something. Something kept changing until it became more and more complex. Eventually complex something decided to make itself into a bunch of living things.

One of the best fairy tales ever
PLAYER57832 wrote:I hope we all become liberal drones.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class DangerBoy
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:31 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby MeDeFe on Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:28 pm

DangerBoy wrote:
Backglass wrote:Of course. You should instead take legend & lore handed down for generations as fact. :roll:

For example: Once upon a time there was nothing. Nothing came together, exploded, and caused something. Something kept changing until it became more and more complex. Eventually complex something decided to make itself into a bunch of living things.

One of the best fairy tales ever

A lot better than a magical god that's the embodiment (or something) of perfection just existing and not having to come from anywhere and suddenly deciding to create a world. And that's before all the bits about loving us and being omniscient and us still having free will and zombies being tortured to death by law-abiding Romans.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby DangerBoy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:07 pm

MeDeFe wrote:
DangerBoy wrote:
Backglass wrote:Of course. You should instead take legend & lore handed down for generations as fact. :roll:

For example: Once upon a time there was nothing. Nothing came together, exploded, and caused something. Something kept changing until it became more and more complex. Eventually complex something decided to make itself into a bunch of living things.

One of the best fairy tales ever

A lot better than a magical god that's the embodiment (or something) of perfection just existing and not having to come from anywhere and suddenly deciding to create a world. And that's before all the bits about loving us and being omniscient and us still having free will and zombies being tortured to death by law-abiding Romans.


This is coming from the guy who wanted proof that 1 + 1 = 2. When you won't believe in God you'll fall for anything.
PLAYER57832 wrote:I hope we all become liberal drones.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class DangerBoy
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:31 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby Neoteny on Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:49 pm

DangerBoy wrote:This is coming from the guy who wanted proof that 1 + 1 = 2. When you won't believe in God you'll fall for anything.


Excepting, of course, the ridiculous atrocity that is religion.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby DangerBoy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:28 pm

Neoteny wrote:
DangerBoy wrote:This is coming from the guy who wanted proof that 1 + 1 = 2. When you won't believe in God you'll fall for anything.


Excepting, of course, the ridiculous atrocity that is religion.


Keep telling yourself that
PLAYER57832 wrote:I hope we all become liberal drones.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class DangerBoy
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:31 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby Neoteny on Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:32 pm

DangerBoy wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
DangerBoy wrote:This is coming from the guy who wanted proof that 1 + 1 = 2. When you won't believe in God you'll fall for anything.


Excepting, of course, the ridiculous atrocity that is religion.


Keep telling yourself that


See, I know you're used to having to convince yourself that there is a god, and I can see why: it's an amazingly absurd concept. But this is not the case for me, and I need not worry about such things. Good luck deluding yourself.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:37 pm

got tonkaed wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:Then the question really boils down to whether evolution should be taught with a god in it or without a god in it. And since god isn't very scientific, well...


I dont see it nearly as much as a teaching question in the sense of science vs not science, but as a question of legality under the establishment clause.

At least in America, its just not allowable in the current context to teach creationism. Anywhere outside of the public school system, teach what youd like, but its supposed to be evolution in the science class.



Unless you live in Kansas .. or any number of areas with school boards who have decided that, in the interest of fairness, a "balanced" view should be taught. Stay tuned for this show to reach your area ....

I believed for years that Creationism, was "no big deal", it is a small group of mostly uneducated folks who don't want to listen to reason.

BUT read Widowmaker's ideas at the beginning of this thread, as well as many others who have posted here and you find Widowmaker is neither completely uneducated or seriously unreasonable, but that Widowmaker has been taught a seriously altered view of reality and truth. Understand that all across the country in houses and churches, kids are being brought up to believe this is the best truth that is available ... and that evolution is a crazy idea purported largely by those wanting to disprove the Bible (a quote from Widowmaker, by-the-way) AND more often than not, they have real plans to gently, but firmly move these teachings into the regular public schools.

Further, it doesn't stop with creationism. Knock out the pedastals that support Evolutionary theory and you can begin to make inroads into all sorts of inconvenient realms of science.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby DangerBoy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:44 pm

Neoteny wrote:See, I know you're used to having to convince yourself that there is a god, and I can see why: it's an amazingly absurd concept. But this is not the case for me, and I need not worry about such things. Good luck deluding yourself.


That's it! ROFL

All we get is a basic 'you're wrong because we say you are'? Wow, that's real proof. Nothing came together and made something. We say it's a fact and everybody must follow us. No thanks.
PLAYER57832 wrote:I hope we all become liberal drones.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class DangerBoy
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:31 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby Neoteny on Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:54 pm

DangerBoy wrote:
Neoteny wrote:See, I know you're used to having to convince yourself that there is a god, and I can see why: it's an amazingly absurd concept. But this is not the case for me, and I need not worry about such things. Good luck deluding yourself.


That's it! ROFL

All we get is a basic 'you're wrong because we say you are'? Wow, that's real proof. Nothing came together and made something. We say it's a fact and everybody must follow us. No thanks.


I need proof to back up a disagreement with an opinion that noone really has? The reason I'm not bothering with discussing your topic is because your expression of the bolded statement indicates you don't have any idea what the hell you're talking about. Try again when you have a clue of what concepts are and are not associated with big bang theory. Then I will offer my view of the evidence. Otherwise, you are just vomiting on this lovely thread.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby DangerBoy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:10 pm

Neoteny wrote:I need proof to back up a disagreement with an opinion that noone really has? The reason I'm not bothering with discussing your topic is because your expression of the bolded statement indicates you don't have any idea what the hell you're talking about. Try again when you have a clue of what concepts are and are not associated with big bang theory. Then I will offer my view of the evidence. Otherwise, you are just vomiting on this lovely thread.


Keep it up. This is great
PLAYER57832 wrote:I hope we all become liberal drones.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class DangerBoy
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:31 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby silvanricky on Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:22 pm

DangerBoy wrote:This is coming from the guy who wanted proof that 1 + 1 = 2. When you won't believe in God you'll fall for anything.


Look, just because one dumbass atheist/evolutionist makes a stupid statement doesn't mean you can apply it to all atheists and try to make them look stupid. I'm sure there are plenty of stupid things creationists have said which they regret. The main thing is that nobody can know for certain how the universe came about. The best you can do is come up with a theory and try to explain it from evidence discovered.
User avatar
Corporal silvanricky
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:13 pm

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby joecoolfrog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:57 pm

Is there anything dumber in this world than blind faith #-o
I can see the case for Inteligent design, it enables Christians to embrace science without compromising their faith, but creationism is absurd and it's a crime to teach it to children as fact.
Colonel joecoolfrog
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:29 pm
Location: London ponds

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby Ray Rider on Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:02 pm

I haven't really studied into this debate very much, and was just reading in the encyclopedia about abiogenesis. Seems to me like the debate continues even in scientific circles.
"By the middle of the 19th century Pasteur and others had demonstrated that living organisms did not arise spontaneously from non-living matter...."
Then it says that others are still forming theories to answer how life came about from a naturalistic standpoint.
"There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life."
"As of 2008, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach")."

Since creationists cannot prove conclusively that God created the earth and evolutionists cannot prove conclusively that life arose from nonliving matter, it appears to me that the debate is more about whether to approach science from a naturalistic/atheistic philosophy or a theistic/deistic philosophy. Since there are many scientists who are/have been on both sides of the debate, I believe they should both be considered "models of origins" and taught in schools as such. This would have the positive effect of encouraging students to study it out for themselves, in process of which, students would learn more about science. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't feel like studying into something if everything is already known. But if there is much room for new discoveries in an area of research, it arouses my interest (such as quantum mechanics).
Image
Image
Highest score: 2221
User avatar
Major Ray Rider
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:21 pm
Location: In front of my computer, duh!

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby Frigidus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:09 pm

silvanricky wrote:
DangerBoy wrote:This is coming from the guy who wanted proof that 1 + 1 = 2. When you won't believe in God you'll fall for anything.


Look, just because one dumbass atheist/evolutionist makes a stupid statement doesn't mean you can apply it to all atheists and try to make them look stupid. I'm sure there are plenty of stupid things creationists have said which they regret. The main thing is that nobody can know for certain how the universe came about. The best you can do is come up with a theory and try to explain it from evidence discovered.



While I agree with your point MeDeFe certainly isn't a dumb ass. The 1+1=2 thing was more a poor example than a stupid idea.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby MeDeFe on Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:02 am

I made that point in a very different context. If I remember correctly it was when daddy1gringo and I were arguing absolute truth and occasionally other people would dare speak up as well. Anyway, someone tried to tell me that mathematics are absolute and independent of anything and everything, I just pointed out that even in mathematics there is nothing that can be demonstrated to be true without referencing to something else.

DangerBoy has a link to a proof in his sig, but that one relies on a large number of other definitions, which rather nicely proves my point from the other thread. Namely that things can be understood or even exist only in relation to other things.
Last edited by MeDeFe on Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 7:56 am

Ray Rider wrote:I haven't really studied into this debate very much, and was just reading in the encyclopedia about abiogenesis. Seems to me like the debate continues even in scientific circles.
"By the middle of the 19th century Pasteur and others had demonstrated that living organisms did not arise spontaneously from non-living matter...."
Then it says that others are still forming theories to answer how life came about from a naturalistic standpoint.
"There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life."
"As of 2008, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach")."


They might not have synthesized protocells yet (I cannot check the validity of your reference), but they HAVE synthesized the more basic building blocks .. last year, if not earlier (I heard the report last year).

Since creationists cannot prove conclusively that God created the earth and evolutionists cannot prove conclusively that life arose from nonliving matter


both evolutionists and creationists believe that life arose from somewhere .. we are here, after all. The disagreement is over how and why.


it appears to me that the debate is more about whether to approach science from a naturalistic/atheistic philosophy or a theistic/deistic philosophy. Since there are many scientists who are/have been on both sides of the debate, I believe they should both be considered "models of origins" and taught in schools as such. This would have the positive effect of encouraging students to study it out for themselves, in process of which, students would learn more about science. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't feel like studying into something if everything is already known. But if there is much room for new discoveries in an area of research, it arouses my interest (such as quantum mechanics).[/
quote]


No, the philosophy is one issue -- definitely debateable. But what is taught in science is fact ... and theories based upon large volumes of evidence.

For example, no one that we know of actually observed Tyrannosaurus Rex, but while there can certainly be debate about details (was T and other dinosaurs truly cold-blooded, warm blooded, or somewhere in between?, was it really a predator or a scavanger, etc.), there is very, very, very little doubt that it existed. At this point, most people would call fossil evidence proof, however, from a scientific standpoint it is not quite the same as, say the fact that black bears exist. It is still basically considered a theory.

BUT here is where the creationists typically err. The fact that the mere presence of dinosaurs can be called "theoretical" does NOT mean that any idea that anyone else comes up with is equal. It does NOT mean that there is no basis. In the case of dinosaurs, it is essentially a "theory" only in the strictest of sense. To disprove that dinosaurs exist, you would have to come up with an explanation for how these things we call fossils could have arisen OTHER than through replacement of living tissue with minerals. (and, by-the way, that PROCESS is actually fact, not theory ..)

That said, I already acknowledged that some creationist do acknowledge that dinosaurs might have existed... but some still don't.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby Neoteny on Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:24 am

You should reread the last thirty pages or so, PLAYER, if you haven't already. You'd probably enjoy quite a few posts in here.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Postby tzor on Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:41 am

DangerBoy wrote:This is coming from the guy who wanted proof that 1 + 1 = 2. When you won't believe in God you'll fall for anything.


If I recall correctly there was a famous "proof" that attempted to prove 1 + 1 = 3. This was a very huge proof and it takes an expert in logic with lots of patience a lot of time to spot the hidden error in the mathematical "proof."

There is also a joke that goes 1 + 1 = 3 for very large values of 1. But that is a computer joke that is based off of rounding errors and in fact is also wrong. 1 + 1 + 1 = 4 is true for very large values of 1 if you do the rounding at the end, however.

1.3 (rounded down to 1) + 1.3 (rounded down to 1) + 1.3 (rounded down to 1) = 3.9 (rounded up to 4)

Now that sounds like a silly argument here, but I really do have a point. There is really no proof to show that space time is real (that is the set of rational and irrational numbers consisting of an Alpeh 1 level of infinity). Quantum mechanics deepy imply that the universe may be intergral (the set of counting numbers of Aleph 0) at best. Some modern theories postulate multiple interacting universes. Science is based on the notion of making speculations based on observations, but there is so much out there we simply cannot see or speculate on. It is no scientific heresy to say "I do not know."

This applies to a lot of areas other than silly little arguments. Galellio for example was wrong. His model was just as stupid as any other model. He was wrong because circular orbits were wrong. He wasn't wrong that the earth went around the sun, but he was wrong that the earth went around the sun in a series of concentric circular orbts which was as stupid as the sun going around the earth in a series of concentric circular orbits.

Evolution, for example, might actually occur at the quantum level, as opposed to the "real" level of gradual change, based on the binary nature of DNA. This doesn't disprove darwin anymore than eliptical orbits disproved Galellio.
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron