"The seeds for the Cobb County success were sown in September 2001, when the Seattle-based Discovery Institute compiled a list of 100 U.S. scientists who said they were skeptical that the cornerstones of evolution ? random mutation and natural selection ? could account for the complexity of life. The list included professors and researchers at Princeton, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, Yale and the National Laboratories at Livermore, Calif., and Los Alamos, N.M."
okay... so there is also a group of powerhouse scientist who suggest aging is caused by the build up of proteins that malform and are not processable... and there are scientist who completely disagree that this could explain the complex phenomena of death ... just because something does seem like it can account for something else doesnt mean it cant... i can cite wolfram (although his ego need not be increased) who showed that complexity doesnt have to come from complexity, ie simple rules create complex phenomena... take a tree for instance, its overall structure is determined by a single diffusable protein -- one -- from leaves and flowers, to the roots... so just because people (scientist) doubt something could explain something else doesnt mean it doesnt...
evolution isnt a science, it is a theory within a science, it has scientific evidence supporting it, but it is just a theory. there is no law of evolution, no mathmetical proscription for the way things occur or occured, it never has been claimed to be complete and anyone who suggests it is is a moron. as darwin probably argued in the mid 1800s, if you understand artificial selection, ie the forming of a breed of dog by controlled reproduction that eventually leads to two divergent phenotypes think cho and great dame, why is it hard to imagine just once that the pressures applied by nature on species, be it changing climate, predation etc, affects which individuals breed with which individuals and so on until a new species comes from an old one... at this point scientist argue what defines a species, but that isnt necessary here. there are many scientist that believe god created evolution. there are some that think that since a god isnt necessary it complicates things that are best described more simply. evolution is a simple idea.
It certainly does. The only people on this planet who object to the teaching of evolutionary science are Christians. No other religion has a problem integrating the last century's scientific discoveries with their faith like Chrisitians.
Like what? WHAT?
Oh dear. Darwin theorised about heredity and mutation a hundred years before the discovery of a biological mechanism that facilitates the former and makes the latter inevitable, providing one of the most important scientific supports for his theory.
The evidence 'against' it isn't evidence. There IS no serious evidence that evolutionary science is 'wrong'. It's the best explanation there is. This doesn't mean it's perfect, of course, but it certainly doesn't stop it being correct in principle.
The problem with evolution in schools is that is MOST cases, and in textbooks, it is NOT taught as a theory, it is taught as FACT.. they will occasionally call it a theory, but through out most scientific books they teach it as fact, and they use their basis for fact. here is something to consider:
Scientists tell how old certain layers are, by what they find in the layers, yet when they find an item, they age it by the layer.. too much circular logic. Plus, scientists will also tell you, that a species cannot reproduce and have another species, but if that is the case, then evolution would not work either.. too many wholes. if they wanna teach it that is fine, teach it as THEORY, with any other theories that are out there.
Oh dear. I'm about to start arguing with you on a subject I actually know quite a lot about. How heartening.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
You are welcome to cite DNA as evidence for evolution
Thank-you.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
It shows a naive understanding of DNA. It allowed him to make simplistic assertions, much like we asserted that the sun goes around the earth at one time.
Going to have stop you there, DNA was discovered a century after the 'On the Origin of Species' was published so it didn't allow Darwin to make any kind of assertions at all, sorry and all, keep up.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
He made claims about random mutation that don't pan out well. The cells have numerous system to insure random mutations do not occur. Likewise when one of these failsafes do not work the results are cancer, not positive attributes. Even scientist manually manipulating what should be an easily repeatable natural process have been unable to bring about positive mutations.
'Random mutation' is a real favourite bugbear of the Creationists websites. Bullshit website. You've been Googling, I see.
Evolutionary science has moved on a hell of a long way since 'Origin of Species', for a start, and adaptation doesn't rely on random mutation anyway (which certainly DOES occur and is particularly visible in simpler organisms and virii, which is why there are already several strains of SARS, although the effects are likely to be catastrophic in big ole' human beans).
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Even scientist manually manipulating what should be an easily repeatable natural process have been unable to bring about positive mutations.
Oh, this is just crap. I haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
That Evolution in itself could be treated as a religion.
If you ever hear scientists talk about it, it could be so, why you ask.
Many times they will tell you stuff like "Over millions of years, nature figured out what did work and what didnt and chose to keep what did", when saying stuff like that, they make it seem like there is some intelligince making decisions. we get similiar statements like this all the time. so could it be that people who bash christians for not wanting it, could also be bashed for trying to force their 'religious beleifs' onto others....?
Personally I went to a christian JH school, and they taught evolution, but they taught it as a theory that Darwin thought of, they also covered big bang,ect.
they also covered Creation, and also they also covered other religions creation theories. thats the way it should be done.
if you're arguing for full spectrum education on principle, sex education should include more than just abstinence, but should logically include discussions of birth control, homosexuality, how-to, etc.
why do i have the feeling that the same folks who are trying to include a 10,000 year old earth in Science class would suddenly balk at equally fringe 'alternatives' being taught anywhere else.
religious agendas have no place in schools.
Powerdoc is correct in suggesting a structured critique once the fundamentals have been absorbed.
if you're arguing for full spectrum education on principle, sex education should include more than just abstinence, but should logically include discussions of birth control, homosexuality, how-to, etc.
why do i have the feeling that the same folks who are trying to include a 10,000 year old earth in Science class would suddenly balk at equally fringe 'alternatives' being taught anywhere else.
religious agendas have no place in schools.
Powerdoc is correct in suggesting a structured critique once the fundamentals have been absorbed.
well, if you wanna argue that way, why is it that people say its ok to kill babies, dont want anyone to kill animals? all this boils down to is there are lots of people out there that say "You should have an open mind", yet the people that are saying that are usually more close minded than the people they are accusing of being closed minded.
Scientists tell how old certain layers are, by what they find in the layers, yet when they find an item, they age it by the layer.. too much circular logic. Plus, scientists will also tell you, that a species cannot reproduce and have another species, but if that is the case, then evolution would not work either.. too many wholes. if they wanna teach it that is fine, teach it as THEORY, with any other theories that are out there.
these i can tackle, the first is actually a misnomer... layers of rock are found around the world from the same eras, ie a large volcano spews hot death into the sky, around the world the soil is covered with the ash that leaves a layer of setiment found throughout the world. lets say a plant falls into the soil and is preserved as a fossil, its argon trapped in stone. some intrepid geologist finds this fossil in this layer, discovers the ratio of argon to (whatever radioactive argon decomposes to, i think its N15). that layer is now dated because the decay of radioactive argon occurs at a known rate. 5000 miles away, in the same layer of soil is found a fossil of an old rodent, easy enough to just date it to the age of the previous fossils found in that layer. this is scientific fact, and there are very few exceptions where this wouldnt work and its not circular at all, there is the data imput of the common soil type (geologic age) and the argon/n15 ratio in the plant fossil, from that everything in that layer can be dated....
the second goes back to the definition of species, which should not be discussed here. but your definition isnt universally accepted, nor is it necessarily true except in distally related creatures, a horse and a donkey can reproduce to give a mule which is infertile, but (that should be underlined) there is a sizable chance that that mule could be fertile if the gametes of its parents had chromosomal problems (ie extra chromosomes or less chromosomes), badda bing you've got yourself a new species from two parents that arent the same species but closely related... but this isnt a case where evolutionist would argue to be right, because most evolution is thought to occur over long periods of time with brief bursts here and there, that is, in cases where the species would still be able to reproduce with itself to make a fertile creature... slow changes, one after another (some maybe simultaneously) give a new species, or the thought goes...
That Evolution in itself could be treated as a religion.
If you ever hear scientists talk about it, it could be so, why you ask.
Bollocks.
The very idea that the planet is 10,000 years old has to do with one VERY specific interpretation of the first chapter of the religious text of ONE of the world's many religions. The Yorubu people of West Africa believe that Obatala climbed down a sheet on the first morning of the world drunk on palm wine and made people from clay. And what they believe is every bit as valid as anything in Genesis.
There's no way you can prove that either is the one that 'really' happened, no matter how fervent your belief. Neither is provable, neither respects the laws of physics, neither have left any evidence.
Evolutionary science, on the other hand, is an explanation that actually seems to fit what we know about the planet and the things in it and every year it gets a bit more complete. It's just wrong to even try and make the comparison.
The very idea that the planet is 10,000 years old has to do with one VERY specific interpretation of the first chapter of the religious text of ONE of the world's many religions. The Yorubu people of West Africa believe that Obatala climbed down a sheet on the first morning of the world drunk on palm wine and made people from clay. And what they believe is every bit as valid as anything in Genesis.
There's no way you can prove that either is the one that 'really' happened, no matter how fervent your belief. Neither is provable, neither respects the laws of physics, neither have left any evidence.
Evolutionary science, on the other hand, is an explanation that actually seems to fit what we know about the planet and the things in it and every year it gets a bit more complete. It's just wrong to even try and make the comparison.
Here is a good question, why is it people who beleive in evolution treat people that do not beleive in it as idiots, morons or a religous zealot, yet, they then cry about people who put them down for not agreeing with someone elses belief, if ya cant take it,then dont dish it out.
As a Christian, one of the things I don't understand is why so many other Christians are afraid to mix God with science. Some say the Big Bang couldn't have happened because that leave out God. God works well beyond our understanding. It is entirely possible that He set the world into motion using the Big Bang or something like it. It is entirely possible that He created the world and everything in it with the potential to change, adapt, yes, even evolve. That doesn't mean that evolution is the only answer for how we got here, nor does it mean that evolution is a complete farce. God gave us minds to use to try to figure things out. But He created a very complex world and I doubt we will ever have true knowledge of what happened when. But I would love to see more Christians look at the world and recognize that not everything in it is inherently wrong or evil. Not everything science discovers is absolute or right, but neither is it all wrong.
The very idea that the planet is 10,000 years old has to do with one VERY specific interpretation of the first chapter of the religious text of ONE of the world's many religions. The Yorubu people of West Africa believe that Obatala climbed down a sheet on the first morning of the world drunk on palm wine and made people from clay. And what they believe is every bit as valid as anything in Genesis.
There's no way you can prove that either is the one that 'really' happened, no matter how fervent your belief. Neither is provable, neither respects the laws of physics, neither have left any evidence.
Evolutionary science, on the other hand, is an explanation that actually seems to fit what we know about the planet and the things in it and every year it gets a bit more complete. It's just wrong to even try and make the comparison.
Actually Evolutionary science does not fit either.. either way it all comes down to FAITH, and what YOU BELEIVE... think about that....
As a Christian, one of the things I don't understand is why so many other Christians are afraid to mix God with science. Some say the Big Bang couldn't have happened because that leave out God. God works well beyond our understanding. It is entirely possible that He set the world into motion using the Big Bang or something like it. It is entirely possible that He created the world and everything in it with the potential to change, adapt, yes, even evolve. That doesn't mean that evolution is the only answer for how we got here, nor does it mean that evolution is a complete farce. God gave us minds to use to try to figure things out. But He created a very complex world and I doubt we will ever have true knowledge of what happened when. But I would love to see more Christians look at the world and recognize that not everything in it is inherently wrong or evil. Not everything science discovers is absolute or right, but neither is it all wrong.
I dont think all christians look at science that way..
but the problem comes along when many scientists keep changing their theories or stories. For example, how many times have scientist changed their 'facts' about how old the earth is... anyone remember the rock that nasa 'found' in the artic, and stated that it was from mars, and came to earth some billions of years ago, and it proved mars had life because this found rock had microbes on it.. HMM, well since it came to earth supposedly long ago, wouldn't that mean it was TANTED???? stuff like that is why many people think most scientists are fruitloops
Anyway I've argued this through a million times and it's very frustrating so i'm not going to dip back into this thread. Toodleoo.
It is frustrating. I waiver between looking at it with a sense of bemused superiority, and being extremely angry at how much influence fringe beliefs have in the US.
Right now, about 50% of the US population are young earth creationists. 40% believe that creationism, and not evolution at all, should be taught in public schools. Creationism has become a very mainstream belief in the US. I don't know why.
And what's funny is that it's not mainstream Christianity - most Christian denominations including Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopals, etc. etc. have officially accepted evolution. I think many religious people in the US believe that evolution necessarily contradicts their religion, when their own theologians don't think it does. It's very strange.
My assertion was that the only people who don't want evolution taught in schools are Christians, mostly in America. If you tried that nonsense in the UK the outcry would be unbeliveable. Anyway, Islamic schools love evolution because all of science is in the Holy Qur'an. Hindusim loves evolution. Plenty of websites like this.
If you would read a little more closely, no one asserted that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools. That assumption (along with the Christian bashing) is yours.
The thread title is quite clear. Evolution has large holes in its explanation. Sometimes these holes are of the nature that it is believed that a refinement of evolution might address them. However others, like myself believe that they are large enough that it will eventually cause us to seek a new explination and throw evolution out.
I didn't say to currently throw evolution out. I simply asked if since there are obviously scientific debates about evolution and criticism of aspects of it, if these should be taught when evolution is taught.
if you're arguing for full spectrum education on principle, sex education should include more than just abstinence, but should logically include discussions of birth control, homosexuality, how-to, etc.
why do i have the feeling that the same folks who are trying to include a 10,000 year old earth in Science class would suddenly balk at equally fringe 'alternatives' being taught anywhere else.
religious agendas have no place in schools.
Powerdoc is correct in suggesting a structured critique once the fundamentals have been absorbed.
I would fully agree with what Powerdoc proposed. First you give them a full understanding of it, then you show them the flaws, short comings, argued points, and disputes.
I am 100% fine with that.
As for sex education, I think that is a bit of a tangent here. I wasn't aware we had a theory of sex education that was proven or disproven.
It is frustrating. I waiver between looking at it with a sense of bemused superiority, and being extremely angry at how much influence fringe beliefs have in the US.
Right now, about 50% of the US population are young earth creationists. 40% believe that creationism, and not evolution at all, should be taught in public schools. Creationism has become a very mainstream belief in the US. I don't know why.
And what's funny is that it's not mainstream Christianity - most Christian denominations including Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopals, etc. etc. have officially accepted evolution. I think many religious people in the US believe that evolution necessarily contradicts their religion, when their own theologians don't think it does. It's very strange.
Perhaps it is because science cannot give us all the answers. In science class the scientific answer plus its criticisms should be given. However most people use more than science to answer the deeper questions in their lives.
These people come up with theories that are not factual in any sense to prove ends they have to fabricate the means. It is junk science.
Fellowship
This coming from someone who actually quoted sources like "biblephysics" when trying to refute evolutionary theory in that behemoth of a thread. HA! You believe in christianity. That's your end. You now try to manipulate the universe to fit in it. Sorry, it doesn't work EITHER WAY.
The problem with evolution in schools is that is MOST cases, and in textbooks, it is NOT taught as a theory, it is taught as FACT.. they will occasionally call it a theory, but through out most scientific books they teach it as fact, and they use their basis for fact. here is something to consider:
Scientists tell how old certain layers are, by what they find in the layers, yet when they find an item, they age it by the layer.. too much circular logic. Plus, scientists will also tell you, that a species cannot reproduce and have another species, but if that is the case, then evolution would not work either.. too many wholes. if they wanna teach it that is fine, teach it as THEORY, with any other theories that are out there.
You really need to learn the difference between the definition theory used in the common vernacular and the definition of a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. It's a major difference. Learn it.
Comments
"The seeds for the Cobb County success were sown in September 2001, when the Seattle-based Discovery Institute compiled a list of 100 U.S. scientists who said they were skeptical that the cornerstones of evolution ? random mutation and natural selection ? could account for the complexity of life. The list included professors and researchers at Princeton, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, Yale and the National Laboratories at Livermore, Calif., and Los Alamos, N.M."
okay... so there is also a group of powerhouse scientist who suggest aging is caused by the build up of proteins that malform and are not processable... and there are scientist who completely disagree that this could explain the complex phenomena of death
evolution isnt a science, it is a theory within a science, it has scientific evidence supporting it, but it is just a theory. there is no law of evolution, no mathmetical proscription for the way things occur or occured, it never has been claimed to be complete and anyone who suggests it is is a moron. as darwin probably argued in the mid 1800s, if you understand artificial selection, ie the forming of a breed of dog by controlled reproduction that eventually leads to two divergent phenotypes think cho and great dame, why is it hard to imagine just once that the pressures applied by nature on species, be it changing climate, predation etc, affects which individuals breed with which individuals and so on until a new species comes from an old one... at this point scientist argue what defines a species, but that isnt necessary here. there are many scientist that believe god created evolution. there are some that think that since a god isnt necessary it complicates things that are best described more simply. evolution is a simple idea.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
It certainly does. The only people on this planet who object to the teaching of evolutionary science are Christians. No other religion has a problem integrating the last century's scientific discoveries with their faith like Chrisitians.
Like what? WHAT?
Oh dear. Darwin theorised about heredity and mutation a hundred years before the discovery of a biological mechanism that facilitates the former and makes the latter inevitable, providing one of the most important scientific supports for his theory.
The evidence 'against' it isn't evidence. There IS no serious evidence that evolutionary science is 'wrong'. It's the best explanation there is. This doesn't mean it's perfect, of course, but it certainly doesn't stop it being correct in principle.
The problem with evolution in schools is that is MOST cases, and in textbooks, it is NOT taught as a theory, it is taught as FACT.. they will occasionally call it a theory, but through out most scientific books they teach it as fact, and they use their basis for fact. here is something to consider:
Scientists tell how old certain layers are, by what they find in the layers, yet when they find an item, they age it by the layer.. too much circular logic. Plus, scientists will also tell you, that a species cannot reproduce and have another species, but if that is the case, then evolution would not work either.. too many wholes. if they wanna teach it that is fine, teach it as THEORY, with any other theories that are out there.
Originally posted by trumptman
You are welcome to cite DNA as evidence for evolution
Thank-you.
Originally posted by trumptman
It shows a naive understanding of DNA. It allowed him to make simplistic assertions, much like we asserted that the sun goes around the earth at one time.
Going to have stop you there, DNA was discovered a century after the 'On the Origin of Species' was published so it didn't allow Darwin to make any kind of assertions at all, sorry and all, keep up.
Originally posted by trumptman
He made claims about random mutation that don't pan out well. The cells have numerous system to insure random mutations do not occur. Likewise when one of these failsafes do not work the results are cancer, not positive attributes. Even scientist manually manipulating what should be an easily repeatable natural process have been unable to bring about positive mutations.
'Random mutation' is a real favourite bugbear of the Creationists websites. Bullshit website. You've been Googling, I see.
Evolutionary science has moved on a hell of a long way since 'Origin of Species', for a start, and adaptation doesn't rely on random mutation anyway (which certainly DOES occur and is particularly visible in simpler organisms and virii, which is why there are already several strains of SARS, although the effects are likely to be catastrophic in big ole' human beans).
Originally posted by trumptman
Even scientist manually manipulating what should be an easily repeatable natural process have been unable to bring about positive mutations.
Oh, this is just crap. I haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
That Evolution in itself could be treated as a religion.
If you ever hear scientists talk about it, it could be so, why you ask.
Many times they will tell you stuff like "Over millions of years, nature figured out what did work and what didnt and chose to keep what did", when saying stuff like that, they make it seem like there is some intelligince making decisions. we get similiar statements like this all the time. so could it be that people who bash christians for not wanting it, could also be bashed for trying to force their 'religious beleifs' onto others....?
Personally I went to a christian JH school, and they taught evolution, but they taught it as a theory that Darwin thought of, they also covered big bang,ect.
they also covered Creation, and also they also covered other religions creation theories. thats the way it should be done.
why do i have the feeling that the same folks who are trying to include a 10,000 year old earth in Science class would suddenly balk at equally fringe 'alternatives' being taught anywhere else.
religious agendas have no place in schools.
Powerdoc is correct in suggesting a structured critique once the fundamentals have been absorbed.
Originally posted by curiousuburb
if you're arguing for full spectrum education on principle, sex education should include more than just abstinence, but should logically include discussions of birth control, homosexuality, how-to, etc.
why do i have the feeling that the same folks who are trying to include a 10,000 year old earth in Science class would suddenly balk at equally fringe 'alternatives' being taught anywhere else.
religious agendas have no place in schools.
Powerdoc is correct in suggesting a structured critique once the fundamentals have been absorbed.
well, if you wanna argue that way, why is it that people say its ok to kill babies, dont want anyone to kill animals? all this boils down to is there are lots of people out there that say "You should have an open mind", yet the people that are saying that are usually more close minded than the people they are accusing of being closed minded.
Originally posted by The General
Scientists tell how old certain layers are, by what they find in the layers, yet when they find an item, they age it by the layer.. too much circular logic. Plus, scientists will also tell you, that a species cannot reproduce and have another species, but if that is the case, then evolution would not work either.. too many wholes. if they wanna teach it that is fine, teach it as THEORY, with any other theories that are out there.
these i can tackle, the first is actually a misnomer... layers of rock are found around the world from the same eras, ie a large volcano spews hot death into the sky, around the world the soil is covered with the ash that leaves a layer of setiment found throughout the world. lets say a plant falls into the soil and is preserved as a fossil, its argon trapped in stone. some intrepid geologist finds this fossil in this layer, discovers the ratio of argon to (whatever radioactive argon decomposes to, i think its N15). that layer is now dated because the decay of radioactive argon occurs at a known rate. 5000 miles away, in the same layer of soil is found a fossil of an old rodent, easy enough to just date it to the age of the previous fossils found in that layer. this is scientific fact, and there are very few exceptions where this wouldnt work and its not circular at all, there is the data imput of the common soil type (geologic age) and the argon/n15 ratio in the plant fossil, from that everything in that layer can be dated....
the second goes back to the definition of species, which should not be discussed here. but your definition isnt universally accepted, nor is it necessarily true except in distally related creatures, a horse and a donkey can reproduce to give a mule which is infertile, but (that should be underlined) there is a sizable chance that that mule could be fertile if the gametes of its parents had chromosomal problems (ie extra chromosomes or less chromosomes), badda bing you've got yourself a new species from two parents that arent the same species but closely related... but this isnt a case where evolutionist would argue to be right, because most evolution is thought to occur over long periods of time with brief bursts here and there, that is, in cases where the species would still be able to reproduce with itself to make a fertile creature... slow changes, one after another (some maybe simultaneously) give a new species, or the thought goes...
Originally posted by The General
How about this idea.
That Evolution in itself could be treated as a religion.
If you ever hear scientists talk about it, it could be so, why you ask.
Bollocks.
The very idea that the planet is 10,000 years old has to do with one VERY specific interpretation of the first chapter of the religious text of ONE of the world's many religions. The Yorubu people of West Africa believe that Obatala climbed down a sheet on the first morning of the world drunk on palm wine and made people from clay. And what they believe is every bit as valid as anything in Genesis.
There's no way you can prove that either is the one that 'really' happened, no matter how fervent your belief. Neither is provable, neither respects the laws of physics, neither have left any evidence.
Evolutionary science, on the other hand, is an explanation that actually seems to fit what we know about the planet and the things in it and every year it gets a bit more complete. It's just wrong to even try and make the comparison.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Bollocks.
The very idea that the planet is 10,000 years old has to do with one VERY specific interpretation of the first chapter of the religious text of ONE of the world's many religions. The Yorubu people of West Africa believe that Obatala climbed down a sheet on the first morning of the world drunk on palm wine and made people from clay. And what they believe is every bit as valid as anything in Genesis.
There's no way you can prove that either is the one that 'really' happened, no matter how fervent your belief. Neither is provable, neither respects the laws of physics, neither have left any evidence.
Evolutionary science, on the other hand, is an explanation that actually seems to fit what we know about the planet and the things in it and every year it gets a bit more complete. It's just wrong to even try and make the comparison.
Here is a good question, why is it people who beleive in evolution treat people that do not beleive in it as idiots, morons or a religous zealot, yet, they then cry about people who put them down for not agreeing with someone elses belief, if ya cant take it,then dont dish it out.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Bollocks.
The very idea that the planet is 10,000 years old has to do with one VERY specific interpretation of the first chapter of the religious text of ONE of the world's many religions. The Yorubu people of West Africa believe that Obatala climbed down a sheet on the first morning of the world drunk on palm wine and made people from clay. And what they believe is every bit as valid as anything in Genesis.
There's no way you can prove that either is the one that 'really' happened, no matter how fervent your belief. Neither is provable, neither respects the laws of physics, neither have left any evidence.
Evolutionary science, on the other hand, is an explanation that actually seems to fit what we know about the planet and the things in it and every year it gets a bit more complete. It's just wrong to even try and make the comparison.
Actually Evolutionary science does not fit either.. either way it all comes down to FAITH, and what YOU BELEIVE... think about that....
Originally posted by Naderfan
As a Christian, one of the things I don't understand is why so many other Christians are afraid to mix God with science. Some say the Big Bang couldn't have happened because that leave out God. God works well beyond our understanding. It is entirely possible that He set the world into motion using the Big Bang or something like it. It is entirely possible that He created the world and everything in it with the potential to change, adapt, yes, even evolve. That doesn't mean that evolution is the only answer for how we got here, nor does it mean that evolution is a complete farce. God gave us minds to use to try to figure things out. But He created a very complex world and I doubt we will ever have true knowledge of what happened when. But I would love to see more Christians look at the world and recognize that not everything in it is inherently wrong or evil. Not everything science discovers is absolute or right, but neither is it all wrong.
I dont think all christians look at science that way..
but the problem comes along when many scientists keep changing their theories or stories. For example, how many times have scientist changed their 'facts' about how old the earth is... anyone remember the rock that nasa 'found' in the artic, and stated that it was from mars, and came to earth some billions of years ago, and it proved mars had life because this found rock had microbes on it.. HMM, well since it came to earth supposedly long ago, wouldn't that mean it was TANTED???? stuff like that is why many people think most scientists are fruitloops
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Anyway I've argued this through a million times and it's very frustrating so i'm not going to dip back into this thread. Toodleoo.
It is frustrating. I waiver between looking at it with a sense of bemused superiority, and being extremely angry at how much influence fringe beliefs have in the US.
Right now, about 50% of the US population are young earth creationists. 40% believe that creationism, and not evolution at all, should be taught in public schools. Creationism has become a very mainstream belief in the US. I don't know why.
And what's funny is that it's not mainstream Christianity - most Christian denominations including Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopals, etc. etc. have officially accepted evolution. I think many religious people in the US believe that evolution necessarily contradicts their religion, when their own theologians don't think it does. It's very strange.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
My assertion was that the only people who don't want evolution taught in schools are Christians, mostly in America. If you tried that nonsense in the UK the outcry would be unbeliveable. Anyway, Islamic schools love evolution because all of science is in the Holy Qur'an. Hindusim loves evolution. Plenty of websites like this.
If you would read a little more closely, no one asserted that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools. That assumption (along with the Christian bashing) is yours.
The thread title is quite clear. Evolution has large holes in its explanation. Sometimes these holes are of the nature that it is believed that a refinement of evolution might address them. However others, like myself believe that they are large enough that it will eventually cause us to seek a new explination and throw evolution out.
I didn't say to currently throw evolution out. I simply asked if since there are obviously scientific debates about evolution and criticism of aspects of it, if these should be taught when evolution is taught.
Nick
Originally posted by curiousuburb
if you're arguing for full spectrum education on principle, sex education should include more than just abstinence, but should logically include discussions of birth control, homosexuality, how-to, etc.
why do i have the feeling that the same folks who are trying to include a 10,000 year old earth in Science class would suddenly balk at equally fringe 'alternatives' being taught anywhere else.
religious agendas have no place in schools.
Powerdoc is correct in suggesting a structured critique once the fundamentals have been absorbed.
I would fully agree with what Powerdoc proposed. First you give them a full understanding of it, then you show them the flaws, short comings, argued points, and disputes.
I am 100% fine with that.
As for sex education, I think that is a bit of a tangent here. I wasn't aware we had a theory of sex education that was proven or disproven.
Nick
Originally posted by BRussell
It is frustrating. I waiver between looking at it with a sense of bemused superiority, and being extremely angry at how much influence fringe beliefs have in the US.
Right now, about 50% of the US population are young earth creationists. 40% believe that creationism, and not evolution at all, should be taught in public schools. Creationism has become a very mainstream belief in the US. I don't know why.
And what's funny is that it's not mainstream Christianity - most Christian denominations including Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopals, etc. etc. have officially accepted evolution. I think many religious people in the US believe that evolution necessarily contradicts their religion, when their own theologians don't think it does. It's very strange.
Perhaps it is because science cannot give us all the answers. In science class the scientific answer plus its criticisms should be given. However most people use more than science to answer the deeper questions in their lives.
Nick
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
These people come up with theories that are not factual in any sense to prove ends they have to fabricate the means. It is junk science.
Fellowship
This coming from someone who actually quoted sources like "biblephysics" when trying to refute evolutionary theory in that behemoth of a thread. HA! You believe in christianity. That's your end. You now try to manipulate the universe to fit in it. Sorry, it doesn't work EITHER WAY.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I don't understand this desire to close this issue.
I think open minded people don't go around closing things.
It is not porn.
Fellowship
What's wrong with porn?
Originally posted by The General
The problem with evolution in schools is that is MOST cases, and in textbooks, it is NOT taught as a theory, it is taught as FACT.. they will occasionally call it a theory, but through out most scientific books they teach it as fact, and they use their basis for fact. here is something to consider:
Scientists tell how old certain layers are, by what they find in the layers, yet when they find an item, they age it by the layer.. too much circular logic. Plus, scientists will also tell you, that a species cannot reproduce and have another species, but if that is the case, then evolution would not work either.. too many wholes. if they wanna teach it that is fine, teach it as THEORY, with any other theories that are out there.
You really need to learn the difference between the definition theory used in the common vernacular and the definition of a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. It's a major difference. Learn it.