Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
1) No, there's more than that. But I don't really specialise in it, so I don't know it well.

2) Wow, all of you atheists are just SO NICE to us theists....

1) don't you think you should investigate this evidence rather than to believe it without knowing all the facts?

2) Yes... we like to think so.

Hobbit, I'm not sure what you mean by 'atheist jew', but hmmm.. ok.

[HOBBIT]

what i mean by it is i havent said "ok, im not jewish anymore" I sitll consider myself jewish - i just don't believe in all of it. i have several friends who also consider themselves this way. if people ask what religion i am i will still say jewish... im just not very religious and i don't really believe in any of the god stuff. i still have a cedar every year, celebrate hanukah, go to bar-bat mitzvahs , and im forced to go to temple like twice a year.

Why throw out my upbringing completely? just mostly, as you can probably tell from my posts. basically around bar mitzvah time (and before that) it occurred to me "none of this really makes any sense," but oh well :P

GW - it seems like you just believe that there is more evidence - can you tell me just TWO more things other than what i stated in my earlier post?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

1) Ditto to you and HOBBIT.

A Jew is not an adherent of Judaism; I've heard the term defined as a member of as a NATION, kind of an extended family.

[HOBBIT]

yeah - kind of like that GW.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
what i mean by it is i havent said "ok, im not jewish anymore" I sitll consider myself jewish - i just don't believe in all of it. i have several friends who also consider themselves this way. if people ask what religion i am i will still say jewish... im just not very religious and i don't really believe in any of the god stuff. i still have a cedar every year, celebrate hanukah, go to bar-bat mitzvahs , and im forced to go to temple like twice a year.

Why throw out my upbringing completely? just mostly, as you can probably tell from my posts. basically around bar mitzvah time (and before that) it occurred to me "none of this really makes any sense," but oh well :P

GW - it seems like you just believe that there is more evidence - can you tell me just TWO more things other than what i stated in my earlier post?

As I said before, I don't study it. I've heard it before, presented quite well, but it's not my specialty, so I don't really know much about it. It doesn't stay in my brain very long.

I would say not Jewish by religion, as Judaism is a theistic, and monotheistic religion. But a Jew by history, and culture, perhaps.

[Ruinel]

Gwai, as for the evidence, it has already been presented here and can easily be accessed through the web. I see no reason to repost my statements, or others. However, I haven't seen any evidence other than "says so in the bible" to help your side. hmmm... and you don't know any. hmmmm... well, we are stumped then.

Theory of Creationism - believe it without physical evidence.
Theory of Evolution - believe all the compounding evidence.


Hobbit, thanks for explaining.

[gollum9630]

at my school, which is Catholic, we are taught, in are christian ed. class, that the story of creation should not be taken seriously, but only give us the idea that God created everything. We are also taught evolution, and told it is true

[HOBBIT]

GW, as Runiel has said many people, included us have posted various evidence of evolution. It is all over. And yet - there has been no evidence for creation posted other than "in the bible" and "must have created the world due to no other explanation" and other variations on that.

Here is a thought: if you know that you have seen "evidence" supporting creation by intelligent design, get off your lazy bum and go search for it on the net and then post it here! It is not our job to go search for it. You want to convince us, you get it.

All you are saying is "i believe there is evidence to support creation - but i don't know any, but take my word for it" We like you and all, but we need some evidence.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I didn't mean for evolution; I meant if your going to tell me that I have to know everything about creation science, then you should learn about the other side before you totally dismiss it as unworthy of your advanced minds. I say again, I do not discount the possibility of Evolution; I merely lean more towards creation.

1) Here is a thought: if you know that you have seen "evidence" supporting creation by intelligent design, get off your lazy bum and go search for it on the net and then post it here! It is not our job to go search for it. You want to convince us, you get it.

2) All you are saying is "i believe there is evidence to support creation - but i don't know any, but take my word for it" We like you and all, but we need some evidence.

1) Ye gods! Just because you're an admin doesn't give you the right to tell me what to do! Like I said before, I'm not even solid on it. It would completely ridiculous for me to try to convince you of it, as I myself only LEAN towards it. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't really matter one way or the other. I could believe either one, I merely have leanings towards the one. Now I'm lazy, because I don't spend my time in matters which to me are unimportant?

2) I do not expect you to take my word for it. There has been a good deal of personal evidence from various people that there is a God, but such accounts are not believed, and written off to the ravings of madmen or the delusional, proof of idiocy convincing itself of something it wants to be true, or just flat out lies. I've said it before, I'll say it again: Any evidence which is against the present theory of evolution or for the existence of God is automatically discarded.

Thank you gollum, you have provided proof that evolution is NOT taught as a theory, but as a fact.

[gollum9630]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Thank you gollum, you have provided proof that evolution is NOT taught as a theory, but as a fact.

anytime

[HOBBIT]

ah well, I have all the "evidence" for creation that i need in the "creation science" topic by quickbeam from 2000. Too bad i never took part in that topic, although i did read it. I can barely understand some of it.... :P this topic does not have ppl like juntel and QB. Now there are some REAAAALY LOOONG POSTS that make rian's look like little stories :P

Where is Juntel when you need him? That man is a genius!

I'm wondering if I should repost his brilliant "Matrix Religion" post.

You can find it in the archives.

[HOBBIT]

I'm just saying that people that believe in creation by intelligent design are not aruging their points anywhere near as well people were in the original topic - not that you guys aren't doing a good job.

It didn't really matter though, because Juntel disproved everything they said by logically destroying every little point and he humiliated most creationists into leaving the moot :P.



GW - I was merely suggested that you stop being so lazy and actually back your statements up - not that I really am, but I don't need to - everyone else is doing that for me :P

If it is really that unimportant to you, why post that there is evidence for creation, when there really is no evidence for this? If you have seen it, and care enough to post it - why not care enough to at least provide us with one link? Oh well. I don't really care.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Neither do I. Don't really see any point in it, as, as I said before, all evidence which points away from the current scientific viewpoint (no God and evolution) is ignored, or talked around. Would just be a waste of time, I think. Besides, as I said before, I'm not solid at all on creation, it's just what I'm leaning towards.

[HOBBIT]

Yes, but there has been a lot of evidence for evolution in this topic and no real "evidence" for creation IN THIS TOPIC that I have seen - hey its over 800 posts.

That is the difference - why repeat what has been said IN THIS TOPIC. And yet - there has been no posted proof of creation.

Oh well.

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
All you are saying is "i believe there is evidence to support creation - but i don't know any, but take my word for it" We like you and all, but we need some evidence.

Sorry, I really have been tied up with hostess duties with my in-laws over, but they are now back home, and I'll get a couple of links for you guys (I don't keep track of them, so I'll just have to re-find them).

I'll post them hopefully tonite (I haven't forgotten, Cass!), but "fer shure" by tomorrow. Again, sorry for my slowness.

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
,,,Now there are some REAAAALY LOOONG POSTS that make rian's look like little stories :P ....

*just noticed this*

Hey, I guess I have a reputation!

I have actually bumped up against the post limit before, but what I do now is purposefully break them up into several sub-posts, because it's easier to read that way. And since I found out that Sheeana likes them that way, I'll keep it up

And now, just to uphold my reputation , I'm going to provide some background info before I provide the links...

*warms up fingers for some major typing*

And actually, I'm going to start by re-posting my last post from when the last go-round ended late last year:



NOTE - the following post is a copy of my last post from the last go-round of this thread, which ended late last year.
I'm reposting it so the people that are on this go-round that didn't see it, can see it! And the only reason I asked to not be quoted at that time was because I wasn't going to be around to defend it. Please feel free to quote any part of any post of mine now.

[Rían]

**before reading, please read note above**

Well, since my proposal:

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Now if you admit that it is a reasonable premise (creation by intelligent design) that a reasonable person might come up with by observing his/her environment, then I will give some details. Fair enough?

Was met by the following:

by Cirdan
It's a bit off topic but that's no crime. As long as your not proposing it be taught in schools, I'm fine with it.

and

by Jerseydevil
The problem is is that Inteligent Design is a term that was just coined to get creationism taught in the classrooms. If people can convince schools that it is a valid theory - even if none of it is based on scientific study - then they'll be happy.

then I guess I will now say my FINAL goodbye to this thread. I suppose I was just very naive to think that perhaps if presented with logical ideas as to why the th. of creation by intelligent design was a reasonable theory (I'm not even saying the RIGHT theory, just a reasonable one) that th. of ev. people would agree to think about it. But since it is thrown out before I can even present details, I'll just exit now. I suppose that different logic just reaches different people, I don't know. I'm really sorry to think that people are so committed to their theory that they are not more open-minded to considering others (again, how much more reasonable a premise can you get? There are intelligently designed things all around us!!) Anyway, enough of that. It's been very nice posting with such intelligent and considerate people (and I sincerely mean that!! I'm just sad that people won't consider intelligent design ), and I'll enjoy seeing you all on the other threads.

My final summary, if anyone's interested: (I'll use ToE for th. of ev., ToCBID for th. of creation by intelligent design, since we all love typing shortcuts! )

(1) ToE (AND ToCBID) are both theories ABOUT facts; they are not themselves provable scientific facts;

(2) Neither ToE (NOR ToCBID) are infinitely adjustable - if their basic testable tenets are shown by new data to be incorrect, then a new theory should be formulated.

(3) Atheism is ABSOLUTELY NOT a neutral scientific position! Atheism is also a belief, just like a religious belief (or call them ideologies if you want to, but neither position is scientifically proveable)

(4) The ToCBID is a REASONABLE theory based on a REASONABLE premise from observing the world around us!

And a final note - I seem to see on this thread what I call the "neener-neener" approach to data - in other words, like "the fossil record proves MY theory, so YOU can't have it!! neener-neener!" (And Earniel, I would be interested in the Flemish equivalent! It's the sound that the kid that ends up with the toy makes when he/she is successful grabbing it away from someone else.) (and I'm trying to make this a bit funny, BTW, to keep things in good humor - I'm NOT at all angry, just extremely puzzled and sad).

However, data can fall into many categories. In other words, it may be neutral, it may support one theory, it may support both theories, it may contradict one theory, it may contradict both theories. Do you see what I mean? If, for example, (and don't lose your shirts, people! It's an example, ok!) the fossil record consists entirely of one type of bone from one type of animal, then it would support neither and would contradict neither. If it consists of all fully-formed animals, it would support ToCBID and not support (but not DIRECTLY contradict) ToE. If it consisted of hundred of intermediate types in addition to the fully formed types, it would support ToE and contradict ToCBID. And the same applies to DNA, 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc.

The problem, at least with the fossil record, is that IMO it contains scads of fully formed animals and a very small amount, and those debatable, number of intermediate types. (Now please don't quote and argue this - I'm just trying to show WHY this thread gets so long!) 2nd law of thermo. - same thing - STRONGLY supports ToCBID, but there is a footnote to it, discussing the formation of crystals, that may be interpreted to support ToE (but I believe incorrectly, because net entropy is STILL increased, but you can refer back to the first few pages). Same with DNA - why shouldn't an intelligent designer use DNA to store info? No reason for ToE people to claim similarity between man and chimps and say ToCBID people can't use DNA!! I hope you see my UNDERLYING idea here - PLEASE don't look at data as solely belonging to one side or the other.

Anyway, this has been very intellectually stimulating, and probably has set records for civility on a topic like this. I hope we all learned some things, and again, hope to see you all on other threads soon! There's a great new discussion project that just opened up on the Sil forum....

Best regards -- RÃ*an

[Rían]

The previous post was my final post from the last go-round of this thread, which ended late last year. I thought it was appropriate to re-post so some of the newer people could see it. I hit the length limit with this one! I couldn't even post these few sentences at the top, so I had to post them after.

[Rían]

My concern on this thread has always been to correct the "evolution is scientifically proven" error. I saw it crop up again in this go-round, but now I see it corrected to something like "Parts of evolution are scientifically proven, but parts are REASONABLE INFERENCES".

And I have no problem with that! If people think evolution is the best fit, then fine! But PLEASE don't say the whole thing is scientifically proven, because it ISN'T!!!!!!

*takes some deep breaths to calm down*

I've never really wanted to get into lots of details, because IMO, it just starts to descend into:

1. "Well, MY scientist says this!!"

2. "Well, MY scientist is bigger than your scientist, and HE says THIS!!" YOUR scientist is STUPID!

3. "Well, my NEXT scientist is even bigger, and SHE says this!!" And you AND your scientist are BOTH stupid!

Over and over, ad nauseum. Whoever has the best access to the biggest and best scientist "wins". And none of us here on the Moot are world-renowned scientists in this field, that I know of.

I like seeing data, but I don't like the kind of discussion that too often goes on. So I've just been content with fighting for the 4 points that I mentioned in my re-posted post. And really, I'm just thrilled to correct the "evolution is a fact" error!!!

[HOBBIT]

(1) ToE (AND ToCBID) are both theories ABOUT facts; they are not themselves provable scientific facts;

no, not really. evolution is through scientific research and evidence. creation is based only on belief - what facts? only evolution is based on facts.

(2) Neither ToE (NOR ToCBID) are infinitely adjustable - if their basic testable tenets are shown by new data to be incorrect, then a new theory should be formulated.

Evolution is a theory, one which can be adjusted. how can creation be adjusted? God created everything - the theory of creation by intelligent design has not evolved, if you will. :P

(3) Atheism is ABSOLUTELY NOT a neutral scientific position! Atheism is also a belief, just like a religious belief (or call them ideologies if you want to, but neither position is scientifically proveable)

Atheism is a belief, yes..

(4) The ToCBID is a REASONABLE theory based on a REASONABLE premise from observing the world around us!

Well not that reasonable. What you are saying is basically "we don't understand how the world was made, so therefore there has to have been a supreme being that created everything"

evolution is a more reasonable theory based on actually observing the world - fossil records, etc.

And a final note - I seem to see on this thread what I call the "neener-neener" approach to data - in other words, like "the fossil record proves MY theory, so YOU can't have it!! neener-neener!" (And Earniel, I would be interested in the Flemish equivalent! It's the sound that the kid that ends up with the toy makes when he/she is successful grabbing it away from someone else.) (and I'm trying to make this a bit funny, BTW, to keep things in good humor - I'm NOT at all angry, just extremely puzzled and sad).

well, neener-neener, there is evidence that supports evolution greatly, like fossil records...and um where is the evidence for creation?

However, data can fall into many categories. In other words, it may be neutral, it may support one theory, it may support both theories, it may contradict one theory, it may contradict both theories. Do you see what I mean? If, for example, (and don't lose your shirts, people! It's an example, ok!) the fossil record consists entirely of one type of bone from one type of animal, then it would support neither and would contradict neither. If it consists of all fully-formed animals, it would support ToCBID and not support (but not DIRECTLY contradict) ToE. If it consisted of hundred of intermediate types in addition to the fully formed types, it would support ToE and contradict ToCBID. And the same applies to DNA, 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc.

Eh, i dont understand. there is really nothing that proves creation.

fossil records would never consist of one type of bone - bad example.

what do you mean fully-formed animals? you mean like modern horse found in an ancient layer? that too, would never happen.

I'll leave the rest alone. The second law of thermodynamics does not really support creation. I was just reading about this on the first few pages of the "creation science" topic today. Juntel basically says why this does not work, and I think you would better benefit from just reading it rather than me quoting him.