U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: Should creationism be taught in public schools?
Yes 71 19.09%
No 295 79.30%
I don't know/No opinion 6 1.61%
Voters: 372. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Old 07-27-2010, 10:42 AM
Status: "Ya gotta come back to remember why you left." (set 14 days ago)
 
31,311 posts, read 17,370,455 times
Reputation: 14288
[quote=Calvinist;15218034]

except that abiogenesis is not in any proven, and has never been observed.

[quote]

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com


Quote:
I doubt there is any evidence that would convince you, tbh.
When you start off believing something, and then over the course of 50 years you are presented one piece of evidence after another, you are largely right. Now if god would like to make a personal appearance I might consider reviewing all of the previously noted evidence.

 
Old 07-27-2010, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,898 posts, read 6,036,323 times
Reputation: 3922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
The cosmological argument hasn't been sufficiently answered, as far as I can tell. Do you have an answer for it?
The Cosmological argument is not an argument at all. It may pretend to start as one, but it resolves by throwing up its hands, contradicting its premise, and arbitrary declaring "God."
 
Old 07-27-2010, 10:53 AM
 
6,486 posts, read 2,972,170 times
Reputation: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
The last time I had to switch antibiotics. Seriously, evolution has been observed, and even forced, in the laboratory. And yes, I mean macroevolution. I already gave you the best source on the web for this information. Use it.
No....it has not been observed. Give me a concrete example. So a virus mutates? OK..that just shows that the strain loses the ability to react to an anti-biotic. It's still a virus.
Quote:


I already did. As expected, you did not understand it, nor do you really want to. Your ignorance is willful.

Where? You tried to say that amino acids in a contrived environment was equivalent? Is that what you mean?
Quote:

No, you really couldn't. BTW I don't even know what an "evolutionist" is. That is a Creationist term.

It's someone that believes evolution accounts for the variations in species that we have today. Is that good enough for you?
Quote:


Fairy tales do not produce falsifiable hypotheses that are proven correct when tested, as is the case with evolution, over and over again.
Neither does evolution. Creationism does though...over and over again
Quote:
Fairy tales are explanations that do not lend themselves to being tested for validity - like intelligent design, for example.

How exactly can you test and validate evolution?
Quote:
I can see that you have no intention of being intellectually honest about this topic, but that is pretty typical of the average Creationist.
Likewise, you've shown no pretense of looking objectively at creationism.

What would be some good evidence for creationism that you'd consider? Is there any?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
False. Evolution works and is a fact no matter HOW life started here. How it started doesn't matter. We see it happening, we can reproduce it...it's a proven fact.

Why do you try so hard to deny reality?

Because it's not reality and it doesn't work?
Quote:


This is a lie. The evidence has been provided to you. Can you comment on that evidence? It seems not.

Show me one very good proof of it. In your own words, give me some solid evidence.
Quote:

No, evolution does none of those things. Evolution explains speciation. That's it. What assumptions do you think evolution - which you have already admitted you do not know much about - makes?

You are shooting in the dark here.
One big assumption evolution makes is rate of mutation. And that one species evolves into another over the course of time, with those mutations. That has simply not been observed.
 
Old 07-27-2010, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
7,266 posts, read 2,995,553 times
Reputation: 2043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
No....it has not been observed. Give me a concrete example. So a virus mutates? OK..that just shows that the strain loses the ability to react to an anti-biotic. It's still a virus.

Where? You tried to say that amino acids in a contrived environment was equivalent? Is that what you mean?

It's someone that believes evolution accounts for the variations in species that we have today. Is that good enough for you?

Neither does evolution. Creationism does though...over and over again

How exactly can you test and validate evolution?

Likewise, you've shown no pretense of looking objectively at creationism.

What would be some good evidence for creationism that you'd consider? Is there any?

Because it's not reality and it doesn't work?

Show me one very good proof of it. In your own words, give me some solid evidence.

One big assumption evolution makes is rate of mutation. And that one species evolves into another over the course of time, with those mutations. That has simply not been observed.
It's amazing how almost everything in here can be rebutted by this simple link.
 
Old 07-27-2010, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Don't be a cry baby!
1,310 posts, read 671,832 times
Reputation: 609
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohKnip View Post
What do you think should creationism be taught in public schools? Why or why not?
No, its religion. We could treat it as we do Roman mythology and have it as an elective in high school. But as a whole, I think no.
There are some really funny replies on this thread, thanks folks, its been a rough morning and I needed a good laugh!


If it were to enter the public school system this is one way it could be;
"See Adam run, Adam can run fast. Run Adam run! Eve is nice to the snake. The snake is good. Eve likes apples..." hehehe
 
Old 07-27-2010, 11:01 AM
 
6,486 posts, read 2,972,170 times
Reputation: 1240

Can you tell me in your own words what is so convincing? or are you just hoping your apologist can beat up my apologist?

I actually skimmed over the article, and the majority of his argument is that we are defining evolution wrong....and with a watered down version of it, it's actually happened....like when all the insects not immune to a pesticide die off ...the ones that are left are immune and reproduce ones that are also immune....so that's evolution baby!!!!!
 
Old 07-27-2010, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
7,266 posts, read 2,995,553 times
Reputation: 2043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
Can you tell me in your own words what is so convincing?
We have observed evolution.

It has been proven as a natural process.

We have clear evolutionary paths of various animals.

There is scientific proof for all of this.

This is 10th grade biology stuff, nothing even that advanced.
 
Old 07-27-2010, 11:06 AM
 
6,486 posts, read 2,972,170 times
Reputation: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langlen View Post
We have observed evolution.
yay. as I said before...the non-immune ones die off....and the ones that live reproduce ones that are immune. woot!
Quote:
It has been proven as a natural process.
Except that it hasn't.
Quote:
We have clear evolutionary paths of various animals.
Based on DNA "evidence"? Or fossil record "evidence" that makes major jumps from species to species?
Quote:
There is scientific proof for all of this.
Nope. There's evidence that can be interpreted your way.
Quote:
This is 10th grade biology stuff, nothing even that advanced.
You're right. It's not very complex...very basic.
 
Old 07-27-2010, 11:09 AM
 
7,902 posts, read 5,238,461 times
Reputation: 3119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
No....it has not been observed. Give me a concrete example. So a virus mutates? OK..that just shows that the strain loses the ability to react to an anti-biotic. It's still a virus.

I've already given you the link to the evidence, as have others. You want it again?
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

It is not mere random mutation. It is microevolution - something even Creationists are forced to admit exists. And microevolution + time + change in environment = macroevolution. Yeah, it's still a virus...that changed it's DNA in response to a adverse environmental condition.

You really don't even seem to understand what evolution is in the first place.

The above series of articles is as good a summary of the evidence that you are ever going to find. Seeing it "in person" would require you to become acquainted with a molecular biologist and his or her lab.

Quote:
Where?
See above. It is a lot to read, because this is SCIENCE, not supposition.

Quote:
You tried to say that amino acids in a contrived environment was equivalent? Is that what you mean?
I posted nothing about amino acids. That is an abiogenesis issue. Abiogenesis is not evolution, and evolution does not depend on it in any way.


Quote:
It's someone that believes evolution accounts for the variations in species that we have today. Is that good enough for you?
It is a Creationist term. I call them "biologists" or otherwise "educated people." Creationists coined the term to have some identifiable "opponent" to rail against. What they are really railing against is objective reality...

Quote:
Neither does evolution.
This is a lie. You have been proven wrong on this assertion already. Either address the evidence, or stop lying. Lies make Baby Jesus cry.

Quote:
Creationism does though...over and over again
Show me ONE instance of a Creationist hypothesis that can be tested, and was tested, and proved valid. (Don't waste your time, it does not exist).

Quote:
How exactly can you test and validate evolution?
Read the information provided to you and you will see. One example has already been given to you: ERVs and the evidence in our own DNA. That's right Calvinist: there's primate DNA in you. You'll get over it.


Quote:
Likewise, you've shown no pretense of looking objectively at creationism.
On the contrary, I repeatedly ask Creationists for proof, just as I have asked you in this thread. Since they cannot - ever - provide it, disbelieving their claims is only proper and logical.

Quote:
What would be some good evidence for creationism that you'd consider? Is there any?
A falsifiable hypothesis that was tested and found valid - and no, you don't have any. That's your problem.

Quote:
Because it's not reality and it doesn't work?
It does work, as any medical doctor knows, and it is reality, because it produces falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested, and when tested, prove to be valid.

You have so far provided NO counterargument or evidence to support your position.

Quote:
Show me one very good proof of it. In your own words, give me some solid evidence.
I already did. The research into ERV's proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we share a common ancestor with primates as well as other life on the planet. Unfortunately you either do not understand it, or desperately wish to not understand it.

Quote:
One big assumption evolution makes is rate of mutation. And that one species evolves into another over the course of time, with those mutations. That has simply not been observed.
Oops, except that ISN'T evolution. Once again, you do not even know what evolution is - like all Creationists, you can only create a straw man to knock down. Evolution is more than mere mutation...and wrap your Baptist head around this - IT AIN'T RANDOM.
 
Old 07-27-2010, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
7,266 posts, read 2,995,553 times
Reputation: 2043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
yay. as I said before...the non-immune ones die off....and the ones that live reproduce ones that are immune. woot!
Observed evidence of speciation

Quote:
Except that it hasn't.
Quote:

"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."
First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.
Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)
Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.
What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.
Quote:
Based on DNA "evidence"? Or fossil record "evidence" that makes major jumps from species to species?
Transitional fossils

Quote:
Nope. There's evidence that can be interpreted your way.
Please, point out how this mountain of scientific evidence can be interpreted any other way.

Before we go any further, read all of my links.

Including this one.

It basically explains exactly why you are so wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top