Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Surprise, surprise....another Liberal with reading comprehension challenges. Nowhere in any of my posts have I even remotely suggested that creationism is a science.
I have clearly stated that creationism THEORY can be taught side by side with evolution THEORY in order to promote critical thinking in the classroom. The HISTORY of creationist theory as compared to the HISTORY of evolutionary theory does not mean promoting religion. It means promulgating two very prominent and two very different THEORIES.
I feel like i'm in an echo chamber on this thread. The liberal argument is the same no matter who's spewing it. Do you guys all subscribe to the same magazine or what?
In any case, putting words in my mouth equals a TOTAL FAIL.
Then teach it in a history class room, regarding the history of both subjects.
Non-science does not belong in a science classroom.
Evolution is scientific. A "scientific" theory requires falsifiable evidence. In the context of SCIENCE, evolutionary theory is acceptable.
Creationism is a historical theory, not scientific, and thus does not require the same narrow falsifiable evidence threshold. Creationism, under the context of historical theory, is supported by ancient documentation and other human interaction through time. Anthropologists use ancient documentation and other interaction to formulate theory, but those theories generally do not meet falsifiable evidence thresholds. Does that mean that anthropologists are wrong to promulgate a theory? No, it just means the existential evidence limits the amount of theorizing.
To keep it simple, the two THEORIES (yes, theories) are apples and oranges. To suggest that only one is irrefutable and the other is of zero value to understanding life on earth is nothing short of taking the narrow view perpetuated by the anti-religious.
So do you understand why you wouldn't want to teach about apples in an orange class?
Surprise, surprise....another Liberal with reading comprehension challenges. Nowhere in any of my posts have I even remotely suggested that creationism is a science.
I have clearly stated that creationism THEORY can be taught side by side with evolution THEORY in order to promote critical thinking in the classroom. The HISTORY of creationist theory as compared to the HISTORY of evolutionary theory does not mean promoting religion. It means promulgating two very prominent and two very different THEORIES.
I feel like i'm in an echo chamber on this thread. The liberal argument is the same no matter who's spewing it. Do you guys all subscribe to the same magazine or what?
In any case, putting words in my mouth equals a TOTAL FAIL.
Wrong. Suggesting that they be taught side by side automatically implies that they are equal. They are not. How would critical thinking be promoted here by teaching a theory that has no factual basis? How would critical thinking be promoted when evolution is already an accepted reality? We already have an answer that fits all of the evidence. and to compare it to a religious theory that doesn't use the same set of standards actually does a huge disservice to critical thought.
Don't worry, I'm a big boy and know exactly what you're saying, even if you clearly don't understand the full ramifications.
Thats odd because 27 pages into the discussion, no one has listed anyone, who said we shouldnt teach evolution, which makes me wonder how insecure the OP is and those who high 5 a Miss USA contestant for saying the same thing everyone else in the world says..
No, but several have suggested repeatedly that creationism get equal play.
Yeah it is. It's the truth. You evolution believers are in direct opposition to God. He says HE created life and HE breathed life into humans.
Quote:
You purposely DENY this and believe that you came from a primate. Then
you want to turn around and act like your so educated because you believe in lie. How deluded.
Maybe it's been a very long time since you had your basic biology in 8th or 9th grade, but............there is a biological classification system. It's used in nomenclature and determining which kingdom a living thing fits. It groups and subgroups living things.
There are five kingdoms: Protista, Monera, Plant, Fungi, and Animal. Now let us focus only on the animal kingdom as this is the kingdom where humans are classified. Each kingdom is furthered classified: Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. With species being the most specific, and phylum the most broad (after determing kingdom; we're definitely not plants or fungi).
Phylum: Chordata (meaning all species from Kingdom Animalia that have a spine or backbones)
Class: Mammalia (mammals nurse their newborns)
Order: Primate (yep, that includes humans, chimps, gorrillas and many others)
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: sapian
Homo sapians. That's us, humans.
There is a genetic similarity between humans and other primates. Our DNA, (the building blocks of our hereditary material) which is the very thing that disginguishes species, is similar, but not identical. This is NOT something that has to be modeled or guessed about; it is seen by the under microscopes in laboratories.
I can assure you that my scientific background far exceeds that of yours. Do you happen to know what "Aero" could possibly allude to?
Theory is not exclusively the domain of scientific relevance. Additionally, nowhere in any of my posts have I suggested that religion is a function of science. I would encourage you to study up on theoretical philosophy before you make a fool of yourself. So far, all you've done is spew liberal talking points.
Scientific theory is exclusively the domain of scientific relevance. If you have the scientific background you allude to, then you would know that scientific theory is distinct from other "theory". The Empirical method that is employed throughout science has rigorous requirements that "theory" in common usage does not have. Since evolution adheres to the standards of scientific theory, it deserves to be taught in science classes. Since creationism and other religious beliefs do not adhere to the standards of scientific theory, they do not belong in the science classroom, being taught alongside evolution. Science belongs in the science classroom.
Scientific theory is exclusively the domain of scientific relevance. If you have the scientific background you allude to, then you would know that scientific theory is distinct from other "theory". The Empirical method that is employed throughout science has rigorous requirements that "theory" in common usage does not have. Since evolution adheres to the standards of scientific theory, it deserves to be taught in science classes. Since creationism and other religious beliefs do not adhere to the standards of scientific theory, they do not belong in the science classroom, being taught alongside evolution. Science belongs in the science classroom.
I have repeatedly given a logical deduction using the cosmological argument for why the universe was created. It's as scientific as any theory about us evolving from apes.
I have repeatedly given a logical deduction using the cosmological argument for why the universe was created. It's as scientific as any theory about us evolving from apes.
Well, we didn't evolve from apes, and the current evolution theory doesn't say that we did. Apes and humans have a common evolutionary ancestor. The linear progression of evolution that was popular 50 years ago is no longer supported by the evidence, so, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO YOU, the theory has had to change as new evidence has surfaced. Which makes evolution a scientific theory, subject to revision as new information becomes available. Your "cosmological argument" about the origins of the universe is not scientific theory, as it does not seek to explain various phenomena like radio waves and refraction and that the speed of light is not a constant as we once thought. Your "cosmological argument" isn't based on science, it's just a, hey, maybe this is the way it was. Like sitting around the table discussing how your great-great-great grandparents met and wondering what their lives were like in the old country. We can ruminate about that, with no proof whether we are right or wrong. Or, we can do research, dig up letters and records and artifacts, and come up with a theory that's based on more than our imaginations.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
