Da Hui wrote:   I think that creationism should also be taught. But not like "God created everything". Its just another idea on how everything was created. I have seen no concrete evidence of God, though I have my beliefs. There is reason to believe in Evolution. Teach both equally.

Did somebody call my name?

My apologies for the minor hijack, but I can't help myself.

Evolution and creationism should NOT be taught "equally", because they are not equal.  One is a scientific theory, the other is a religious theory.

Evolution should be taught in science class, and creationism should be taught in religion class.  Somehow comparing the two or implying that they are similar is incorrect.

Unfortunately the large majority of Christians fail to remember that most of the old testament consists of stories and tales passed down from early generations and later recorded into a collection-namely the book of Genesis. Anybody who even implies that the Old Testament is scientific, even in the most basic form of science, is a moron.

As for Creationism and evolution being taught side by side, I disagree completely. There is one theory of evolution-at the same time there are thousands of different ideas on Creationism. There's no real way to teach something that there is no evidence for, other than an "honorable mention". Basically the Bible just states that God created everything-there's no method, no explanation, nothing. How can you teach something that isn't even elaborated on in the source material?

Da Hui wrote: When I say equally, I mean time spent. Teaching Religion in a Science class would be foolish. As Religion is science. And (as far as my knowledge goes), there is no Religion class in Public High Schools. If you teach one and not the other, somebody from either side is going to complain.

Thought 1:  Evolution and creationism are not related.  It is not one or the other.  They are not opposing viewpoints.  They are not "sides".

Thought 2:  They don't have religion class in public high schools?  Reary?  That's silly.  People need to learn about religion.

PaiNTbALLfReNzY wrote: The Bible's answer is "God made it" which seems a little too simple to me, and Evolution says, "It took billions of years" which seems pretty simple as well.

One of those is much more over-simplified than the other, though. "God made it" pretty much covers everything. So does "It took billions of years," but there is much much more to put in place of that statement than there is for "god made it."

Susan Storm wrote: Thought 1:  Evolution and creationism are not related.  It is not one or the other.  They are not opposing viewpoints.  They are not "sides".

Could you explain this a bit more in depth for me? It's probably just the way the whole subject has been presented to me, but it seems like the theory of evolution (on the whole) goes against the teachings of christianity (on the whole).

I realise that there are a few small things that both sides can concede to, but I can't find any credible argument for your statement with what I now know or have been able to put together.

Skillet42565 wrote: Why couldn't God have just got the ball rolling for what we have today?

Which is more or less what I believe personally. I don't see God's active impact in world events on the whole. Call me evil.

Skillet42565 wrote: Why couldn't God have just got the ball rolling for what we have today?

This pretty much alludes to what I like to believe.

Da Hui wrote: stratoaxe wrote: Skillet42565 wrote: Why couldn't God have just got the ball rolling for what we have today? Which is more or less what I believe personally. I don't see God's active impact in world events on the whole. Call me evil. You see it everyday, you just don't notice it. People notice evil more than they do good. Edit: Wow I sound like a total bible thumper there.

No, I understand what you mean. I came across a little short, let me explain-I believe that God works on a personal basis. I don't believe that God works in world events on the whole, or actively sets His Hand on most of what you see on the evening news. I believe that life was set in motion by God, and even He doesn't stop that motion. You run out in front of a car, the impact will either severely damage your body or kill you. God isn't necessarily going to stop that car from hitting you-even though I believe that He has the ability to.

And there are alot worse things you could be called than a Bible thumper...

SandMan wrote: Since it has no solid scientific basis, teaching of the "big bang" method of origin as fact DOES cross over the line to religion. To be strictly scientific, since no one was there and there is now no way to measure or observe it, the base origin of life should be left out of education altogether if intelligent design is not going to be presented as one of the possibilities.

If I hadn't seen you post this type of thing before, I would think you were joking.

1.  The Big Bang Theory has loads and loads of solid scientific basis.  A Brief History of Time will summarize some of it, but you basically declared that every astronomer and particle physicist ever has been wasting their time.

2.  You do not need to "be there" for something to be "strictly scientific".  This statement is completely false.

3.  The "base origin of life" is completely separate from both Big Bang and evolutionary theory.  Big Bang deals with the origin of the universe, and evolution deals with the origin of species, not life itself.  The scientific theories regarding the origin of life are not solidified yet, but seem to generally be related to abiogenesis - aka the "primordial soup".  This is quite different, however, from evolutionary theory, and completely unrelated to the big bang.

4.  While abiogenesis is a fledgling theory of the origin of life, it has a legitimate place in a science class (albeit a more advanced class), since it is in fact a scientific theory.  Intelligent design, on the other hand is a religious theory and not a scientific theory, and therefore has no place whatsoever in science class. 

SandMan wrote: Hehe... Wow... Talk about wrapping a whole lot of massive assumptions up into a loose conclusion.

Maybe, but if there is a God, he's an ass. And since I don't believe in magic, there's no reason to believe in a god.

SandMan wrote: Dune wrote: SandMan wrote: Hehe... Wow... Talk about wrapping a whole lot of massive assumptions up into a loose conclusion. Maybe, but if there is a God, he's an ass. And since I don't believe in magic, there's no reason to believe in a god. If oversimplification and rash conclusions make you comfortable, then more power to you I guess.

I feel more comfortable looking at it that way than trying to find excuses for every day life and letting another group of human beings scare me. Although to see someone with a science background accused of oversimplification, that is quite humorous.

Skillet42565 wrote: Lets put it this way, Christians believe in a theory, atheists also believe in a theory. Neither has been proven.

I will agree that both are theories, with none showing absolute proof. However, if the atheist believes in the evolutionary theory, then there is scientific evidence supporting it.

SandMan wrote: In any case, the *definition* of whether or not something is scientific is whether it can be observed and measured. Since we have no solid reference for anything even remotely similar to the "Big Bang" occurring, it seems like an awfully loose and self serving conclusion to call it scientific.

This is simply wrong.  By this definition, forensic scientists would not have a scientific basis for concluding anything about the cause of death in a homicide, for instance, because they didn't see it happen.  I guess those folks are not really scientists after all.

Science is about reaching conclusions based on available evidence.  "Being there and seeing it" is not the only kind of evidence - heck, that kind of evidence is quite rare.  Most science is based on "tracks".  If I discover goosepoop on my lawn, it is a perfectly scientific conclusion that I have a goose problem, even if I can't see the geese.

Nobody has ever seen a quark or an electron - does anybody doubt that they exist?

But... EVEN if "big bang" were a scientific law...

Not law - THEORY. 

... there is still a religious bent to its teaching. It is very much used in a "this is how it happened, so now you know there is no god" context. I've seen it firsthand on multiple occassions. IMO, anyone who claims it isn't used this way has an agenda of their own.

Anybody who DOES use it that way should not be teaching.  I certainly have never used the big bang as an argument against the existence of a god, nor has any teacher of mine (at least not to me).  Heck, it isn't even a good argument.

Just because fools use scientific theories to unjustified ends does not mean that those theories have no merit.

The big bang theory is one of the most proven-up theories in science today (right alongside evolution). 

Skillet42565 wrote: Lets put it this way, Christians believe in a theory, atheists also believe in a theory. Neither has been proven.

What is the unproven theory that atheists believe in?

Gatyr wrote: Susan Storm wrote: Thought 1:  Evolution and creationism are not related.  It is not one or the other.  They are not opposing viewpoints.  They are not "sides". Could you explain this a bit more in depth for me? It's probably just the way the whole subject has been presented to me, but it seems like the theory of evolution (on the whole) goes against the teachings of christianity (on the whole).

First, they address different things.  Creationism (in the christian sense) is an all-encompassing belief about the origins of the universe, the planet, life itself, and the species.  Evolution only addresses one small aspect of those - the origin of species.

Second, as somebody else pointed out, creationism isn't a single belief.  There are hundreds or thousands of different religious explanations for the origins of whatever.  Many of them are mutually inconsistent.  Many of them are inconsistent with various scientific theories, others are not.  How can it be "evolution vs. creationism" when creationism isn't even a single belief?  People that put forward this dichotomy casually dismiss the thousands of other religious explanations without even addressing them.

Third, their nature is fundamentally different.  Evolution, like all science, doesn't claim to be the "truth" or the "answer" in an absolute sense.  Evolutionary theory, like all science, is simply our best explanation based on currently available evidence.  Scientific theories are tweaked, clarified, improved, modified, and occasionally discarded outright, as new evidence becomes available.  Religious beliefs generally claim to be "ultimate truth", directly from a god, and are fundamentally unaffected by observable fact.

As to evolution "going against" the teachings of Christianity - that depends on which version of Christianity you happen to subscribe to.  The Pope has decreed that evolutionary theory is not inconsistent with Christianity, and several of the most prominent scientists in evolution-related fields are loudly religious.  I personally know any number of religious people that have no problem with evolution.

In fact, evolutionary theory is generally accepted in most of the industrialized world.  The anti-evolution viewpoint is overwhelmingly an American phenomenon.

Moreover - aren't the fundamental beliefs of Christianity simply forgiveness of sin and salvation through Jesus?  How can that be contrary to a scientific theory about finches and dinosaurs?

Skillet42565 wrote: Lets put it this way, Christians believe in a theory, atheists also believe in a theory. Neither has been proven.

False. Scientific theories are formed as the results of many different scientific findings or experiments. The SCIENTIFIC theory of evolution has much much more backing than the people using "theory" as a means to discredit it at all give credit to. Scientific theories are the result of many smart people performing various studies many times and coming up with the same results.

The IDEA of christianity, or even of there being some supreme being, has much less backing than any scientific theory.

Lots of misinformation here...   who have you been talking to?

PaiNTbALLfReNzY wrote: I'll believe evolution before creationism, but scientific evidence supporting evolution is pretty shakey too.

No it isn't.  It is overwhelming.

I believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, but he said himself that it wasn't accurate.

No he didn't.

Dating things like dinosaur bones are pretty difficult too, carbon dating is only good for up to 30-40,000 years.

Up to 50k years, but close enough.  Which is why they don't use carbon dating on dinosaur bones.

They have carbon dated living penguins, in which the results claimed they died 8000 years ago, so you get the picture.

Carbon dating doesn't work on living tissue, so a screwball result is to be expected.

But there have been "legitimate" screwball results.  That happens.  Everybody who has done any science knows that errors occur.  The sample was contaminated, the calculation was wrong, or whatever.   You find the error, fix it, and move on.

Radiocarbon dating (and other radiometric dating methods) have been tested, counted, correlated, and evaluated countless times.  Carbon dating is incredibly accurate (out to about 50,000 years).  Anybody who is telling you otherwise either doesn't know the subject or is intentionally misleading you.

Each side has considerable holes in their claims. That's why they are theories I guess.

There are no "considerable holes" in evolutionary theory.  Nor is it a "theory" in the sense of the word that you are implying.  A scientific "theory" is by definition well-proven.  You don't get to be a theory in science until you have lots of evidence to back it up.  Until then you are just a hypothesis.

Skillet42565 wrote: I over-generalized.  But most of you guys seem to cling to the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang theory is remarkably well-proven...

In order to rationally disbelieve the Big Bang, you have to disbelieve one or more of the following:

1.  Microwave oven

2.  GPS system

3.  Doppler radar

4.  Mathematics

Which one of those don't you believe in?

Skillet42565 wrote: Ok, I will concede this debate since I'm getting tired of arguing.

But you haven't argued yet...?

Gatyr wrote: False. Scientific theories are formed as the results of many different scientific findings or experiments. The SCIENTIFIC theory of evolution has much much more backing than the people using "theory" as a means to discredit it at all give credit to. Scientific theories are the result of many smart people performing various studies many times and coming up with the same results

Susan Storm wrote: Nor is it a "theory" in the sense of the word that you are implying.  A scientific "theory" is by definition well-proven.  You don't get to be a theory in science until you have lots of evidence to back it up.  Until then you are just a hypothesis.

Beat ya.

  <--smug smilie, not approving smilie.

Darur wrote: Theories are not solid fact, they are general statements which describe why something happens, how it happens, and predict future events.  They certainly have to be backed up by many findings for them to be accepted, but they can always be proven wrong.  Newton's Theory of Gravity got smashed by Einstein's Theory of Relativity.  No theory can really be "proven", only supported by evidence. A Hypothesis is not necessarily wrong either, its an educated guess to a problem.  The nebular hypothesis is a widely accepted explanation for how our solar system was born.  I always laugh when I hear people call things "scientific fact", because science is just educated guesses on top of educated guesses.

Almost all correct...  Allow me to nitpick your nitpicks.   :)

Calling scientific theories "general statements" is not quite accurate.  Good scientific theories go far beyond that.  Einstein's General Relativity, for instance, provides the specific mathematical formula for calculating relative time.  That's a tad better than "general statement".

You are also incorrect that Newtonian physics were "smashed" by Einstein's theories.  Newton's laws are still taught in school today, non?  And they are still applied every day by engineers and scientists around the world.

Instead, what Einstein did was explain (at least in part) the apparent inconsistencies in Newton's theories that had been observed by astronomers over the centuries.  Einstein's work doesn't smash Newton's, and they don't contradict each other.  They complement each other, and they are both correct.  Newton's theories were merely limited to make room for Einstein.  And then a few decades later, Feynmann came along and did the same to both of them.

And that is usually what happens to theories.  It is exceedingly rare that an established theory is outright discarded, simply because all established theories work very well - otherwise they wouldn't be well established.  Instead, established theories get limited or expanded, modified and tweaked to incorporate new information and new theories.

As to scientific fact - from a strict theoretical perspective you are correct, but even science bows to practicality occasionally, and at some point a scientific theory becomes so incredibly well proven as to be a "fact" for all practical purposes.  Einstein's relativity formulae and Newton's mechanics, for instance, have both withstood such an immense number of trials flawlessly that it is perfectly legitimate to refer to both as "fact" from a real-life perspective.

Tolgak wrote: Shub wrote: Dune wrote: I just can't adhere to any of that. Too much variation. People tend to give all the good credit to God and then when something bad happens say "well God doesn't interfere." If there is a God, then he truly isn't supreme and loving...he's lazy. And because I cannot actually think that if there was a supreme being, he'd allow the world to look like this, process of elimination allows me to come to the conclusion that there is no way a supreme spiritual being that just...watches us. Or is that just balance for atheists who only blame God for the bad things that happen, and credit the positive things to good fortune, or luck? Atheists, by definition, can't blame any idea of a god for anything. What the arguments you refer to are basically saying is: "If god really exists, he's more of a sadistic, hateful asshole than a savior."

Why? Ever go to think humanity is only valuable to humanity? Perhaps we're all just part of a mass Creation of living organisms, no one more valuable than the other. That doesn't mean that you can completely discount the idea of a Deity based upon a lack of intervention in daily life. 

Tolgak wrote: I can. You can tell me that deities have yet to be discovered

I didn't say that. I said that just because there is no evidence of a deity in daily life doesn't mean one does not exist.

Tolgak wrote: ... but until then, it's a perfectly rational conclusion not to believe in them. This is not like the situation in older times, when it was not believed that there was more land outside the countries that people lived in. There was proof of the land under them, it was reasonable to believe that land could occur elsewhere. We live on a planet, so was reasonable to believe that there are more planets, and that some are habitable. We are life, there is life in strange places, so it was reasonable to believe that there is life at the bottom of the oceans. However, there is absolutely no proof of a god. None whatsoever. The desire by humans to be special is no proof of one, nor is a baby's smile. It is simply subjective belief. So I CAN completely discount the existence of any gods. It is the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence (that the universe has no non-supernatural influence) we have.

None of that discounts a god. You're using reasoning against reasoning.

But in reality you're arguing against the wrong point-I was explaining my belief that God in fact does not show up in every day news events. I agree that you don't see God in either a baby smile or in the superiority complex most of humanity excercises. And I highly doubt that humanity will ever "discover" God-in fact, that's exactly what I was saying. But none of that disproves that idea of Divine Creation.

This is what bothers me about the atheist argument that if god exists, he's not compassionate. Because at the point, you've just assigned a personality and a moral compass to a being you deny the existence of. In reality, few people understand the personality of God. I'm sure very few men have seen God-and by that fact, it's perfectly reasonable to make up any claims about God that you'd like.

Using God as theory for instance-God created the particles that set the universe in motion and left. You say that there's no evidence of God's existence, and yet at the same time science will never be able to prove how the universe began, because here you run into the brick wall of the human mind-the mind can fathom eternal future, but not eternal past. Everything has to have a beginning-but where did that beginning come from?

Tolgak wrote: But why believe in something that you know isn't true? That's what faith is. Just because there isn't 100% proof against deities, doesn't mean there ARE any deities.

I didn't say I knew that there is no God-I said I believed that there is little modern evidence of God working in everyday life on a large basis. But this debate isn't about the belief in God, it's about the belief in a divine Creation in general, and on that basis my point is that it's perfectly possible in my mind that the universe was created and left to work on its own gears.

I wrote: Because at the point, you've just assigned a personality and a moral compass to a being you deny the existence of. In reality, few people understand the personality of God. I'm sure very few men have seen God-and by that fact, it's perfectly reasonable to make up any claims about God that you'd like.

Tolgak wrote: It's reasonable to claim things about a thing that nobody has ever encountered? NEWS FLASH!!! Those statements get people killed. A guy once claimed that certain people should be killed in the name of his god. The result? Oh, I don't know... The Inquisition, Crusades, Holocost, modern Jihadists, etc...

I think there's some miscommunication there-I'm not really sure what it came across that I was saying, but I was trying to show that you can disprove the God presented to you buy various religions, but you can't disprove that a Divine Being created a start to the universe. Again, not arguing the Creation put forth by various religions, but the Creation of a Divine Being in general, setting aside an assigned Personality. Not sure what the Inquisition or the Holocaust relates...

Tolgak wrote: You're saying that we should attribute anything we don't yet have proof of to your god. I admit, the beginning of this universe and the existence of other universes is out of our knowledge. That ignorance may live with us until the end of human existence. But it doesn't mean that the beginning of the universe should satisfy people's beliefs because a book written by hateful, violent pricks says so. I think that our existence is a paradox. It is necessary for something to exist, even though it's impossible for to to be so. That doesn't mean I concede that a god exists, only that it's not something that's easy to understand.

Wait-what? I never attributed anything to my God-I said that there is hole that will probably never be filled by science. Creationists attempt to fill that hole with a Divine Creation. Science does nothing more than that-attempt to fill the holes with theories, some of which can be proven, some of which will never be proven. A theory is a theory. A book written by hateful, violent, pricks has nothing to do with that point. Again, you're arguing specific theory, not the theory that a Divine Being created the universe.

PaiNTbALLfReNzY wrote: Susan Storm wrote: PaiNTbALLfReNzY wrote: I'll believe evolution before creationism, but scientific evidence supporting evolution is pretty shakey too. No it isn't.  It is overwhelming. Each side has considerable holes in their claims. That's why they are theories I guess. There are no "considerable holes" in evolutionary theory.  Nor is it a "theory" in the sense of the word that you are implying.  A scientific "theory" is by definition well-proven.  You don't get to be a theory in science until you have lots of evidence to back it up.  Until then you are just a hypothesis. So if there is overwhelming evidence, why is it NOT a theory? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think you just contradicted yourself.

I think you mis-read the post. He never said evolution wasn't a theory.

You said "That's why they are theories I guess" as though a theory inherently has a bunch of holes or inconsistencies in it.

He said that evolutionary theory is not a theory with respect to the holes you believed theories to have, but a scientific theory which is well proven and has plenty of evident to back it up.

Comprende? 

Let me try again.

Most words have different meanings when used in different contexts.  In particular, most professions have their own little vocabulary, such that otherwise common words have meanings different from how most people use those words.

For people, for instance, "eliminate" simply means to get rid of something.  For uber-1337 CIA spies, "eliminate" can mean to kill somebody.  For doctors, "eliminate" can mean to go #2.  Same word, different meanings, and they are all correct.

Same thing for "theory".  For most people, "theory" is somewhere between speculation and wild-ass guess.  For scientists, however, "theory" means an organized set of explanations and predictions that have been supported by significant evidence.  In common speech, a "theory" by definition does NOT have a lot of evidence - for a scientist, the opposite is true, and a "theory" by definition DOES have a lot of evidence.  Same word, different meaning.

What most people call "theory", scientists call "hypothesis".

So - evolution is NOT a "theory" in the way most people use the word (half-ass guess), but it IS a "theory" in the way scientists use the word (well-supported explanation).

Does that make more sense?