implying that evolution is the cause for crime and lack of morals. This is utter bulls**t. If this were true than you would expect areas that predominantly accept evolution and are predominantly atheist/agnostic (i.e. the countries listed previously) to be rife with crime and low morals when in fact it is the exact opposite, they actually have the lowest crime in the world. Also data shows that the predominantly christian populations have higher crime rates than non-christian areas. I was merely pointing out the ridiculousness of your statement.
I'm tired of creationists always using this old line, "it's a theory, not fact, therefore it shouldn't be taught". It is creationists not understanding the definition of scientific theory and sounding stupid.
Gravity is also a theory, I suppose it should not be taught. People always get confused about theory, fact and law. Gravity is a theory for explaining why objects are drawn to one another and it is a law of gravity that if you drop an object it will drop to the ground. We use our understanding of this theory in military, air travel, space exploration, etc.
The Theory of Relativity is widely accepted as fact (certain parts, as I said it, is a multifaceted theory). We use this theory in conjunction with gravitational theory for space exploration.
There is also quantum theory used in quantum physics used to explain the peculiar motions of things smaller than atoms, like quarks.
There is also atomic theory. I suppose we shouldn't teach children about atoms. We should teach them god is controlling everything.
How come you are not so angry at these "theories"? Oh right, because it doesn't prove what YOU WANT TO BELIEVE as false. You've said it yourself. You want to believe you are special and don't want to believe in evolution. That's fine with me. Just don't call something false because you don't want to believe it. That is just being ignorant.
Our understanding of the theory of evolution is how we develop our vaccines. If evolution were false, many of our vaccines that work today, would not work.
The theory of evolution is no different than the theory of gravity in terms of scientific theory:
Evolution as fact and theory
Casting evolution as fact and theory occurs regularly in the public and scientific discourse on the fundamental nature of the scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. This topic appears frequently in publications that aim to clarify misconceptions about the science of evolution and the nature of these terms, often in response to creationist claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory". In ensuing debates, evolution is identified as either fact or theory and occasionally both or neither. Semantic differences between the usage of these terms (fact and theory) in science versus the meanings they convey in common vernacular have led to confusion in public discourse. In the context of creationists claims, theory is used in its vernacular meaning as an imperfect fact or an unsubstantiated speculation. The purported intent is to discredit or reject the scientific credibility of evolution. However, this claim cannot be substantiated.
Evolutionary theory unifies observations from fossils, DNA sequences, systematics, biogeography, and laboratory experiments into a testable explanatory scheme. In this sense, the scientific (as opposed to the vernacular) definition of theory refers to an overarching framework that makes sense of otherwise disconnected observations; this includes, for example, the theory of gravity. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a key contributor to the modern evolutionary synthesis, articulated the unifying power of evolutionary theory in a famous paper entitled: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".
The scientific theory of evolution explains the causes of evolution, as distinct from the more straightforward factual claim that the process of evolution occurs. Natural selection and the neutral theory are examples of theories of evolution. These and many other causal evolutionary theories can be expressed in the mathematical framework of population genetics. Since Darwin, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection has not only been expressed mathematically, but has also been rigorously tested and corroborated empirically by scientific evidence from countless studies. Evolutionary theories continue to generate new testable hypotheses within paleontology, genetics, ecology, and developmental biology.
A fact is not a statement of certainty, but through repeated confirmation the things or processes they refer to are generally accepted as true according to the reliability of inference (inductive, deductive, and abductive). Facts refer to "events that occur" or "the state of being of things" that can be publicly verified, proven through experiment, or witnessed by direct observation. That all forms of life on Earth are related by common descent with modification is one of the most reliable and empirically tested theories in science that continues to explain vast numbers of facts in biology.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
And somehow I doubt if it were called The Fact of Evolution you would suddenly accept it so spare me the semantics.
And I like how you christians want us to teach "creationism". Bullsh*t. You want to indoctrinate children into christianity.
You don't want us to teach islam, hinduism, etc. Why not teach about Zeus and Apollo too, or Thor, or Ra, that the four Egyptian deities (Shu, Tefnut, Geb, and Nut) created the universe? Oh that's right, those people created their religion from their imagination but not your religion. Your religion is different. It really did happen. Pfff. They all say the same thing.
Hell, there's enough people that believe the moon landing was fake, we should teach that in schools. There's a lot of people that think the holocaust didn't happen, I guess we should teach that as well. It's got to be a "level playing field". Oh right, those people are ignorant and ignoring the facts and evidence because they don't want to believe, but you're different, your nonsubstantiated beliefs contradictory of scientific facts are true. Pffff. They all say the same thing.
If you want to say a being started the Big Bang and set the universe to evolve, then fine, I cannot argue against that. That is your opinion. I have no opinion either way.
But to go from that to....
an all-knowing, all seeing, perfect invisible man that watches over you and reads your thoughts and punishes you for your thoughts.....and created two people to live in perfect harmony but told them not to eat from a tree that the all-knowing, all-seeing, perfect invisible man put there and somehow didn't know or see that they would eat from it, then punishes them for doing so....and every human is born evil, born a sinner...and the all-knowing, all-seeing, perfect invisible man creates an evil being (satan) but the all-knowing, all-seeing, perfect invisible man didn't know or see it would turn evil and influence his most precious creation.....then this all-knowing, all-seeing , perfect being tests his most precious creation and then torchers them for eternity for making the wrong choice even though he already knew what their choice would be before he even tested them...but he loves them....but makes earthquakes, tsunamis, disease, tornados and other natural disasters that have killed millions of his most precious creation...but he loves them
....is well, beyond silly and should not be taught in a science class, particularly when all science disciplines (not just evolution) contradict this obviously made up story by ancient people trying to figure out the world around them and create order. Just like every other religion of the world. The people of ancient Greece believed their god as much as you believe yours, muslims believe Islam as much as you believe yours, and all have the same amount of evidence to support their claims, yet you are right and everybody else is wrong??
Again, just because you want to believe it doesn't make it true.
Last edited by LJ4ptplay; Apr 19, 2012 at 17:01.
@wian: what you fail to understand is that the biblical texts are made completely by men. You seem to not understand that major changes in context might occure while the stories were spread by word of mouth, that the language originally used was meant to be understandable for ordinary people living back then, that some texts were excluded and some added over the centuries, that translating errors might take place, that the Bible includes plenty of political, cultural and social elements, thus changeable factors. I assume you must ba a cranky prick who believes he understands the Bible while hundreds of theologists, biblists, philosophers and scholars didn't.
Last edited by Lercher; Apr 19, 2012 at 16:12.
The bottom line is to me that when all is said and done, you either believe "In the beginning, God was always there , Or in the beginning....... "Dirt" or "Matter" came into being somehow." Its far easier to believe in the beginning "God was there" if you ask me
Evolutionists will never solve the question of what created the matter and how it got there in the first place? That automatically points most logical people towards believing in a supernatural being , a being that was always there in the first place... Evolutionists are already at a disadvantage in the logic stakes....
I know which one i would rather put my faith in and which one is more likely to have occured
To me, those who think it can all happen by chance ,when looking at the complexity of our universe and how ordered it is, are just plain ignorant of how it all works....
Anyway, each to their own. i think we have all stated our opinions which is fair enough. I will leave it at that....
Have a nice day and Go Knicks i presume