Seafox, do you ever site any sources besides that one? You know, perhaps a source that isn't quite so..."goal-oriented?"

"Culture war." Heh. The interesting thing about this term is that for the most part, it is used only by one side...those who feel the control and influence of organized religion on culture and politics slipping away. I am not at "war" with anyone, no matter what they believe; but I will resist (in all peaceful forms available, mostly by droning on, of course) efforts by anyone to subvert my rights in the name of spreading their own religious agenda. It's not war, it's defense. The only difference is this: traditionally-defined dissenters, those who wish to move away from the grasp of organized religion, can't be punished violently as they were in the past; so they are making headway. Logic, reason, and compassion will always win out in the end.

But hey, is this response really that surprising? Remember the golden rule? We are in many ways a very predictable species of animal, er, people, aren't we?



Is that perhaps one reason that people refuse to accept even the possibility that life spawned from natural processes...the realization that you, me, all of us...are animals?

Many still believe that the contention that humans are nothing more than animals is repulsive and demeaning. But how can that be, if it turns out we are just animals? How can having a clearer picture of the universe be demeaning?

I imagine that centuries ago, there was another "culture war," in which there were those who saw the Earth as the center of the universe...and those believed it was not. The latter group was eventually proved correct...that the Earth is but a grain of sand on a nearly endless beach...just a little rock orbiting an ordinary, medium-sized star...just one of billions of stars in a random arm of an average-sized galaxy, that is in turn just one of billions of galaxies in the universe.

Seafox, how much do you miss residing at the center of the universe?

Brush up on your scientific terms.

The term "theory" has nothing to do with the level of acceptance in the scientific community. Calling it a theory doesn't mean it hasn't been proven. Plenty of other sciences accepted as fact fall under the descriptor of theory.

Note the definitions and explanations of Law and Theory:Also, "law" is a throwback term from Newton's days when science was considered one with truth. Science doesn't work that way anymore, because we've seen that not all mathematical laws apply equally to different situations. Quantum physics, for example.

[quote name='locally pwned' date='Feb 6 2007, 12:39 AM' post='445240']
Seafox, do you ever site any sources besides that one? You know, perhaps a source that isn't quite so..."goal-oriented?" [quote]

I use that site mainly because it is the most scientifically based creation websites that I have seen. you should see the video series they have on the Australopithecus fossil that people call Lucy. video library

I do however view more that one source though many of them are more faith oriented that AIG.

No charge to see it. As to the culture war. Many people have been referring to it including Bill O'Reilly.

BTW, I never claimed to live in the center of the universe because I'm still alive. Heaven is the center of the universe.

Seafox14.

Agreed, arcman. I think I have pointed this out in the past at some point. "Theory" refers to a theoretical framework that is supported by observable evidence. Most of the attacks on the current theory of evolution are based on questioning the interpretation of evidence...but that's not surprising, since evolution is not something that can be deduced mathematically.

The only real difference between a "law" and a "theory" is that a law is just a theory that has been shown to be accurate a great many times over many years.

An interesting note: Einstein's "theory" of general relativity is a more accurate and concise interpretation of the behavior of gravity and acceleration than Newton's "laws." Newtonian physics work great in normal conditions (negating friction of course)...but they break down in certain situations, such as the behavior of objects traveling at a significant portion of the speed of light. So the question is...are "laws" really "laws"? Science never has "end answers," it always seeks further refinement...producing clearer and more precise theories as it goes along.

Einstein's theory has been tested over and over for almost a century, to an astounding degree of accuracy; yet it is still referred to as a "theory."



It seems to me that the phrase "culture war" is an overreaction; it's hyperbole. I believe it is divisive in nature. I'd like to see western society to begin to move toward understanding differences rather than underscoring them. That's the only way to ever begin to heal the cultural divide in our country.

But then, the likes of Bill O'Reilly live on mud-slinging and name-calling to keep the public's interest and therefore to keep the sponsors happy...in other words, on his part, it's all calculated. But that's just my two cents on the issue.



I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you had personally made such a claim. I was just trying to make a point about how theology...blindly followed...is so often wrong about the nature of the universe and that civilization, in the end, must learn about the universe through observation rather than belief alone...that is, if it wants a clear picture of life, the universe, and everything.*

As for your sources...here's a thought. If g(G)od exists and he/she/it created the universe, up to and including the grey material between our ears, won't scientific method...if properly conducted...eventually find g(G)od? In other words, why do we need sources that simply re-interpret observations to fit with the bible? Equally incorrect are those who re-interpret data to protect scientific theories that should be instead revised or even scrapped.

As for the bible, perhaps the bible itself isn't "law," anymore than Newtonian gravity. Perhaps it was just an early attempt at understanding g(G)od...and now we have the ablity to refine that understanding further.




*If you can't tell, I just re-re...perhaps re-re-re-read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...
.

Hey, I'm an atheist and a very nice person, I'll have you know.

i am not so sure that Christianity and Evolution are mutually exclusive. i have yet to read in the Bible that 'evolution is a lie' or something to that effect. man, as a part of this world, is subject to its laws (or theories ). for that reason, the theory of evolution holds some validity because we have seen organisms evolve. humans have evolved. look at the average phenotype of 500 years ago and compare it to today. we are taller, bigger, stronger, have longer lifespans. this did not happen overnight.

however, in my opinion there must be a Creator, God for some. if God created the natural processes around us, why is the natural process of evolution so far-fetched?

exactly what i think

Please don't tell me you just mentioned falafel boy (Bill'o) as a credible source. Don't even get me started on his credibility. But can't you tell that he is polarizing America so he can sell books about a so called "Culture War", when he is documented as a sexual predator. There are so many other lies and propaganda that he has reported that I do not have the time to mention right now. Maybe, later.

I respect your opinion, but it seems like you do not know all of the facts. However, if you do watch his show regularly please know that it is an opinion/editorial show not a news show. Secondly, don't take his radical right opinions for granted and make up your own mind on the issues. I watch him sometimes just like The Daily Show or the Colbert Report for entertainment and not as actual news.

Plllease, evidence?
Show us the evidence please.

This topic is so hot it sizzles. If this forum was not moderated there would be blood on the floor.

I was very impressed with the posts by jgweed. I found your arguments persuasive. You are very well informed and logical. Remind me not to debate you unless I can use humour, sarcasm, ridicule and misdirection as weapons. Even then, I don't like my chances.

Honourable mention to Maram. Once again her posts are reasoned, logical, compassionate and backed by a life time of experience.

I will take my life in my hands and quote the bible, or at least paraphrase Jesus who said" Open thine eyes and ye shall see". This could just as easily be applied to people who believe blindly and refuse to use their own eyes and senses to see the bleeding obvious. I think Jesus would be horrified to see how many people blindly follow what is writen in the Bible and dismiss anything that may contradict what some unknown person wrote there 1500 years ago.

I mean, let's face it. The bible is a collection of documents written by various people hundreds of years after Jesus died. In most cases we do not even know who the authors of some of these Gospels were. And then there are the Gospels NOT included in the Bible.

God!! I swore to myself I would not get involved in this debate. Can't trust me as far as you can throw me:(

Finally let me just say concerning a few of the people who have posted here; In a battle of wits they are unarmed.

Show mercy to them.

Well okay, here are some places to start.
There are also plenty of peer-review journals available from your local or college library.

By contrast, Creationism hasn't submitted any substantive scientific finding or discovery of any kind to a scholarly scientific journal. This is because Creationism is by definition, pseudoscience, because it bypasses the scientific method. If you recall from school, the method goes basically as observation, hypothesis, experementation, and drawing conclusions. Creationism cheats the method by skipping to the last step. They have their conclusions already drawn out for themselves from the bible, and they look for evidence specifically to back their presupposed conclusions (while ignoring evidence to the contrary).

"Show us the evidence please."

Surely the writer does not expect someone to review the last 100 years or so of scientific work in biology (and related fields such as anthropology, paleontology, and archeology); the preponderance of evidence completely accepted by the scientific community is far too great and the history of the process of working through the exceptions far too detailed to be neatly summarised or explained.

By nature, science progresses through the accumulation of data, observations, and refinement of theories. It is important to note that there has been no major scientific evidence that has caused a rejection of evolution and no other theory proposed that is as powerful in its explanation. One would also note that in the last twenty years, during which the science of biology has made striking advances (DNA, genomes, etc), that the theory of evolution has not been seriously challenged by a scientific community working daily in all sorts of fields, but continually confirmed.

Regards,
John

Separation of Church and State is NOT in the Constitution. It was a sentence in a letter. The reason our Forefathers latched onto it is so that America did not turn into a Theocracy, thus ensuring the protection of freedom of worship, or not. America was built on Judeo-Christian philosophy, along with a bit of the Masonic practices. Breaking several of the 10 Commandments are felonies. The rest are considered honorable and ethical behavior in our civilized society.

There's a movie on tonight on TCM, "Inherit the Wind"; a story about a teacher in 1925 who was prosecuted for teaching evolution in the classroom. The so-called Missing Link STILL has not been found, so that "proof" is still incomplete. Christians did not hold on to their Middle Ages activities as Islam has.

Christianity is indeed under attack in America. The ACLU sues states and cities whose seals contain any reference to Christianity. They are attempting to rewrite our history, and eliminate ethical teachings.

This is a nation of laws. Religion is protected. But people who murder "non-believers" under the guise of "Religion" do not deserve protection under our laws, and should be recognized as Political Organizations, NOT religion. Muhammed taught his followers how to destroy societies. Who wants to give up the America that everybody wants to come to for "a better life"?

These are my observations, logical conclusions and personal opinions. Who would like to murder me for my "blasphemy"?

------



1. Are you suggesting that the teacher should have been prosecuted?

2. As stated above, evolution is a scientific theory, that is, a theoretical framework that has been, as jgweed mentioned, supported with evidence for more than a century. It doesn't claim to be a truth, just a model to understand the development of new species and the origins of life itself. I have observed that discussions which take the form of "g(G)od vs evolution" end up resembling an argument between two people that don't speak a common language...that's why it never goes anywhere.

3. Well, not sure what to say about this one. If by this statement you mean to say that Christians don't execute heretics and heathens anymore, or conquer the lands of the infidel, ect...then I suppose you are correct. But then, there are always radicals; but they are easily separated from mainstream Christianity by the assertion that they aren't actually practicing Christianity. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful as well; a handful of radicals paints their entire religion in the eyes of the West.



I will admit, there are those who perhaps over-zealously try to purge religious overtones from government buildings and what not. In the end, I believe that objects such as giant hewn statues of the Ten Commandments don't belong in Government buildings; however, references to "God" here and there aren't really a big deal, one way or another. It seems to me that we have plenty of more pressing issues we can deal with first.

Besides, the term "God" as seen on money, plaques, ect. is relatively broad. It doesn't actually say, "Jesus," or "Buddha," or "Muhammad." So in that sense, "God" simply refers to "generic higher powers." I don't feel "threatened," as a non-religious person.

It is interesting to note that "In God We Trust" was actually added to money around the Civil War, and slipped into the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50's as a way to distinguish us from the "godless Soviet communists."

It is also true, as you point out, that Western Civilization has been heavily influenced by Judaism and Christianity for a very long time. This means our morals are based in this ideology, whether we actually subscribe to the religions or not. So, even if secularism is our goal: if our laws are based on our morals, and our morals stem from Judaeo-Christian principles...are not our laws therefore based on religion?

But then, several of the Ten Commandments happen to “make sense” if you want to build a society. Society tends to work more smoothly if people aren't allowed to steal or murder. So, it's natural that these elements would become part of civilization, regardless of the religion practiced by that society. In fact, Eastern religions such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism also made similar "conclusions" about positive and negative effects of certain behaviors.

I have no problem with the Commandments that go along with a smoothly functioning society. They jibe with my belief in bettering the world, avoiding harm to others, and a general "live and let live" attitude. The problem I have with posting the Ten Commandments in their entirety is that a good number of them are specific to Christianity itself. By posting the Commandments, the government is publicly supporting one specific religion over all others; this contradicts the First Amendment. It also is counter-productive in a democratic republic…I would illustrate further, but I suppose that in order to prevent a huge tangent on my part, that would require another thread.



Not in the merest, slightest, inkling of a ghost of a neutrino's chance!

Though I don't agree with you on this issue, I certainly acknowledge your right to your opinions and I am glad we can have civilized conversations such as this.

Though I must say, I completely agree with your quote!



I don’t think we ever actually had that particular America…but we just might get there one day!

I think the ACLU, acting on behalf of its clients, objects to Christian peraphenalia being displayed on public (government) property because it does tend to establish ONE religion, albeit in a subtle manner. I do not understand how the ACLU is waging war against morality as such, unless you mean a specific morality when tied to a particular religion. Just because, moreover, one rejects the Christian BASIS for morality, does not imply in the least that one has no morality whatsoever, or even that the morality one holds differs essentially from the Christian one.

Certainly recent Supreme Court decisions tend to interpret the meaning of the First Amendment to include the separation of church and state as the best defence against the establishment of religion, as well as unduly influencing the its free exercise.

Regards,
John

I'd like to take this moment and introduce you all to an alternate theory of inteligent design
you may not have considered : The curch of the flying Spaghetti Monster
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

If god shows up on my doorstep i'll give him my undivided attention untill then Im just to busy playing pirates.

Read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins who supports the theory of evolution. Watch some of his debates, lots on Youtube and for those who say the Bible is 100% correct read Sam Harris Letter to a Christian Nation for a long list of mistakes and contradictions.

Question for all evolution believers:

Where does evolution say life came from.

The life that formed the first cells. The first planet and such.

According to evolution we all evolved from single celled organisms.

But where did the first come from.

Think of it as the chicken and the egg and who came first debate.

Guys please lets not get this topic taken out too. Lets keep the debates clean and civilized as anger never brings people closer.

Anger gives anger and love gives love.

I totally agree CGM, there is a lot of good information coming from both sides to educate ourselves with. The problem is that the initial question, "Why is evolution taught as fact?" (seafox14), is slightly misleading in my opinion. Evolution should be taught as a theory, at least that is what I was taught in high school. If your teacher taught it as fact then they need some more training. The real question should be:

Why is the "Evolution theory" the best theory to explain our existence?

Well, this depends on what you mean by "fact". If you mean something that is said with unequivocal certainty, then yes, that wouldn't be exactly appropriate. But again, evolution is taught as the best model to explain life on earth because it is best supported by the existing peer-reviewed evidence. It isn't as if it's just a vague guess lacking in credibility. Einstein's Relativity is also a theory, but no one ever says that's "just a theory" as if they were talking about a gumshoe detective pondering possible murder scenarios that he can't yet prove.

So far as cell evolution, there are several theories regarding how the first cell developed. The one I hear most prominently was in the "primordial soup", in which carbon-based molecules chained together to form amino acids, proteins, and nucleotides, to eventually become a cell.

My Question is, Why is Evolution even taught in Schools as a Subject?
After all, it's only a theory.
I believe we should only teach our Children facts,not heresay.
We are not helping our Kids,teaching Subjects full of conjecture.

Uhhh.... your question has been addressed multiple times in several posts? Including my post immediately preceeding yours!

Scientific Theory ≠ Conjecture, nor Guesses, nor Unproven Science

Lots of other scientific theories have plenty of quantifiable evidence to show them as genuine. They are accepted as reality in the scientific community. Evolution is no different. Again, you don't see anyone lobbying for alternative views on Einstein's Theory of space and time, do you? The only difference is that evolution conflicts with some people's literalist religious views on creation. (Which does not have to be the case, science and religion don't have to be at-odds. For example Theistic Evolution is the Roman Catholic's stated view of how our world came to be. )

After reading this thread I have come to these conclusions so far. I do believe in evolution more than intelligent design or creationism. In fact, I don't give much credence to theory of Creationism. Since Evolution has gone through many rigorous scientific testing and experiments and still stand up, I believe it should be taught in schools. After all we would be denying children of future generations a chance at critical thinking. To call Evolution heresay is a bit of an exaggeration. Creationism is held by a small minority of people who pay scientists to try and support their claims. I bet there is a huge majority of scientists believing in Evolution over Creationism that claim to be Christians. Creationism compared to Evolution has no credibility among scientists. I think I would be right if I said that the Religious Right are the only people who would give credence to Creationism but they are not scientists. A Priests work is more closely related to one of a Psychic or Astrologist. After all, Priests, Psychics, and Astrologists require their subjects to have faith. Where having faith requires no factual evidence for what is being presented.

This may have turned into a bit of a rant or ramblings or even slightly off-topic. But these unorganized thoughts of mine have resulted from watching a speech by Richard Dawkins on Youtube.

TO: RSD79
Critical thinking and logic is taught best (in my opinion) through mathematics. Teachers are inundated with paperwork and crowd control that determines how much money the school will get next year. Teachers do not have much time to teach reading, writing and arithmetic. The spelling I sometimes see on this and other boards is dismal. Priests are trained counselors. Italy, home of the Vatican, has less need for psychiatrists because people can talk to their priests. Priests have nothing to do with the occult. Faith is not the occult.

"Creationism is held by a small minority of people who pay scientists to try and support their claims"
"the Religious Right are the only people who would give credence to Creationism but they are not scientists."

Young person, you spend far too much time with your video games. Your ramblings show no hint of critical thinking. Why don't you do something productive with your mind, like read books and watch C-Span. You speak as if you have faith in nothing. Have you no dreams for your own future? Is this the result of our new secular society?

The question posed in this forum is "Why is Evolution taught as fact?". I believe there is still a missing link. If we take this discussion to the Big Bang theory where something was created from nothing, we might want to wonder about the existence of an Intelligent Designer. And if you were awake during sixth grade science, you would know that matter can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed. E=M*C2 means that you can never get more energy than the amount of mass, and that the velocity (speed) of the mass predicts how much energy (damage) will result. This is mathematics, young one. We could never plot a course to the moon if we did not use mathematics. You have much to learn, and you will not get it from your far left crazies like George Soros and the Libertarian Party that wants to erase America's borders. Are you going to let YOUTUBE "educate" you? Apathy is what allowed Hitler to invade Europe without even firing a shot: until the United States got involved. This Country has shed more blood and money than every other country combined, to liberate and feed human beings. Does any of this make you curious? I hope so.

TO: locally pwned
Hi! No, I don't think he should have been prosecuted for teaching evolution in the classroom. Our very wise forefathers created a Country that enabled freedom of Religion. That teacher didn't go to jail! He brought about discussion. America was created to be a NON-Theocracy. There's the Constitution, and the Amendments to the Constitution... I resent the ACLU's attack on Christianity and Judaism (go Jews for Jesus!). But let me remind you that Muhammed was only a prophet who taught how to destroy societies; and the Koran teaches its followers (Islam) to murder non-believers. In my opinion, Islam should be declared a Political organization in America because Jihad is against the Laws of our Country and Muhammed isn't a god. These last couple of sentences are considered blasphemy in Islam, punishable by death. Christians are living in poverty and regularly murdered in the Middle East, mostly over property. Islam is no peaceful religion. We are a million times more likely to be murdered by a young muslim man than any other religious zealot. I couldn't imagine a Hindu or a Buddhist murdering anyone! America has become so liberal that we are giving away our Sovereignty. I believe in "I'm OK - You're OK" unless you want to murder me and my family because we are not Muslims. Wake up America! Do we really want to erase our borders and lose what's left of American Culture? The Melting Pot has broken, and is being stomped on by this multi-language, anti-Christian liberalism, where prisons are having to re-plumb their toilets so that they face Mecca? How about a new topic? Is Islam legal in America? Did anyone notice the muslim elected to Congress (!?!) who brought his sons with him, but left his wife and daughters home? People used to come to America to become Americans, not to destroy our culture.

just a few thoughts in response to your post joygreen. this is not an attack, just an exercise in critical thinking.

1) E=MC^2 is primarily used to define the amount of energy in a photon or group of photons comprising electromagnetic radiation. only light can move at the speed of light within the parameters of our atmosphere. particles will expand infinitely proportional to the speed of light. and because velocity of all electromagnetic radiation is constant (3*10^8 m/s), it is not the velocity that determines energy, it is mass.

2) Evolution does not necessarily negate the presence of an Intelligent Designer.

3) The Big Bang does not assert that matter was created from nothing (this would contradict the Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy). it asserts that all matter/energy was condensed to a single point under intense constraint, then exploded and populated the Universe.

4) Critical Thinking is taught best through Problem Solving, much tautology supports this claim. whether it is a math problem or a philosophical problem, both spur different but equal neural pathways.

5) Disarmament of the surrounding nations, technology, charisma and a novel battle plan (Blitzkrieg) allowed Hitler to invade Europe.

6) Concerning the Hindu and murder, please read the Bhagavad Gita.


Concerning the original question:
The profound abundance of multiple species across the globe throws a large spanner into the idea of many Creationist views IMO. if the world were created, and the Great Flood ensued, there would have been no way for Noah to gather every species of animal onto the Ark. so i ask, where did all of these other species come from? species that are so distinct that their existence can only be sustained by one particular ecosystem (Borneo for instance) must have evolved from a parent species.

perhaps there is a Creator who made the world and all the natural processes therein. why must the process of evolution be considered seperate?

"perhaps there is a Creator who made the world and all the natural processes therein. why must the process of evolution be considered separate?"

Dear BlueAndGold,

You hit the Nail on the Head!!! I was hoping this conclusion would make its way to this discussion. In 15 years of Catholic school, we were indeed taught the God made us, and that His actions occur within the laws of nature, and that Humans have free will.

I enjoyed reading your post. I almost included Philosophy, and I always did a lot of problem solving in math, both in high school and college. Re: #1, do you mean it doesn't explain that the extent of a car crash is determined by the weight of the car and how fast it was going? On #5 would you agree that apathy was a part of that mix? He was clever to register the guns and then know where to go to take them away. The Catholic church was silent for much too long.

I'll admit I know a little about a lot of things. I used to read the encyclopedia for something to do when I was a kid. Not much TV, dolls instead of leggos and paint sets and clay. I still have that Compton's. But now I like to play in the dirt (garden) and yell at corrupt politicians. I have encouraged Mr. Prez to retire a few times And I have a twenty-point platform that will restore America's Middle Class and begin to recognize and support our limited resources. But it does not include any (expletive) world economy.

Of course species have evolved on this earth, and places that have been kept separate (eg Australia) do have different types of plant and animal life. Hey, maybe you know the answer to this: I remember hearing once that there were originally only three races, and that Caucasian was not one of them. I finally remembered that Mongolian was one of them.

Thank you for the conversation - and the new word "tautology". That's a good one!

Regards,
Joy

joygreen



no, E=MC^2 is not used to determine the energy of anything not moving at the speed of light. (Constant=speed of electromagnetic radiation [light]= 3*10^8 m/s)
you would use Force=Mass * Acceleration and Pressure=Force/Area

i would consent that some social malaise was present in Europe, whether it was apathy or complacency, and allowed the Nazi's to attack freely. however, superior brainwashing and battle strategy were the main components IMO.

concerning the three races point, i have yet to read any literature supporting this claim. my anthropological studies didn't touch on that assertion. i would be interested in any evidence you can present. however, one must consider the Cradle of Civilization and its role in populating the Earth.

Salud,
bg04

But how does evolution explain how that came to be?

What formed the soup?

As far as it being taught as fact:

Have you ever watched a nova or discovery chanel thing?

50 billion years ago the .......

Never we think this is a theory. Its always 50 billion years ago this happened.

This is just a quick post and will be adding a full reply later.

I do admit going a bit over board with my last post but I did give a warning at the end, joygreen. I could have explained myself further instead of coming off as offensive but did not have time.

Evolution has gone through scientific experiments since the 1800's to where it is now expected as the best theory, using factual evidence, to explain existence. I don't know how long the Creationist theory has been around but I do know that it has not gone through the same rigorous scientific testing as Evolution. Maybe in 200 or so years there will be enough scientific evidence for Creationism as an alternate theory. As it stands right now Evolution is where all of the scientific minds are concentrating their efforts. I don't think I would be wrong in saying that the majority of teaching of Creationism goes on Churches, where scientific thought process is not required. All that is required is faith, which does not require factual evidence.

Well the soup was already there, it was made up of the chemical compounds present on the earth's surface.

The biological compounds were believed to have formed through natural chemical reaction, a phenomena reproduced by an experiment done in the 50's.

Wiki
QUOTE.The molecules produced were simple organic molecules, far from a complete living biochemical system, but the experiment established that the hypothetical processes could produce some building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them first.UNQUOTE.

You are quoting from an incomplete experiment.Life wasn't produced.

arcman, i agree with DSTM on this one. not only was the experiment unable to produce all amino acids necessary for sustaining life, but it was predicated on false assumptions. i would recommend not using that experiment as an argument for evolution, as throughout the scientific community it is generally discredited. the experimenters made many assumptions, such as a methane rich early atmosphere, for which there is no empirical data.

however, you are correct in that the soup was already there. however life was created on this planet, it was made using the matter at hand. it is funny, we all accept radioactive decay, a natural process of change within atoms when stimulated by forces. but we cannot accept the idea that change may occur on a grander scale, even in the face of stimuli.

Uh, RSD, Creationism was first mentioned in the Book of Genesis, the Old Testament first book; over 2,000 years ago. If you want to write another post to insult me, don't waste your time.

"Maybe in 200 or so years there will be enough scientific evidence for Creationism as an alternate theory. As it stands right now Evolution is where all of the scientific minds are concentrating their efforts. I don't think I would be wrong in saying that the majority of teaching of Creationism goes on Churches, where scientific thought process is not required. All that is required is faith, which does not require factual evidence."

What grade are you in? What kind of drugs are you on? What makes you think it is easy to have Faith, and follow the teachings of the Bible? If you ever studied any part of it, you would know how challenging it is to try to live a good life. The most brilliant scientists do indeed believe in God, or "Intelligent Designer". The brightest and most experienced Doctors understand the power of prayer. Others may call it meditation. Some see the magic of nature and the strength of people gathering together, asking for grace, or favors from their Supreme Being or Higher Power. Spirituality is a cool thing. We all have it, we just call it different things. Maybe the most common experience we share is true love, the ability to recognize your "soul-mate", faith in the future...

I was only trying to encourage you to seek knowledge: we are not born with it, we have to learn and observe and experience and then decide what we believe. I will share this with you: the more I learn, the more I realize how much more there is to learn.

PS: to everyone else: I thought Amino Acids and all that stuff came from the Vitamin Shoppe

Fair enough. I certainly didn't intend that experiment as an end-all explanation for the first cell, that particular topic hasn't been answered definitively and there are several hypotheses for it currently in play. Again from the wiki, Certainly I agree that in cases where the answers are not definitive, it should not be presented as fact. By the same token, scientific theories with solid evidence that are well respected in the community should be presented as such.

Wonder why? What would make one more worth thinking about than the other?



What made the soup?

What made the thing that made the soup?

Here is a story about evolution being taught as fact.

I went to the charleston aquarium in Charleston SC. It was 2 years ago.

A man was talking about animals over a fish tank.

He said something like "How long has this animal been around" which I said about 10k years or so. He rolled his eyes at me and said no its been around for 50 million years.

No, not we think, it HAS.

He got that from the fossils that date the rocks and how the rocks date the fossils. ----> insert bonk on the head crazy smiley here ha ha

creation could not be proven scientifically. it hasn't got anything to do with one being more worth thinking about than the other. also, many creationists are pretty gung-ho about not needing scientific data or facts, and talk about having all of their facts within the bible (it seems), so why would it be necessary?

Hello,

First off I did not read all the posts, so this might have already been said.

I am AGNOSTIC, the reason for this is simple.

In an argument were neither side can prove their point, the only way to settle it is with proof.

Both sides can not prove anything.

One side relies on faith, and the other on theory.

The faith argument, if god or gods created everything, where did they come from? And why is there no absolute proof they exist? And the normal answer of "You must have faith" just does not cut it.

The Darwin argument, where did the big bang come from? As no-one was there to see it, there is no absolute proof.

Just my 2 pennies worth.

Steve

So carninesix, what would you have taught in schools?

Also, I am curious, what in your life has absolute proof?

Salud,
bg04

Hello,



This is an easy question. You teach everything.

The problem with teaching arises for one of two reasons that I can see.

1 - People teach absolutes, not leaving any room for people to learn from others or about other ways or beliefs.

2 - People teach something that someone else does not belive.

To educate someone they must know both sides of the coin not just one. The problem is that some people belive that their is only one answer to a question, and it is the one they were taught. Look back in history and see how beliefs have changed, how cultures have changed.

This is a simple example, I have no idea who you are or what you do or how you are educated.

But, I am almost certian you know mouth to mouth resusitation when some has drowned.

So you go back 500 years with your knowledge of mouth to mouth and see a small child fall into a river and drown. You jump in and pull them out and give them mouth to mouth, and you save their life. Nothing sinister here, but wait, 500 years ago people who saw you "breathe life" into someone would have considered you a witch and would have burned you at the stake.

Now more up to date, if a time machine is built we can go back in time and see who is correct. I have no problem in who is correct, I am happy with either I just want absolute proof.

Too the second part, I am here and I am, that is absolute proof to me.

Steve

Evolution still says something came from nothing.

The Bible says God always was and always will be.

Thus every point of view is worth every other? In an idealistic sense I agree, but in a more practical sense school teaches science, not religion. Scientific theory that has been supported with over a hundred years of observation and experiment is considered the best understanding we have, and thus, is taught in school.

Religion has no place in public schools, other than an objective study of world religions or cultures. Not in a "truth" sort of way. If it did, which religion would you use? That would make for a lot of curriculum...covering all the religious "truths" of all the world's cultures...

Also, again, one of the problems here is that science should not be taught as truth, but as the best picture we have with the data available. After all, you can't "prove" anything scientifically; you can only disprove it. But then, our culture tends to see things in terms of absolutes.



Brilliant scientists do believe in g(G)od; but if they are actually practicing science, they are able to set their spirituality aside and allowing scientific method to determine results, rather than preconceived ideas born out of sources such as the bible.

As for meditation/prayer, there is likely no supernatural power at work here; you've described it yourself in a very broad way, and most likely humans just like the support of other humans and we know that mental health has a huge impact on physical well being.

The point is, human support is healing without the need of a "super natural being." Wasn't it Franklin who said, "God helps those who help themselves." Hmm...what's g(G)od's purpose then?




Douglas Adams had an analogy that might shed some light on the issue. He pointed out the fact that computers are able to produce extremely complex behavior, yet in their cores they are simply conducting countless iterations of extremely simple calculations. Repeating simple behaviors many, many times can produce very complex results over a long enough time period.

He also said, "if evolution hasn't turned your brain inside out, you haven't understood it."

“To educate someone they must know both sides of the coin not just one.”


What does “both sides of the coin” mean in the following instances?

1.Long Division
2.The text of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address
3.The sun rises in the East
4.The theory of probability
5.Everything we know must exist in space and time
6.The Reform Bill of 1832 was an instrument of the middle classes

Doesn't education consist in being able to distinguish the various kinds of propositions, and the rules that tell us what is true and false for each of them?

Regards,
John

JG, agreed as usual.





But how do you know that you know?



Sorry, couldn't help it.

Well, as Kant reminds us, our minds are so fashioned that everything to be as a real existent, must be in space and time. Granted the conditioned, granted the conditions.
So THERE!
Cheers,
John

What about black holes? The hole itself exists in the universe, and thus in space and time. However, since no information can pass out of the event horizon, we, by definition, can't know what's "inside." An "adventurous" (not to mention suicidal) soul could pass through the event horizon to take a peek, but he/she could't pass anything he/she learned.

So, are philosophical constructs limited to physical behaviors of the universe? Is this a "for all intents and porpoises" sort of situation?

Now think of the old familiar koan: "if a tree falls an no one is around, does it make a sound?" The problem with that statement is the idea that compression waves don't exist without sensory organs to detect them, which is clearly not the case. The edge of a black hole is just a mathematical radius; to an observer far away, time appears to be moving slower and slower for the astronaut getting closer to the event horizon. But for the astronaut time seems normal and mission control sounds like a chipmunk...faster and faster. The point is, when the astronaut passes the event horizon, time still "feels" normal from his/her perspective.

The real trick is the singularity. Any scientific theory breaks down, time and space don't appear to exist. But if the singularity is "there," does it not exist in space and time, even if near or "in" the object, time and space cease to exist? Does Kant's construct break down along with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?




Wow, sheesh, tangent alert!

sorry to debate your question i feel bad about it as i am catholic my self and didn,t read through all the replies to this thread am i right in saying that religion is also only a theory .i mean where's the proof if you
ask any religious person about it the answer is"you have to have faith"now in my opinion is'nt that more of a theory than evolution?.my uncle goes to rome twice yearly and has done for the past 40 years (he's now 80)
but his son was murdered in a horrific way and his daughter is an alcholic,now can you tell me for such a religious person is that right or does god just let us "GET ON WITH IT" therfore i don't think there should be an issue over teaching evolution in school over religion as evolution is probably mor feasible as they have almost positive proof that this is fact.


i would like to add this is only my opinion and i do not wish anyone to take it personaly .


you have your beliefs and i have mine .


thanks for the ranting time mz

I would be willing to bet that faith has been in your life, but you don't realize it. If you have ever had a friend in an accident and is really sick, how do you comfort yourself during the crisis? Do you "hope" and "expect" that your friend will survive? That is faith. If you've fallen in love and decided to marry, do you "hope" and "expect" that you will live happily ever after? If you've taken that step, don't you really have Faith in that person to be the one who will be your successful life partner? Every woman who wants and gets pregnant, falls in love with her baby in utero: we worry that something might go wrong, but instead of driving ourselves crazy with anxiety, we have Faith that the baby will be born alive, healthy and all the rest.

[quote name='locally pwned' date=date='Mar 13 2007, 08:22 PM' post='

"Locally Pwnd::

As for meditation/prayer, there is likely no supernatural power at work here; you've described it yourself in a very broad way, and most likely humans just like the support of other humans and we know that mental health has a huge impact on physical well being.

The point is, human support is healing without the need of a "super natural being." Wasn't it Franklin who said, "God helps those who help themselves." Hmm...what's g(G)od's purpose then? "

Hmmm, did you say "LIKELY no supernatural power?" As for God's purpose and Ben Franklin, When did you ever see a Priest or a Nun wait for God to drive the car?

***

We've solved this question: you can't make something from nothing, unless you are God, because She CREATED heaven and earth. Creatures and plants evolve; and Man evolves when he learns and adapts to his surroundings.

Children need to be taught HOW to think, and they need to learn the basics of Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. They also need Art to develop their creativity. They need History and Geography. With all this to take in, I think philosophy is a bit much for them. They could also learn by example: too bad our Government is not demonstrating honor, ethics and compassion. Too bad teachers cannot spell, and are so overworked and trampled upon that they swing so far left that soon there will be no more America.

Personally, I am of spiritual nature, because Religions are formed and managed by people. Religion is social control. Just try raising children without a bit of spiritual training; I am proud that my daughter is a Lady and my son is a Gentleman (he did not get married in Church). And I feel very sad for all the young people who gravitate toward pain (tattoos and piercings). Does anyone wonder why they are proud of the pain they have suffered for these scars?

What do they have to look forward to? Wouldn't we rather they understood God's promise to us: when Christ died for our sins, it opened the gates of Heaven. Sins could be foriven. All of us here must admit there is something that makes each one of us an individual. Even twins have their differences. I happen to love Jesus because he taught the world how to get along. Just like manners help people to feel comfortable around each other. The Bible was edited by King James (don't know what year) but as civilization evolved, so did our Bible. Unfortunately, Islam had no such foresight: these people worship a Prophet, a human being who taught them how to destroy societies of "non-believers". I was taught that God usually works within the laws of nature. I also have some very far-out ideas about the birh of Jesus, but this crowd doesn't seem to want to discuss it. But He has given me signs, one that really sticks out in my mind. I was away from home; unhappy there, but there could be things to learn. I prayed for guidance, should I leave now? As I turned away, I spilled a glass of water in my suitcase. Guess what, There was no way I could leave now, and have my clothes mildew during traveling. I was amazed how I actually got an answer immediately. We only have to be listening!

I love you all because I'm OK and you're OK (unless you want to kill me because I am not a Muslim). But for children's sake, they need hope for their futures and a reason to live an honorable life. Propaganda? perhaps, but what propaganda has lasted more than 2000 years? A guideline to paradise (in a loving peaceful way) has to be a good thing to teach children.

Joy

hi joy first off i would like to point out your first part religions are formed and managed by people, thats hardly spiritual, people governing peoples beliefs sounds strange too me but your opinion.
secondly about tatoos and piercing if god did indeed give us free will are'nt we then allowed to use it
once again no disrespect to you they are your beliefs.
thirdly the bible has indeed been edited but not just by king james but also by the catholic church
a couple of things jump straight out of my head firstly the book of enoch part of the dead sea scrolls
secondly mary magdelene was'nt portrayed as a prostitute till something like the fourteenth century
my beliefs are religion has caused more death in the world than any war because people govern religion
if there is an almighty then god forgive the people that have slaughtered in his name.

would like to point out i mean no offence with my writings its just my point of view thanks mz

You know,

some people believe in evolution religously!