Put Creationism on par with Evolution, say third of teachers

[Cyber Altair]

loooooooooooooooooooooooooool

 

 

 

loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

[Pikachu]

^ U spamz

stop the spamz

 

I believe that evolution is true.

I AM NOT MADE OUT OF MUD

[2sick4u]

Associating Darwinism with Science is just as idiotic as associating it with creationism, in my opinion.

 

Darwinism is, in what all you consider to be it's profound glory, just a theory.

 

Teaching a speculation in Science just because the speculation involves Science just promotes biased theorizers.

 

I wouldn't disagree with learning the biology associated with Evolution and the like; just teaching it as an entity is freaking flawed.

 

Since; you know. You can arguably say that 1/2 of the world believes in some form of creationism. Be them Muslim; Christian; Catholic, whatever.

 

^Teaching them otherwise will piss so many people off.

 

Besides; as Willieh said. Finding out how we came to be doesn't effect sh*t.

 

Also. You know, half the people that believe in Darwinism only do so because they believe the stereotyped 'Christian' creation means is inept. That a few microorganisms couldn't be created in seven days. That a divine being cannot exist and blah blah. They disregard how there's more to Religion than means of creation. However, they also disregard that there is MORE THAN TWO FREAKING THEORIES OF OUR BEING existent. It's like:

 

"You iz Christian. That seems kind of weirds. Waht? Anotha theory? OmgWtfEpic."

 

It's kind of funny, really. When most teen-idiots say Darwinism is so epicly awesomes, they think they're rebelling against the machine or something.

 

I can never help but laugh.

 

I say keep Science to Science, keep Religion to Religion. But also, keep theories to theories.

[The Dark One]

Associating Darwinism with Science is just as idiotic as associating it with creationism' date=' in my opinion.

 

[b']You've already made a fool of yourself.[/b]

 

Darwinism is, in what all you consider to be it's profound glory, just a theory.

 

Relativity is a theory. It's the basis of physics. Should we discontinue the teaching of physics? Learn the difference between a scientific theory and a theory by vernacular usage. In Science, something is a law if it is just a constant. Eg. E=MC squared. If it explains why, it is a theory. Law, humans have changed. Theory, Humans have changed through the process of natural selection where the units with the most positive mutations survive.

 

Teaching a speculation in Science just because the speculation involves Science just promotes biased theorizers.

 

Evolution isn't a speculation, it is a theory.

 

I wouldn't disagree with learning the biology associated with Evolution and the like; just teaching it as an entity is freaking flawed.

 

Should we not teach our children of Gravity? That is simply a theoy explaing why things fall.

 

Since; you know. You can arguably say that 1/2 of the world believes in some form of creationism. Be them Muslim; Christian; Catholic, whatever.

 

^Teaching them otherwise will piss so many people off.

 

Except these people aren't reasonable. I myself am religious and yet accept Evolution. The Catholic Church sanctions Evolution, etc. Only the fundamentalists deny this stuff now.

 

Besides; as Willieh said. Finding out how we came to be doesn't effect sh*t.

 

Also. You know, half the people that believe in Darwinism only do so because they believe the stereotyped 'Christian' creation means is inept. That a few microorganisms couldn't be created in seven days. That a divine being cannot exist and blah blah. They disregard how there's more to Religion than means of creation. However, they also disregard that there is MORE THAN TWO FREAKING THEORIES OF OUR BEING existent. It's like:

 

Contrary to your apparent belief, it is not the "rebelious" thing to do to believe in Evolution. Do you find yourself to be rebelling when you believe in Gravity?

 

"You iz Christian. That seems kind of weirds. Waht? Anotha theory? OmgWtfEpic."

 

It's kind of funny, really. When most teen-idiots say Darwinism is so epicly awesomes, they think they're rebelling against the machine or something.

 

I can never help but laugh.

 

I checked your age, 18 certainly qualifies as a number in the teens. Also, few people say that Evolution is awesome, they just accept it, or show themselves to be ridiculously close-minded fundamentalists who go on claiming that God hates Darwin with no real evidence to support them. You may bring up that fossil records gap thing, but that is not really a significant hit to Evolution. Yet to be explained? Yes. Does it instantly prove that Evolution is a baseless theory and that God must have created to Earth 10,000 years ago? No.

 

Also, the thread is about Evolution Theory versus the dogma that they call Creationism. There are other theories in existence, but none of them have as much supporting evidence as Evolution. Will it turn out that we're wrong somehow? There's always the possibility, but it's a highly unlikely scenario. Creationism is not a theory.

 

I say keep Science to Science, keep Religion to Religion. But also, keep theories to theories.

^ Theories are inextricably tied to Science. There is no Science without theories. Get the funk over it.

 

 

Also, here's the United States National Academy of Sciences definition of a theory.[/size]

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, [4]

 

 

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[5]

 

The primary advantage enjoyed by this definition is that it firmly marks things termed theories as being well supported by evidence. This would be a disadvantage in interpreting real discourse between scientists who often use the word theory to describe unsupported but intricate hypothesises. However, in an educational or mass media setting it is almost certain that everything of the form X theory is an extremely well supported and well tested theory. This causes the theory/non-theory distinction to much more closely follow the distinctions useful for consumers of science (should I believe it or not).

 

[Willieh]

I doubt we evolved from fish honestly. Evolution has too many holes in it anyway. I believe in simple adaptation, but evolving from fish to man is kind of... ridiculous. :/

 

But then again, believing an entire universe was created by a perfect organism is kind of funked up too.

[.Requiem]

It is funny that both theories the universe just happen and god made it. They both sound basically the same.

[The Dark One]

It is funny that both theories the universe just happen and god made it. They both sound basically the same.

 

Evolution neither contradicts nor supports the existence of a god. It does not deal with the creation of the universe, only with the development of the human species. It seems far-fetched that we could have developed from bacteria, but think of the immense amount of time involved in the mutations. It's not like one day a dinosaur shitted out an alligator or a chicken. Also, Junk DNA is basically the DNA of our ancestors. It's all still in our genome, it's just unused. That provides (some) evidence of Evolution outside of fossil records.

 

And there was a show on the Discovery channel about scientists turning on certain parts of a chicken embryo's Junk DNA and saw the chick develope some dinosaur-like attributes.

[Wyhe]

Creationism is just pathetic lies to delude people & they have no scientific proof of them.

 

Evolution is more believable & have perfect sense in it.

 

Therefore, I support Evolution & screw those pro-Creationism peoples

[2sick4u]

Associating Darwinism with Science is just as idiotic as associating it with creationism' date=' in my opinion.

 

[b']You've already made a fool of yourself.[/b]

 

Not entirely. Darwinism involves Science; to which is true. However, it's just another outlook on our existence. I explained that learning from it is reasonable, but teaching it isn't. Misunderstanding my posts only makes you look more foolish.

 

Darwinism is, in what all you consider to be it's profound glory, just a theory.

 

Relativity is a theory. It's the basis of physics. Should we discontinue the teaching of physics? Learn the difference between a scientific theory and a theory by vernacular usage. In Science, something is a law if it is just a constant. Eg. E=MC squared. If it explains why, it is a theory. Law, humans have changed. Theory, Humans have changed through the process of natural selection where the units with the most positive mutations survive.

 

Once again; you jumped the gun on what I was saying. Relativity; Gravity; all to which theories; have been more globally established and accepted than theories on our existence. I'll even be honest; I'm not so much into Science. Never have been, don't plan to be. Thus, I didn't recognize the distinguishing between law and theory. However; it IS just theory, all the same. My point is, and was, that teaching a theory, to which is Darwinism, is just as biased as teaching a theory revolving around the Bible in Science. Before you say it, I said so not out of the Bible's lack of relevance to Science, but to how it simply provokes bias. Study Darwinism's biological sense, for all I care, but teaching it as a whole is flawed. Also, note to self: Technical jargon doesn't make you more correct. It's just freaking annoying, making you seem as if your posts are for those on a higher scale.

 

Teaching a speculation in Science just because the speculation involves Science just promotes biased theorizers.

 

Evolution isn't a speculation, it is a theory.

 

I don't exactly enjoy using the one word repetitively. Speculation has a similar meaning to theory; only someone to whom is overconfident would disagree.

 

I wouldn't disagree with learning the biology associated with Evolution and the like; just teaching it as an entity is freaking flawed.

 

Should we not teach our children of Gravity? That is simply a theoy explaing why things fall.

 

What the hell? There aren't numerous theories that appose Gravity that are on anything close to a global scale. If you consider my post to be foolish, I consider you to be hypocritical. Gravity doesn't impose on another theories grounds to the scale that Darwinism does. Teaching children Darwinism when their IS other theories on the same scale promotes bias. Learn from it; just not teach it. <-- I've had to say that about 4 times, since my point's obviously gone straight over your head.

 

Since; you know. You can arguably say that 1/2 of the world believes in some form of creationism. Be them Muslim; Christian; Catholic, whatever.

 

^Teaching them otherwise will piss so many people off.

 

Except these people aren't reasonable. I myself am religious and yet accept Evolution. The Catholic Church sanctions Evolution, etc. Only the fundamentalists deny this stuff now.

 

Various Religion's cannot co-exist with Evolution. This is, unfortunately enough, to my own knowledge. So, yeah. Citation needed. Be it bible verse, what have you. Then, I'll concede with your opinion. =).

 

Besides; as Willieh said. Finding out how we came to be doesn't effect sh*t.

 

Also. You know, half the people that believe in Darwinism only do so because they believe the stereotyped 'Christian' creation means is inept. That a few microorganisms couldn't be created in seven days. That a divine being cannot exist and blah blah. They disregard how there's more to Religion than means of creation. However, they also disregard that there is MORE THAN TWO FREAKING THEORIES OF OUR BEING existent. It's like:

 

Contrary to your apparent belief, it is not the "rebelious" thing to do to believe in Evolution. Do you find yourself to be rebelling when you believe in Gravity?

 

I'm assuming you've been out of High School for a while, then. If not; well, this may only be a situational happening in my vicinity. But. Inside of a Pop Culture forum such as School, you'll find that most people disregard other theories completely, if only out of spite. They associate themselves with Science without considering any other possibility. So, from a third party perspective, it seems like they're 'rebelling' in the sense of denying other prospects prematurely.

 

Also, Gravity and Evolution are, once again, to differently accepted to be classified in the same field.

 

"You iz Christian. That seems kind of weirds. Waht? Anotha theory? OmgWtfEpic."

 

It's kind of funny, really. When most teen-idiots say Darwinism is so epicly awesomes, they think they're rebelling against the machine or something.

 

I can never help but laugh.

 

I checked your age, 18 certainly qualifies as a number in the teens.

 

As most people do, I lie on the internet. I'm not far from 18, but still, I never dignified all teens to be idiotic.

 

Also, few people say that Evolution is awesome, they just accept it, or show themselves to be ridiculously close-minded fundamentalists who go on claiming that God hates Darwin with no real evidence to support them.

 

Obviously, you cannot claim knowingly for the whole of the world. Also, neither can I. Those to whom I associate with or know of that do support Darwinism do so in a more serious version of the one I described. You should really stop claiming what you have no apparent citation to support it. You've consistently said that "You either this (Co-existent with Darwinism.) or Stupid. (Fundamentalist.)"

 

You may bring up that fossil records gap thing, but that is not really a significant hit to Evolution. Yet to be explained? Yes. Does it instantly prove that Evolution is a baseless theory and that God must have created to Earth 10,000 years ago? No.

 

I never denied Evolution as being true. I never said God must be true. I may of implied it, but that was out of presenting another perspective. It's pretty close-minded to assume you must have the right answer, you know. I am actually off and on with Evolution, but never in denial with it. You're entire argument has assumed that I have been.

 

Also, the thread is about Evolution Theory versus the dogma that they call Creationism. There are other theories in existence, but none of them have as much supporting evidence as Evolution. Will it turn out that we're wrong somehow? There's always the possibility, but it's a highly unlikely scenario. Creationism is not a theory.

 

Well, funk. Sorry I 'Inappropriately' used a term underneath your knowledgeable banner. I consider anything that give's a why to something deserves to be classified as a theory.

 

Although Scientifically dry, Creationism does so.

 

I say keep Science to Science, keep Religion to Religion. But also, keep theories to theories.

^ Theories are inextricably tied to Science. There is no Science without theories. Get the f*** over it.

 

So, what, you take one smaller argument; and somehow believe it provides reasoning to call everything I've said inept? To elaborate on what I was saying there, basically that keep theories that conflict with OTHER theories decided upon through a individual level. Not f*cking teach it.

 

Also, here's the United States National Academy of Sciences definition of a theory.[/size]

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, [4]

 

 

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[5]

 

The primary advantage enjoyed by this definition is that it firmly marks things termed theories as being well supported by evidence. This would be a disadvantage in interpreting real discourse between scientists who often use the word theory to describe unsupported but intricate hypothesises. However, in an educational or mass media setting it is almost certain that everything of the form X theory is an extremely well supported and well tested theory. This causes the theory/non-theory distinction to much more closely follow the distinctions useful for consumers of science (should I believe it or not).

 

 

^Wow. Although that does leave my opinion rather impure; You must also realize that I was obviously implying that Theories on Creationism and Evolution should be kept to individual consideration; not strictly out of the bounds of Science.

 

 

=/.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Who was that person who said that evolution was "just a theory"? Because that's bull. Evolution as a thing that happens is a FACT. It is testable and observable. The Theory of Evolution deals with how evolution happens.

[Death Metal]

Since we don't have a time machine to go back and find out what really happened you can't single out either of them as false due to personal beliefs.

[Cin]

1) Remember how flawed the bible actually is consider when it was written. Now think how much you can believe word of mouth that has been influenced by many external factors. Now think about that part of the Bible, how far can you trust a book written during times were things can influence what is written in such a way.

2) Its not a literal 7 day.

3) Evolution happens over hundreds of thousands of generations, just think how long it takes to get out all the negative traits in a species to the extent it becomes completely different. It takes a lot of trial and error in the gene pool before it works out.

4) Humans are naturally curious (as are many other animals, esp Sharks....too curious for their own good), we wanna know why we are here, even though we cannot do anything about it. Its human nature.

5) Science always starts with a theory which someone sets to prove or disprove using physical evidence. The issue with Creationism is it provides very little 'true' evidence, although you can accept the detailed natured of some parts of nature to say they have a designer there you have the design argument. (Analogy Palley's Watch).

6) No one can prove or disprove the existence of God (the designer), until they die. So creationism a more we'll find out if it was true at the end.

7) Everyone's stance on this depend if they believe that they have to see physical evidence. If you have a scientific mind no matter how many times you're taught creationism you will not believe it, and vice versa.

[Luna Diviner]

I think both theories are ridiculous.

 

 

I don't get why people really care anyway. Knowing how we were created couldn't make the earth any better. :\

Q4T

This is EXACTLY What I think

[2sick4u]

Who was that person who said that evolution was "just a theory"? Because that's bull. Evolution as a thing that happens is a FACT. It is testable and observable. The Theory of Evolution deals with how evolution happens.

 

That would be me. By 'Just a Theory', I wasn't downplaying Evolution in the sense that you interpreted it to be.

 

I was in-fact saying that their is other means of explanation, and Evolution, although the logical one, isn't the only one.

 

I wasn't saying that just because it's "just a theory" it's somehow inept or something.

 

=/.

[The Dark One]

Associating Darwinism with Science is just as idiotic as associating it with creationism' date=' in my opinion.

 

[b']You've already made a fool of yourself.[/b]

 

Not entirely. Darwinism involves Science; to which is true. However, it's just another outlook on our existence. I explained that learning from it is reasonable, but teaching it isn't. Misunderstanding my posts only makes you look more foolish.

 

I don't understand what about Darwinism could possibly be considered unscientific. I'm serious here. If you think you have some knowledge that puts Darwin's ideas into question, share it. I'm open to changing my beliefs, as long as I'm given proper evidence. I don't really know what you mean about learning from it but not teaching it. Don't you have to teach something for the students to learn it? Also, Evolution is not "just another outlook on our existence. It is widely accepted by the scientific community, to a similar extent as the acceptance of the Atomic Theory of Matter (basically the theory that says atoms exist.). Of course, it is less accepted by the world. But let's be reminded that we're talking about science here. I think the scientists deserve an awful lot more consideration than th average ignorant Joe.

 

Darwinism is, in what all you consider to be it's profound glory, just a theory.

 

Relativity is a theory. It's the basis of physics. Should we discontinue the teaching of physics? Learn the difference between a scientific theory and a theory by vernacular usage. In Science, something is a law if it is just a constant. Eg. E=MC squared. If it explains why, it is a theory. Law, humans have changed. Theory, Humans have changed through the process of natural selection where the units with the most positive mutations survive.

 

Once again; you jumped the gun on what I was saying. Relativity; Gravity; all to which theories; have been more globally established and accepted than theories on our existence. I'll even be honest; I'm not so much into Science. Never have been, don't plan to be. Thus, I didn't recognize the distinguishing between law and theory. However; it IS just theory, all the same. My point is, and was, that teaching a theory, to which is Darwinism, is just as biased as teaching a theory revolving around the Bible in Science. Before you say it, I said so not out of the Bible's lack of relevance to Science, but to how it simply provokes bias. Study Darwinism's biological sense, for all I care, but teaching it as a whole is flawed. Also, note to self: Technical jargon doesn't make you more correct. It's just freaking annoying, making you seem as if your posts are for those on a higher scale.

 

Relativity is not significantly more sound of a theory than is Evolution. More widely accepted by the general population? Perhaps, but it's not the opinions of the general population that matter. It's the opinions of the people who know what they're talking about, the scientists, that count. Among scientists, Evolution is pretty much universally accepted.

 

I'm trying to make you understand that there is not a significant difference in credibility between Relativity (and many other perfectly valid theories) and Evolution. By saying that both Evolution and Creationism should be excluded from Science, you are either being arbitrary and just randomly removing Evolution because you feel like it, or you pretty much have to remove all the other theories too. Then there's not much left to teach! Evolution is to Biology as Relativity is to Physics, and as so many other

Theories are to their respective fields. It's pretty damn credible.

 

I don't understand where you spotted technical jargon. If you don't understand something, please tell me and I'll put it into other terms.

 

Teaching a speculation in Science just because the speculation involves Science just promotes biased theorizers.

 

Evolution isn't a speculation, it is a theory.

 

I don't exactly enjoy using the one word repetitively. Speculation has a similar meaning to theory; only someone to whom is overconfident would disagree.

 

In common usage, yes. However, I thought I had made it clear by now that the scientific definition of Theory is considerably different then that of the vernacular. There is no other word in Science that really equates to Theory. Some do roughly (postulates, etc.) but it makes more sense to refer to it as it is, despite your yearning to change things up. (I can understand that, I hate repetition.)

 

I wouldn't disagree with learning the biology associated with Evolution and the like; just teaching it as an entity is freaking flawed.

 

Should we not teach our children of Gravity? That is simply a theory explaing why things fall.

 

What the hell? There aren't numerous theories that appose Gravity that are on anything close to a global scale. If you consider my post to be foolish, I consider you to be hypocritical. Gravity doesn't impose on another theories grounds to the scale that Darwinism does. Teaching children Darwinism when their IS other theories on the same scale promotes bias. Learn from it; just not teach it. <-- I've had to say that about 4 times, since my point's obviously gone straight over your head.

 

It seems I still haven't gotten through to you here. My point is that THERE ARE NO OTHER REASONABLE OPPOSING THEORIES AT THIS TIME. Maybe someday Evolution will be replaced with a better Theory, but that hasn't emerged yet. This is the way Scientific Thought works. Creationism is not a Theory, in that it uses no scientific evidence or proof, just Genesis (or other scripture, for other religions.) It can also be mentioned that Genesis can be interpreted in a figurative way. In fact, this is pretty much certain. The Jews viewed numbers differently than we do. All the references to 40 in the bible only mean "A long time." Methusaleh didn't actually live to be 969, he was just old when he died, etc.

 

 

Since; you know. You can arguably say that 1/2 of the world believes in some form of creationism. Be them Muslim; Christian; Catholic, whatever.

 

^Teaching them otherwise will piss so many people off.

 

Except these people aren't reasonable. I myself am religious and yet accept Evolution. The Catholic Church sanctions Evolution, etc. Only the fundamentalists deny this stuff now.

 

Various Religion's cannot co-exist with Evolution. This is, unfortunately enough, to my own knowledge. So, yeah. Citation needed. Be it bible verse, what have you. Then, I'll concede with your opinion. =).

 

Religions, when their texts are interpreted literally, often conflict with science. However, these texts are old and were written by humans. Regardless of what ever divine inspiration may have been present, the humans of the time put in their prejudices and beliefs. It must also be noted the bible often contradicts itself, if taken literally. And here's something from John Paul.

 

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.

 

Besides; as Willieh said. Finding out how we came to be doesn't effect sh*t.

Also. You know, half the people that believe in Darwinism only do so because they believe the stereotyped 'Christian' creation means is inept. That a few microorganisms couldn't be created in seven days. That a divine being cannot exist and blah blah. They disregard how there's more to Religion than means of creation. However, they also disregard that there is MORE THAN TWO FREAKING THEORIES OF OUR BEING existent. It's like:

 

Contrary to your apparent belief, it is not the "rebelious" thing to do to believe in Evolution. Do you find yourself to be rebelling when you believe in Gravity?

 

I'm assuming you've been out of High School for a while, then. If not; well, this may only be a situational happening in my vicinity. But. Inside of a Pop Culture forum such as School, you'll find that most people disregard other theories completely, if only out of spite. They associate themselves with Science without considering any other possibility. So, from a third party perspective, it seems like they're 'rebelling' in the sense of denying other prospects prematurely.

 

Also, Gravity and Evolution are, once again, to differently accepted to be classified in the same field.

 

I'm in High School. I actually go to a Christian High School. The biology teachers teach Evolution. The Theology teachers believe in Evolution, though they say that Genesis could have happened in 7 days. (My school's theology teachers are actually hated by the real priests of the school for having too conservative of an approach to religion.) There are kids in my school that are Creationist, but they are rather few. I'll remind you that I'm going to a Catholic School.

 

"You iz Christian. That seems kind of weirds. Waht? Anotha theory? OmgWtfEpic."

 

It's kind of funny, really. When most teen-idiots say Darwinism is so epicly awesomes, they think they're rebelling against the machine or something.

 

I can never help but laugh.

 

I checked your age, 18 certainly qualifies as a number in the teens.

 

As most people do, I lie on the internet. I'm not far from 18, but still, I never dignified all teens to be idiotic.

 

Truthfully, I've never heard of someone supporting Evolution in an act of rebellion. It truly is the status quo.

 

 

Also, few people say that Evolution is awesome, they just accept it, or show themselves to be ridiculously close-minded fundamentalists who go on claiming that God hates Darwin with no real evidence to support them.

Obviously, you cannot claim knowingly for the whole of the world. Also, neither can I. Those to whom I associate with or know of that do support Darwinism do so in a more serious version of the one I described. You should really stop claiming what you have no apparent citation to support it. You've consistently said that "You either this (Co-existent with Darwinism.) or Stupid. (Fundamentalist.)" You have yet to show me a reasonable scientific alternative to Evolution.

 

 

You may bring up that fossil records gap thing, but that is not really a significant hit to Evolution. Yet to be explained? Yes. Does it instantly prove that Evolution is a baseless theory and that God must have created to Earth 10,000 years ago? No.

I never denied Evolution as being true. I never said God must be true. I may of implied it, but that was out of presenting another perspective. It's pretty close-minded to assume you must have the right answer, you know. I am actually off and on with Evolution, but never in denial with it. You're entire argument has assumed that I have been. You give the impression that you are. I stand corrected. That doesn't change the validity of my arguments, however.

 

 

 

Also, the thread is about Evolution Theory versus the dogma that they call Creationism. There are other theories in existence, but none of them have as much supporting evidence as Evolution. Will it turn out that we're wrong somehow? There's always the possibility, but it's a highly unlikely scenario. Creationism is not a theory.

 

Well, f***. Sorry I 'Inappropriately' used a term underneath your knowledgeable banner. I consider anything that give's a why to something deserves to be classified as a theory.

 

Although Scientifically dry, Creationism does so.

A (scientific)Theory is anything that uses empirical evidence to support a claim made logically through the process of science. Creationism does not fit that criteria. Obviously, the term has a different meaning when used in the vernacular. For the sake of clarity, I suggest we use other words when we mean to convey theory in it's vernacular sense, like "guess" or "belief."

 

I say keep Science to Science, keep Religion to Religion. But also, keep theories to theories.

^ Theories are inextricably tied to Science. There is no Science without theories. Get the f*** over it.

 

So, what, you take one smaller argument; and somehow believe it provides reasoning to call everything I've said inept? To elaborate on what I was saying there, basically that keep theories that conflict with OTHER theories decided upon through a individual level. Not f*cking teach it.

I don't believe I was passing judgment on everything was said. I was simply trying to disabuse you of the notion you appeared to hold that theories should be separate from science. If there was an error in communication than I apologize. There will nearly always be Theories that conflict with other ideas (Not Theories, at least in this case, though that sometimes may apply, for there is no other reasonable Theory on creation presently in existence.). It is the job of the classroom to sort out the Theories that have the most support. If there are multiple Theories that are at least reasonable and, if not popularly held, at least heard of, than I agree that both should be taught. There is no need for a science classroom to sully itself by teaching a defunct religious argument.

 

 

Also, here's the United States National Academy of Sciences definition of a theory.[/size]

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, [4]

 

 

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[5]

 

The primary advantage enjoyed by this definition is that it firmly marks things termed theories as being well supported by evidence. This would be a disadvantage in interpreting real discourse between scientists who often use the word theory to describe unsupported but intricate hypothesises. However, in an educational or mass media setting it is almost certain that everything of the form X theory is an extremely well supported and well tested theory. This causes the theory/non-theory distinction to much more closely follow the distinctions useful for consumers of science (should I believe it or not).

 

 

^Wow. Although that does leave my opinion rather impure; You must also realize that I was obviously implying that Theories on Creationism and Evolution should be kept to individual consideration; not strictly out of the bounds of Science

Yeah, I know. I was simply countering by attempting to prove that A. Evolution Theory is a lot more solid than many people seem to think and B. Creationism doesn't fit the qualifications of a Theory.

 

=/.

 

This is a quite enjoyable debate, I will admit.