Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

OnlyAmbrose · Post by **OnlyAmbrose** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:57 pm

So as not to hi-jack the "Why do you believe thread", I'll take my opinions on teaching creationism here.

Biology is an empirical science.

There is empirical evidence for evolution. Therefore, it should be taught.

There is no empirical evidence for creationism. Therefore, it shouldn't be taught.

Philosophy is a social science class.

There are philosophical arguments for creationism. Therefore, it should be taught.

It's that simple.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:36 pm

OnlyAmbrose wrote:So as not to hi-jack the "Why do you believe thread", I'll take my opinions on teaching creationism here.

Biology is an empirical science.

There is empirical evidence for evolution. Therefore, it should be taught.

There is no empirical evidence for creationism. Therefore, it shouldn't be taught.

Philosophy is a social science class.

There are philosophical arguments for creationism. Therefore, it should be taught.

It's that simple.

Yeah, but philosophy and science are distant worlds. If philosophy picked up speed then we could teach it there.

Frigidus · Post by **Frigidus** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:51 pm

unriggable wrote:
OnlyAmbrose wrote:So as not to hi-jack the "Why do you believe thread", I'll take my opinions on teaching creationism here.

Biology is an empirical science.

There is empirical evidence for evolution. Therefore, it should be taught.

There is no empirical evidence for creationism. Therefore, it shouldn't be taught.

Philosophy is a social science class.

There are philosophical arguments for creationism. Therefore, it should be taught.

It's that simple.
Yeah, but philosophy and science are distant worlds. If philosophy picked up speed then we could teach it there.

Well philosophy and science both have there place of course. The point is that mixing them leads to threads like this.

OnlyAmbrose · Post by **OnlyAmbrose** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:52 pm

Frigidus wrote:
unriggable wrote:
OnlyAmbrose wrote:So as not to hi-jack the "Why do you believe thread", I'll take my opinions on teaching creationism here.

Biology is an empirical science.

There is empirical evidence for evolution. Therefore, it should be taught.

There is no empirical evidence for creationism. Therefore, it shouldn't be taught.

Philosophy is a social science class.

There are philosophical arguments for creationism. Therefore, it should be taught.

It's that simple.
Yeah, but philosophy and science are distant worlds. If philosophy picked up speed then we could teach it there.
Well philosophy and science both have there place of course. The point is that mixing them leads to threads like this.

Knowledge is not something which can simply be divided. Philosophy, the theory of knowledge, must draw upon ALL areas of knowledge, certainly including science.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:06 pm

OnlyAmbrose wrote:
Frigidus wrote:
unriggable wrote:
OnlyAmbrose wrote:So as not to hi-jack the "Why do you believe thread", I'll take my opinions on teaching creationism here.

Biology is an empirical science.

There is empirical evidence for evolution. Therefore, it should be taught.

There is no empirical evidence for creationism. Therefore, it shouldn't be taught.

Philosophy is a social science class.

There are philosophical arguments for creationism. Therefore, it should be taught.

It's that simple.
Yeah, but philosophy and science are distant worlds. If philosophy picked up speed then we could teach it there.
Well philosophy and science both have there place of course. The point is that mixing them leads to threads like this.
Knowledge is not something which can simply be divided. Philosophy, the theory of knowledge, must draw upon ALL areas of knowledge, certainly including science.

It's analyzing science, not showing it. That should be a different class IMHO.

OnlyAmbrose · Post by **OnlyAmbrose** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:09 pm

unriggable wrote:
OnlyAmbrose wrote:
Frigidus wrote:
unriggable wrote:
OnlyAmbrose wrote:So as not to hi-jack the "Why do you believe thread", I'll take my opinions on teaching creationism here.

Biology is an empirical science.

There is empirical evidence for evolution. Therefore, it should be taught.

There is no empirical evidence for creationism. Therefore, it shouldn't be taught.

Philosophy is a social science class.

There are philosophical arguments for creationism. Therefore, it should be taught.

It's that simple.
Yeah, but philosophy and science are distant worlds. If philosophy picked up speed then we could teach it there.
Well philosophy and science both have there place of course. The point is that mixing them leads to threads like this.
Knowledge is not something which can simply be divided. Philosophy, the theory of knowledge, must draw upon ALL areas of knowledge, certainly including science.
It's analyzing science, not showing it. That should be a different class IMHO.

I totally agree. And they are. Philosophy, humanities, theory of knowledge, etc are all different classes from biology, physics, chemistry, etc.

HOWEVER, in order to get anything out of philosophy, humanities, and theory of knowledge, it's necessary to have at least a basic knowledge of all the fundamental hard sciences. This is why most of these philosophical classes wait until college or, in the case of IB students, until the end of high school.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:12 pm

Exactly. It's like rook analysis only in real life and much more hardcore. Not to mention that you can't always assume things are there for a reason (platypussies).

Neutrino · Post by **Neutrino** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:44 am

jay_a2j wrote:

Actually, in 8th grade I remember my Science teacher saying, " I don't believe it and you don't have to either but I have to teach it." (He was talking about evolution)

Congratulations, you have just stumbled upon free will. You may be taught something. but you don't have to believe it.

P.S. Jay, your Avatar makes no sence. You don't have to imagine liberals (or their "lies"

) because they exist. Just a handy hint.

joecoolfrog · Post by **joecoolfrog** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:01 am

jay_a2j wrote:
Stopper wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:Actually, I liked Science class when I was in school. (except the chapter on evolution)
Er, judging from what you've said in this thread, you wouldn't have liked the chapters on radioactivity, geology and, I dare say, other areas as well, I'd have to check.

In fact, I'm wondering if the only bit of the science textbook you liked was the sticker on the front saying "Evolution is just a theory"...

Actually, in 8th grade I remember my Science teacher saying, " I don't believe it and you don't have to either but I have to teach it." (He was talking about evolution)

Yes and no doubt your teacher spent Sundays stroking Snakes to prove his faith !

joecoolfrog · Post by **joecoolfrog** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:17 am

[quote="OnlyAmbrose"]So as not to hi-jack the "Why do you believe thread", I'll take my opinions on teaching creationism here.

Biology is an empirical science.

There is empirical evidence for evolution. Therefore, it should be taught.

There is no empirical evidence for creationism. Therefore, it shouldn't be taught.

Philosophy is a social science class.

There are philosophical arguments for creationism. Therefore, it should be taught.

It's that simple.[/quot

Good post Ambroise
You do realise that Jay will now brand you as a wishy washy pinky Liberal

Iliad · Post by **Iliad** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:53 am

jay_a2j wrote:
Iliad wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:There would be SOME KIND of fossil evidence of mutating animals! There is none. NONE! To believe in evolution takes even more faith than it does to believe in God. Evolution is TOTALLY illogical.
*sigh* Evolution is not a magical process in which a frog turns into a fish in the matter of minutes! It takes hundreds and hundreds of generations!

Please know SOMETHING about what you are arguing against. Of course it seems illogical to you, you know nothing about it!

Good grief! Let me speak slowly.... If a fish, over 100,000 years became a lizard, at some point, a creature that had some resemblance of a fish and some resemblance of a lizard, fossil would be found! We find fish fossils and we find lizard fossils but NOTHING in between.

1st of all jay not every dead animal becomes a fossil . In fact fossils are quite rare.

2.nd of all this has been said but our fish and our frogs have a common ancestor!

Iliad · Post by **Iliad** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:54 am

jay_a2j wrote:
Stopper wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:Actually, I liked Science class when I was in school. (except the chapter on evolution)
Er, judging from what you've said in this thread, you wouldn't have liked the chapters on radioactivity, geology and, I dare say, other areas as well, I'd have to check.

In fact, I'm wondering if the only bit of the science textbook you liked was the sticker on the front saying "Evolution is just a theory"...

Actually, in 8th grade I remember my Science teacher saying, " I don't believe it and you don't have to either but I have to teach it." (He was talking about evolution)

That explains a lot I reckon. And you're basing this debate on your knowledge god knows how many years ago in 8th grade?

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:26 am

Frigidus wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Stopper wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:Actually, I liked Science class when I was in school. (except the chapter on evolution)
Er, judging from what you've said in this thread, you wouldn't have liked the chapters on radioactivity, geology and, I dare say, other areas as well, I'd have to check.

In fact, I'm wondering if the only bit of the science textbook you liked was the sticker on the front saying "Evolution is just a theory"...

Actually, in 8th grade I remember my Science teacher saying, " I don't believe it and you don't have to either but I have to teach it." (He was talking about evolution)
What a bastard.
This made me laugh out loud, which I rarely do. Congrats. While I am a bit surprised, I wouldn't go so far too call him a bastard. I don't mean to be digging too far in, but where did you live at the time?

Upstate NY

joecoolfrog, I believe evolution should be taught....as a theory but not as a fact (which was presented as fact in my college first aid class). "The tailbone is what is left of our tail through evolution"

Iliad · Post by **Iliad** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:32 am

jay_a2j wrote:
Frigidus wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Stopper wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:Actually, I liked Science class when I was in school. (except the chapter on evolution)
Er, judging from what you've said in this thread, you wouldn't have liked the chapters on radioactivity, geology and, I dare say, other areas as well, I'd have to check.

In fact, I'm wondering if the only bit of the science textbook you liked was the sticker on the front saying "Evolution is just a theory"...

Actually, in 8th grade I remember my Science teacher saying, " I don't believe it and you don't have to either but I have to teach it." (He was talking about evolution)
What a bastard.
This made me laugh out loud, which I rarely do. Congrats. While I am a bit surprised, I wouldn't go so far too call him a bastard. I don't mean to be digging too far in, but where did you live at the time?

Upstate NY

joecoolfrog, I believe evolution should be taught....as a theory but not as a fact (which was presented as fact in my college first aid class). "The tailbone is what is left of our tail through evolution"

That's because it is a fact. You still haven't shown me 3 flaws in evolution. And I can't believe all of your knowledge is based on your class in year 8 taught by a teacher who didn't even believe it!

Neutrino · Post by **Neutrino** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:36 am

jay_a2j wrote:

Upstate NY

joecoolfrog, I believe evolution should be taught....as a theory but not as a fact (which was presented as fact in my college first aid class). "The tailbone is what is left of our tail through evolution"

I thought schools were required to spend a reasonable amount of time at the begining explaining that it is a theory...

Anyway, you'd probably add about a third to the length of a biology class if you had to moderate every single statement you made with "it's only a theory".

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:36 am

Jay, at my old school, which is a Christian Seventh-Day Adventist school, they refuse to teach evolution with the excuse that it is against their faith. They're not a State school, but a private one.

Do you think this is wrong to not teach evolution because of their faith?

Iliad · Post by **Iliad** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:39 am

Skittles! wrote:Jay, at my old school, which is a Christian Seventh-Day Adventist school, they refuse to teach evolution with the excuse that it is against their faith. They're not a State school, but a private one.

Do you think this is wrong to not teach evolution because of their faith?

I think it is wrong. You should still teach it even if it's against the faith. A strong believer in God will learn evolution in school and not cry and claim it's against his faith.

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:42 am

Skittles! wrote:Jay, at my old school, which is a Christian Seventh-Day Adventist school, they refuse to teach evolution with the excuse that it is against their faith. They're not a State school, but a private one.

Do you think this is wrong to not teach evolution because of their faith?

Not in a private school.

Iliad · Post by **Iliad** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:44 am

jay_a2j wrote:
Skittles! wrote:Jay, at my old school, which is a Christian Seventh-Day Adventist school, they refuse to teach evolution with the excuse that it is against their faith. They're not a State school, but a private one.

Do you think this is wrong to not teach evolution because of their faith?

Not in a private school.

But don't private schools have to follow the same curriculum?

And read my above post, jay.

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:45 am

Yes, they do, but I think they're good with the excuse used not to teach evolution, yet they still teach geology, which is kind of strange.

Anyway, that's getting off-topic

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:46 am

Iliad wrote: That's because it is a fact. You still haven't shown me 3 flaws in evolution. And I can't believe all of your knowledge is based on your class in year 8 taught by a teacher who didn't even believe it!

Evolution IS NOT a fact. Its not based on 8th grade. It's based on ALL the questions evolution leaves unanswered. Or does not even attempt to answer.

Iliad · Post by **Iliad** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:47 am

jay_a2j wrote:
Iliad wrote: That's because it is a fact. You still haven't shown me 3 flaws in evolution. And I can't believe all of your knowledge is based on your class in year 8 taught by a teacher who didn't even believe it!

Evolution IS NOT a fact. Its not based on 8th grade. It's based on ALL the questions evolution leaves unanswered. Or does not even attempt to answer.

Jay if it's not a fact show 3, only 3, flaws. You still haven't done that

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:50 am

Iliad wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Iliad wrote: That's because it is a fact. You still haven't shown me 3 flaws in evolution. And I can't believe all of your knowledge is based on your class in year 8 taught by a teacher who didn't even believe it!

Evolution IS NOT a fact. Its not based on 8th grade. It's based on ALL the questions evolution leaves unanswered. Or does not even attempt to answer.
Jay if it's not a fact show 3, only 3, flaws. You still haven't done that

Iliad, even I say it is NOT a fact. It is a theory with lots of evidence. With all the Creationist in existence that won't let Evolution and Creationism be side-by-side, it will never be stated a fact.

Iliad · Post by **Iliad** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:59 am

Skittles! wrote:
Iliad wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Iliad wrote: That's because it is a fact. You still haven't shown me 3 flaws in evolution. And I can't believe all of your knowledge is based on your class in year 8 taught by a teacher who didn't even believe it!

Evolution IS NOT a fact. Its not based on 8th grade. It's based on ALL the questions evolution leaves unanswered. Or does not even attempt to answer.
Jay if it's not a fact show 3, only 3, flaws. You still haven't done that
Iliad, even I say it is NOT a fact. It is a theory with lots of evidence. With all the Creationist in existence that won't let Evolution and Creationism be side-by-side, it will never be stated a fact.

Fine but since jay believes there are tons of flaws I wanna see him produce 3.

heavycola · Post by **heavycola** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 am

jay_a2j wrote:
Iliad wrote: That's because it is a fact. You still haven't shown me 3 flaws in evolution. And I can't believe all of your knowledge is based on your class in year 8 taught by a teacher who didn't even believe it!

Evolution IS NOT a fact. Its not based on 8th grade. It's based on ALL the questions evolution leaves unanswered. Or does not even attempt to answer.

It's based on a class you took aged... what, 13? That you have stated proudly you ignored? yet you seem to have the jump on the world's geologists, palaeotntologists and biologists.