Why Creationism Should Never be Taught in Science Class

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can see where your coming from... However evolution isn't exactly science either is it. Neither should be taught in schools!

Um... Yes it IS science. It is the very definition of science.

Yes... And often times science is far less scientific than people assume. The theory, READ "THEORY" of evolution is strongly influenced by Darwins own completely unscientific life experiences and world views. It is actually completely impossible to remove the scientist from the experiment. In Darwins case he hasn't even tried to.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
Actually no... Evolution is based on as many unfounded assumptions as creationism is...

LMAO. Are you just making this up as you go along?

NO! Darwins work was heavily influenced and shamelessly influenced by his own experiences and world views. The first and biggest ASSUMPTION that people make about the "THEORY" of evolution is that Evolution is somehow SCIENTIFIC FACT when in fact it is ONLY a "THEORY"... Hence the title "DARWINS THEORY OF EVOLUTION".

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
I only flicked through this thread to see which members would be supportive of creative writing or magic being added to the science curriculum.

No surprises, carry on.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". - Arthur C. Clarke.

But seriously, magic and a monotheistic and supreme God are not compatible concepts. Let me explain:

In a polytheistic view, the gods may be opposed by other gods and are under the influence of the laws of the 'realm of the gods'. Magic is the process of manipulating the gods through appeal to another god or an attempt to influence the realm of the gods towards inducing an outcome that the god/s may not wish to enact.

In the case of a supreme monotheistic God, there is no other authority or circumstance that can be used to manipulate. The supreme God is the source of all. Magic is ineffectual, to try and use it would display a misunderstanding of the nature of God.

How sciencey

originally posted by: zazzafrazz

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
I only flicked through this thread to see which members would be supportive of creative writing or magic being added to the science curriculum.

No surprises, carry on.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". - Arthur C. Clarke.

But seriously, magic and a monotheistic and supreme God are not compatible concepts. Let me explain:

In a polytheistic view, the gods may be opposed by other gods and are under the influence of the laws of the 'realm of the gods'. Magic is the process of manipulating the gods through appeal to another god or an attempt to influence the realm of the gods towards inducing an outcome that the god/s may not wish to enact.

In the case of a supreme monotheistic God, there is no other authority or circumstance that can be used to manipulate. The supreme God is the source of all. Magic is ineffectual, to try and use it would display a misunderstanding of the nature of God.

How sciencey

Oh dear, my argument is undone by your pithy comments. I will drink heartily to your prowess!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Give some examples so I know what you are talking about. I mean I know that Phrenology itself is a pseudo-science, but are you referring to psychology in general here?

So you claim that SCIENCE, in its present form, which its standard practices and theorems, has what it takes within this system to actually look in the right areas for the origins of everything ???

I think not, and it celebrates the fact that it will never know, always be searching, theorizing endlessly, like every religion that sprung before it, now this NEW religion that spits in the face of searching for actual reality..claims it is on the right track, and everyone on the bandwagon, believes they are somehow smarter than the people who came before.

I see science as something that can be capped, used, and will always be able to be manipulated WITHOUT most of the scientists ever knowing, and those who DO know, actually celebrating the secrets they so painstakingly hide........

You can believe whatever you want, they have your thought processes hook lined and sinkered about "Evolution" "Creation"
and how you should think about those things, and choose between those things..

I see it this way, SCIENCE is at the behest of WHOSOEVER controls the literatures, the systems, the schools, and most of all which technologies are ever allowed to be spoken of.

If you cannot see that for many reasons things are not allowed to be spoken of, invented, perfected, and used; and you think that all of that is due to normal greed well continue on....but realize to many, including the most Elite, they laugh at Mainstream Science, and the perceived Freedoms they believe they have, and Laugh even harder at the Non Mainstream who believe they are not controlled subconsciously to look in every area but for the actual truth......

Flat Out, Science is slow, the rate of technology has far surpassed and should be allowing for us too see the actual EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING, but you worship this controlled SCIENCE as if it will save you from not knowing.

When will any of it actually matter ??? Cause both Evolution and Creation DO NOT MATTER in the search for TRUTH...both are controlled COMPLETELY to ensure no one gets anywhere NEAR IT.

And NO, you are NOT any better or closer to knowing than the cavemen you claim organized themselves out of monkeys.

Anyone got the courage to stop theorizing, and actually FIND the answers to it all ????

You wont find it taught anywhere in the UNIVERSE, but I bet it CAN be FOUND!!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: theantediluvian

I didn't notice it, but I did now. Lol

That poster is wrong. He is framing the argument like a debate actually exists. The only people who believe a debate even exists are the Creationists who have created the debate out of thin air. Like I said in the OP, you can't call it science if you can't even present a unified idea of what it says among all its proponents. After all, how can you teach a standardized version of it for all parties then?

You are correct, no debate actually exists....the really smart people do not even entertain standard evolution in conversation or practice, much in the same way they do not discuss religions as having an answer to God.

What they do realize, is that some pieces of BOTH are most definitely having characteristics and possibility in what is actually happening, but on their own they cannot stand.

And they are likely nowhere NEAR the actual truth, but are just engines of development inside a sandbox like arena that can be used for SCIENTIFIC experiments LOL.

Ones that actually never let the test subjects know, of just how vast and unbelievable the realities can go.

SO FAR beyond what those such as yourself appear to be able to consider, I wonder if you can ever take a step back, and observe that what you believe is all just as made up for you to shape how you see it, as the any small child in ANY religious setting.

Why do you need to think you are free from this kind of manipulation, when you have absolutely ZERO proof that you are NOT being manipulated ??

The fact that you and most everyone else believes as you do is the best indication of all the program is complete...

We will not be subject to your thoughts any longer, and do not care that Evolution seems better than Creationism....

IT IS STILL NOTHING.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
Actually no... Evolution is based on as many unfounded assumptions as creationism is...

LMAO. Are you just making this up as you go along?

NO! Darwins work was heavily influenced and shamelessly influenced by his own experiences and world views. The first and biggest ASSUMPTION that people make about the "THEORY" of evolution is that Evolution is somehow SCIENTIFIC FACT when in fact it is ONLY a "THEORY"... Hence the title "DARWINS THEORY OF EVOLUTION".

Hello,

I do apologize for butting into this conversation, as I have not thus far been a part of it, but I wanted to perhaps give you some credit, where credit is due. I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say Darwin's work was heavily and shamelessly influenced by his own experiences and worldviews. That much is to your credit, I think.

However, I fail to see why either would discredit the scientific nature of his theories. Please do allow me to explain my mere opinion on the matter further. The best physical science is of course based on experience. Most scientists call "experiences" observations, and observations can be made both in experimental and natural settings. (For instance, Darwin was a leading expert on barnacle anatomy and a wonderful geologist; in fact, he was the geologist to solve the mystery of coral atolls being build upon eroding volcanic islands... I digress...). Observations, or experiences, are the foundation of scientific matters, and anything NOT heavily influenced by experience/observation/data is unverified at best, and BAD science at worst.

As for worldviews, yes, I think Darwin was rather shamelessly influenced by his world views. He set out to catalog and describe the natural world, what one might call God's creation, if you will, and he did a great job of that. Unfortunately, I think his experiences might have gotten the better of his worldviews in the end...

With that in mind, I commend you for your accuracy, but if I may make a minor complaint, I must say I find your argumentation wanting for precision. Darwin did not vocalize a theory of evolution, no one says "Darwin's theory of evolution" outside of perhaps Science Histories courses... Evolution was a much older idea, yes, so his is a specific theory of the bunch, but it is more precise to say "Darwin's theory of Natural Selection," as natural selection is very much his major contribution. I think you will likely agree that nature produces offspring of differing capabilities and the most able to survive their environment prosper while those less fit for their environment do not prosper or simply die off. Darwinian Evolution occurs via this mechanism, but Darwinian Evolution, as it were, was flawed in some respects... Perhaps most notably is the case for phyletic gradualism, in that it is not apparently the most common mode of change through the rock record. However, whether or not Darwin believed in gradualism is debatable, so perhaps I am wrong to make that case for him, but I would argue that many have made the association of Natural Selection with Gradualism... In any case, the modern evolutionary synthesis is what is in the modern biology, not Darwinian evolution.

Now, for more credit where credit is due... You are right that evolution is NOT a scientific fact and that it IS indeed a scientific theory. See, scientific facts are (to repeat myself a little) experiences/observations/data. For example, the observation that fruit flies born without wings in a laboratory are out-competed by fruit flies born with wings is a scientific fact (This is a fictitious example, of course, but illustrative. I am sure we could think of environments in which flies without wings out-complete flying flies, yes?). A theory is what explains that observation. The theory for this observation that in a given environment a given population of flies out-competes another morphologically different population of flies is that the environment was such that the one population was better suited to its environment. It seems a little silly and redundant, but I assure you that it makes sense if you think of more complicated examples.

In conclusion, I agree with much of what you said in this post. I don't know if others here have understood your message, and I'm not quite sure I did fully either, but I do hope I got the gist of what you were trying to say. If I had any significant qualm with what you wrote in this post, it would be that you seem to be associating the progenitor theory with the more flesh-outed offspring. However, I agree that scientists often overlook the influences of the progenitor theories. Often times the names of the scientists who discover things are forgotten as the science matures. I suppose scientists are more concerned with the science, facts, and theories than with the influences or the people themselves because science doesn't really care about influences/biases (they should be weeded out by peer review or repetition or whatnot, right?)... Good theories are explanations where unnecessary assumptions and biases have been properly removed from the theory, right?

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Many seem to think that the idea of Creationism is a comparable theory to the the theory of evolution, so much so that it can be taught as "valid" science in a science class side-by-side with evolution. However this isn't the case, and to show that I will bring up a thread I made a while back demanding evidence from Creationists to prove Creationism similar to how Creationists constantly try to demand evidence for Evolution. I have posted the thread in question below in case you want to familiarize yourself with it.

Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

In this thread I made the mistake of lumping all Creationists into the same pot, and it is with this mistake that I am going to show why Creationism isn't a valid science topic. You see, by saying that not all Creationists and creation accounts are the same, you can't have a unified idea of what the curriculum for that class would even LOOK like. There are old earth creationists, young earth creationists, creationists that believe that god works through evolution, creationists who believe that god pushed a button then let scientific processes take over, and THESE are just within the Christian religion.

So it reasons, what EXACTLY should we teach here? Genesis? Well what if Genesis is an allegory and not the literal account of creation? For the literalists, what about the contradictions within the account?

Now contrast this with the theory of evolution and you will see that there is a unified idea of what scientists consider about how evolution works. If the theory needs to be changed or updated, the information has to be vetted by a rigorous process of peer review to make sure the presenting scientist didn't miss anything. This results in an over-arching idea that is easy to teach to grade schoolers since all the contentious material is within the minute details that are unimportant to students of science at that educational level. You aren't going to find very many scientists, for instance, that will tell you that evolution says that a monkey gave birth to a human one day, because they've all agreed that that isn't how evolution works.

Therefore, disregarding the whole "catering to one religion" argument, there is no possible way to present a valid course on Creationism, because no one can decide on which version is the most correct (even among Christians) and there is no way to teach all of them.

Wow valid point, its amazing, you saying creation by God is a faith, congratulations.


1 question, has evolution got all the answers, do all the scientists on earth agree that its all now rock solid and without issue?

Evolutionists need to get there house in order before running around dictating how others should act.

Post the evidence

Its pompous arrogant and ignorant to suggest scientists all agree and its a fact

Hey look a mirror, hypocrisy

Do all religious people agree? ehm nope , they dont. one thinks a dragon came out of the sun and the other thinks there is some bearded guy in the sky listening and judging and directing 7 billion people at once.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

NO! Darwins work was heavily influenced and shamelessly influenced by his own experiences and world views.

A bit overly melodramatic don't you think?

The first and biggest ASSUMPTION that people make about the "THEORY" of evolution is that Evolution is somehow SCIENTIFIC FACT when in fact it is ONLY a "THEORY"...

No, evolution is a fact.

Hence the title "DARWINS THEORY OF EVOLUTION".

How very 1859 of you! Unfortunately for your premise of reason, we aren't operating under mid 19th century theories, we are utilizing the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and have done so for over 60 years. Now on to your bigger confusion, terminology. Today we will discuss the differences between a "theory" and a "scientific theory" because they are in fact 2 very different things. The 'just plain' "theory" is like watching an episode of Scooby Doo where Fred, Shaggy, Scooby and the gang get a hunch that leads them to solve the mystery in 22 minutes of air time. A "scientific theory" on the other hand is more akin to-

A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

Or...

An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).

Or even better...

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[

The last one best describes the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis which is very likely the most well researched, cited, repeated and proven theories in the history of science. It is unquestionably, a true and factual process affecting all organic life on earth. We know more about evolution than we do about gravity by a magnitude and I don't see anybody floating off the planet in violation of Newtonian Physics.

a reply to: hydeman11

You are completely correct of course. My post is largely lacking in detail. I'm not always inclined to exert the effort required to make a comprehensive post only to have it completely misunderstood. You on the other hand seem to have understood my post well even though I have said very little. I might suggest that philosophy is an important and often forgotten part of the scientific process. We might say that Christians have certain beliefs that predispose them toward creationism. I tend to see Darwins Fathers complete disdain for Christianity and involvement in Eugenics in the same light. Giving Darwin a world view more conducive to a Evolutionary view point. In a perfect world of course we would be able to completely separate the observer, the observed and the theory. This of course is impossible. From here I would tend to go into things like creationist and evolutionist often arguing over the appropriate interpretation of the same data or the fact that I believe natural selection and evolution to be two different things. However, to get back to my post. As you say there are still unavoidable assumptions made in Darwinism as with any scientific theory. To someone who is not a supporter of evolution the assumption that something one day climbed out of the water and walked might sound as ridiculous as god speaking to world into existence in seven days.
Why should evolution and creationism be our only options anyway? Things are rarely that simple of that clearly defined.

a reply to: peter vlar

Unfortunately you seem to be unfamiliar with basic scientific philosophy and how it applies to the scientific process. It is I must admit a constant course of ire that people constantly refer to Newton LAWS of physics. Modern quantum physics has no problems making the statement "what goes up must come down" a completely inadequate and inappropriate way to describe the world around us. Yes what goes up must come down... Most of the time. This however is hardly a rule and the resulting theory's of gravity based upon this 'LAW' are completely preposterous.
There is nothing like a little quantum mechanics to change your perception of what id real and what is a 'LAW'.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Howdy,

I'm glad I got the gist of your argument, and I am equally glad that you understood me in my rambling. I agree that the philosophy of science is something often taken for granted. I also agree that philosophy is the only option once science proceeds beyond possible (at the moment) observations. In that sense, cutting-edge scientific theories are especially heavily "philosophy laden," sure.

I'm afraid I don't know much about Darwin's father or grandfather, or really much about Charles himself (except for his scientific accolades), so I can't say one way or the other on his father's beliefs and disdains. I will still agree that his experiences shaped his worldviews which shaped his scientific theories, though.

I appreciate your position distinguishing the theory of evolution from the theory of natural selection. I think too often the two are conflated in haste. In fact, I'm sure a lot of arguments stem from haste and imprecise conciseness. Again, I agree that we often take the philosophy of science for granted.

As for the assumptions in scientific theories, I also must agree. From the top of my head, we must assume some kind of uniformitarianism to make use of the rock/fossil record, that our machines that sequence genomes are accurate and precise, that our reality is observable, knowable, predictable by humans (this last one is important to your thoughts and mine)...

Now, I also agree that evolution and Creationism should not be the only options. Furthermore, I would argue that yes, Creationism should be treated as a scientific hypothesis to compete with the scientific theory of evolution. Ideally, any hypothesis that is testable should be discussed in the scientific community, and those that produce results should be considered. However, I do believe that mankind's best explanation (assuming naturalism in science, as science demands) for speciation is evolution by natural selection. However, mankind is fallible and science by its very nature must discount any "reality" that is unobservable. Ideally, if a better supported alternative explanation appears, the scientific community would adopt it in time, though.

Again, sorry for the rambling, but I want to make sure I'm not talking past anyone. Clarity is key, and talking past one another isn't going to do anyone any good, right?

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: chr0naut

Oh dear, my argument is undone by your pithy comments. I will drink heartily to your prowess!

your argument

But seriously, magic and a monotheistic and supreme God are not compatible concepts. Let me explain:

is not pertaining to 'creationism should not be taught in a science class'.

A good piece creative writing on magic and creationism, little to do with 'sciencey' stuff, so yeah stay out of our science classes.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
originally posted by: chr0naut

Oh dear, my argument is undone by your pithy comments. I will drink heartily to your prowess!

your argument

But seriously, magic and a monotheistic and supreme God are not compatible concepts. Let me explain:

is not pertaining to 'creationism should not be taught in a science class'.

Thank for trying to do 'science', keep trying you'll make it I have faith in you !
Baby steps...

I was responding to your post and not to the topic thread.

I also know well how to' do science'.

None of the steps in the scientific method include posting in a public forum.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

Yes... And often times science is far less scientific than people assume. The theory, READ "THEORY" of evolution is strongly influenced by Darwins own completely unscientific life experiences and world views. It is actually completely impossible to remove the scientist from the experiment. In Darwins case he hasn't even tried to.

I did read the word theory. Did you read it? Or maybe you misinterpreted with the layman definition of theory? By the way, evolution wasn't made up by Darwin. Evolution had long been theorized about in the scientific community before Darwin came around. Darwin just found the definitive evidence, wrote these things down, and then popularized it.

Here a history lesson. Not that I expect you to read it or anything History of Evolutionary Thought - Anticipation of Natural Selection

It is possible to look through the history of biology from the ancient Greeks onwards and discover anticipations of almost all of Charles Darwin's key ideas. For example, Loren Eiseley has found isolated passages written by Buffon suggesting he was almost ready to piece together a theory of natural selection, but such anticipations should not be taken out of the full context of the writings or of cultural values of the time which could make Darwinian ideas of evolution unthinkable.[67]

When Darwin was developing his theory, he investigated selective breeding and was impressed by Sebright's observation that "A severe winter, or a scarcity of food, by destroying the weak and the unhealthy, has all the good effects of the most skilful selection" so that "the weak and the unhealthy do not live to propagate their infirmities."[68] Darwin was influenced by Charles Lyell's ideas of environmental change causing ecological shifts, leading to what Augustin de Candolle had called a war between competing plant species, competition well described by the botanist William Herbert. Darwin was struck by Thomas Robert Malthus' phrase "struggle for existence" used of warring human tribes.[69][70]

Several writers anticipated evolutionary aspects of Darwin's theory, and in the third edition of On the Origin of Species published in 1861 Darwin named those he knew about in an introductory appendix, An Historical Sketch of the Recent Progress of Opinion on the Origin of Species, which he expanded in later editions.[71]

In 1813, William Charles Wells read before the Royal Society essays assuming that there had been evolution of humans, and recognising the principle of natural selection. Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace were unaware of this work when they jointly published the theory in 1858, but Darwin later acknowledged that Wells had recognised the principle before them, writing that the paper "An Account of a White Female, part of whose Skin resembles that of a Negro" was published in 1818, and "he distinctly recognises the principle of natural selection, and this is the first recognition which has been indicated; but he applies it only to the races of man, and to certain characters alone."[72]

Patrick Matthew wrote in the obscure book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture (1831) of "continual balancing of life to circumstance. ... [The] progeny of the same parents, under great differences of circumstance, might, in several generations, even become distinct species, incapable of co-reproduction."[73] Charles Darwin discovered this work after the initial publication of the Origin. In the brief historical sketch that Darwin included in the 3rd edition he says "Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject ... He clearly saw, however, the full force of the principle of natural selection."[74]

The title also isn't Darwin's Theory of Evolution. DARWIN'S theory is called the Theory of Natural Selection. Darwin's theory is also out of date and no longer considered valid by modern evolutionary scientists. Today the theory is called Modern evolutionary synthesis.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
So you claim that SCIENCE, in its present form, which its standard practices and theorems, has what it takes within this system to actually look in the right areas for the origins of everything ???

Actually I'm not saying that at all. Not sure where you got that idea from. I think science MAY have what it takes to do these things. I'm not entirely positive though, and I can't say we'll know until we try.

I think not, and it celebrates the fact that it will never know, always be searching, theorizing endlessly, like every religion that sprung before it, now this NEW religion that spits in the face of searching for actual reality..claims it is on the right track, and everyone on the bandwagon, believes they are somehow smarter than the people who came before.

It's not a religion. Science doesn't NEED you to believe in it. It is true regardless if you believe it or not. I'm not sure why you decry exploring humanity's natural curiosity and trying to invent the most efficient way to do so. Are you content with ignorance or something?

I see science as something that can be capped, used, and will always be able to be manipulated WITHOUT most of the scientists ever knowing, and those who DO know, actually celebrating the secrets they so painstakingly hide........

Maybe, but that doesn't mean that there isn't just as much awesome stuff coming out of any science that isn't be suppressed. Do you think the advancements we are making in astronomy as we get EVER closer to figuring out how to detect life outside our planet aren't pretty awesome?

You can believe whatever you want, they have your thought processes hook lined and sinkered about "Evolution" "Creation"
and how you should think about those things, and choose between those things..

I care about more science than just Evolution. Climate science and environmental science in general is a care of mine. I happen to have always LOVED astronomy. Do you think that only one topic can hold my attention or something?

I see it this way, SCIENCE is at the behest of WHOSOEVER controls the literatures, the systems, the schools, and most of all which technologies are ever allowed to be spoken of.

Science is science. No matter what we are learning, it is still about things we didn't know about before. Eventually science will get around to exploring the things you care about too. We have until the end of time to learn as much as we can about the universe. It's not like there is any rush or anything.

If you cannot see that for many reasons things are not allowed to be spoken of, invented, perfected, and used; and you think that all of that is due to normal greed well continue on....but realize to many, including the most Elite, they laugh at Mainstream Science, and the perceived Freedoms they believe they have, and Laugh even harder at the Non Mainstream who believe they are not controlled subconsciously to look in every area but for the actual truth......

Cool. Proof?

Flat Out, Science is slow, the rate of technology has far surpassed and should be allowing for us too see the actual EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING, but you worship this controlled SCIENCE as if it will save you from not knowing.

Again. Proof?

When will any of it actually matter ??? Cause both Evolution and Creation DO NOT MATTER in the search for TRUTH...both are controlled COMPLETELY to ensure no one gets anywhere NEAR IT.

Well YOU may not think it matters, but I can bet you the COUNTLESS amounts of people saved by medicine and medical procedures perfected by evolutionary theory sure think it matters. Ever been to a hospital? Ever had a medical procedure? Ever take any medicine? Yea, thank evolutionary science for that buddy.

And NO, you are NOT any better or closer to knowing than the cavemen you claim organized themselves out of monkeys.

Really? You HONESTLY want to make that claim? Because even the sheep herders Christians like you worship from 2000 years ago were closer to knowing how things work than the cavemen. I mean could you GET any more hyperbolic?

Anyone got the courage to stop theorizing, and actually FIND the answers to it all ????

This is probably the most RIDICULOUS thing I've read on ATS. Translation: "Can we stop looking for answers and FIND the answers?" I mean seriously, you sound so foolish saying this. It would help if you knew what words meant before using them.

You wont find it taught anywhere in the UNIVERSE, but I bet it CAN be FOUND!!

Yea... That is what science is looking for...

originally posted by: ParasuvO
You are correct, no debate actually exists....the really smart people do not even entertain standard evolution in conversation or practice, much in the same way they do not discuss religions as having an answer to God.

What they do realize, is that some pieces of BOTH are most definitely having characteristics and possibility in what is actually happening, but on their own they cannot stand.

Uh... No... The really smart people all recognize that evolutionary theory development is on the right track. Most of them are atheists too. Though there are a few that are religious. Though even the atheists are open to the idea of god if proof can be delivered for him. Scientists try not to make habits of assuming things there isn't evidence for. It's why many are atheists.

And they are likely nowhere NEAR the actual truth, but are just engines of development inside a sandbox like arena that can be used for SCIENTIFIC experiments LOL.

No scientist claims to be near the actual truth. All scientists understand that as you answer one question, it immediately asks 1000 more questions.

Ones that actually never let the test subjects know, of just how vast and unbelievable the realities can go.

Scientists (or any intellectually honest person) don't want to be told this anyways; they want to find it on their own.

SO FAR beyond what those such as yourself appear to be able to consider, I wonder if you can ever take a step back, and observe that what you believe is all just as made up for you to shape how you see it, as the any small child in ANY religious setting.

Bro, I'm an agnostic. I believe just about anything is possible, but I will favor certain ideas over others as long as you can produce good evidence for it. If the answer cannot be obtained through the available evidence then I just leave the answer as unknown. Pretty simple.

Why do you need to think you are free from this kind of manipulation, when you have absolutely ZERO proof that you are NOT being manipulated ??

Where did I say I was free from manipulation?

The fact that you and most everyone else believes as you do is the best indication of all the program is complete...

We will not be subject to your thoughts any longer, and do not care that Evolution seems better than Creationism....

Who is "we"? "We" sounds like just you to me.

IT IS STILL NOTHING.

The beauty is that nothing we do matters anyways. It's all just a way to pass time until we die. I'm really curious what your aversion to sating ones curiosity is though. You seem CONVINCED you know what's going on and no further research is necessary because it is futile. Sounds defeatists and confirmation bias laden to me. Basically the opposite of any known truth.

Just going by the way you talk in certainties without evidence leads me to not trust anything you are saying.

nvm

originally posted by: borntowatch
1 question, has evolution got all the answers

No, but to believe the alternative would be insane. Scientist look at the evidence and try and theorize on their existence in a rational way to explain what they are presented. Would you like to know what religion taught me about the fossil evidence? Well, glad you asked. Religion taught me that the fossil evidence was put here by satan to test our faith in God, and if we believe what the science tells us, we are rejecting gods and instead putting our faith in satan. This folks, is what religion has taught me.
Now, I'm not saying either one is wrong, just that one is using the evidence to try and make rational sense of the facts, and the other is using fear tactics to keep someone from questioning and seeking truth.
Full disclosure, this is what my JW family members presented to my father when he questioned them about fossil evidence. Dad was an atheist, half my aunts and uncles are JW. (Jehovah witness)

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

However evolution isn't exactly science either is it. Neither should be taught in schools!

That statement ^^ is ridiculous.
But, I bet you're just trolling and trying to be funny....right?

Actually no... Evolution is based on as many unfounded assumptions as creationism is...

Could you point out a specific unfounded assumption that the Theory of Evolution makes? I'd like to discuss it with you if you wouldn't mind?

For starts people seem to assume that natural selection and evolution are the same thing.

People... or scientists? Because the Theory of Evolution certainly does not claim that Evolution and Natural Selection are one in the same. In fact, the only people I've ever heard claim so are people who aren't very well versed in the Theory of Evolution. I am glad that you realize there is a difference, but that conclusion seems to be stemming from a misconception itself.

Natural Selection is a mechanism within Evolution, it is only the term used to describe the process in which mutations are weeded out of a population, or kept through successive generations by the means how beneficial they are to the organism and it's environment.

Evolution is the when genetic changes in a population occur through reproduction in successive generations.

As you can see, they are entirely separate concepts. So my question still stands:

Could you point out a specific unfounded assumption that the Theory of Evolution makes?