Evolution vs Creationism

KTOG · **Evolution vs Creationism -** 08-05-2005, 07:26 AM

[url=http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usdesi054371665aug05,0,5384426.story?coll=ny-uspolitics-headlines:4a3fc]Link[/url:4a3fc]

Why is evolution still being taught as a theory? Yes, we can't find the origin of the human race, but we have found traces of humans with primate features. Schools have accepted Newton's, Einsteins, Copurnicus' teachings after they were persicuted by the church. Don't you think its time for evolution?

Johnj · 08-05-2005, 07:36 AM

It's funny that you brought that up. They are debating teaching Creation in the Kansas schools along with Evolution. I ask if they will have separate classes for Judo-Christian creation, Buddhists creation, Hindu creation and everybody look at me like I'm from outer space.

Keeping it real.

KTOG · 08-05-2005, 08:13 AM

I'm saying atleast teach back to the first humanoid, you don't have to go back to the very beginning. Who said Adam and Eve didn't look like apes?

Stammer · 08-05-2005, 10:34 AM

It's not called creationism anymore, it's called "Intelligent Design" and George Bush made a comment on it earlier this week about how it should be taught in schools.

I don't believe a man in the sky created Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th, I don't believe woman was born of a rib from a man, I don't believe that two humans mated and had offspring who kept reproducing without any problems with their genes associated with incest, I don't believe there was a garden of Eden, I don't believe that dinosaurs are gods practical joke, I don't believe dinosaurs lived in the Garden of Eden and that humans put saddles on them and used them like horses, and I most certainly don’t believe that Earth is only 6000 years old.

In my opinion it makes far more sense that we slowly became what we are over millions of years. If anything there is historical evidence for evolution, what evidence is there for ID? A book written by human thousands of years ago isn't evidence by the way.

Edit: I forgot to mention, that I had a Born Again as my Bio teacher my sophomore year and I asked him about teaching evolution to us and he simply told me "Nah". I never learned about evolution in school, essentially I learned it all on my own about Darwin, the Galapagos the theory itself. So apparently evolution is now a taboo subject in public schools.

ninty · 08-05-2005, 11:13 AM

It seems crazy to me. Science teachers are supposed to teach science!

Intelligent Design is not science. It's based on faith. Not everyone follows the same faith. Ignoring evolution as a part of human development and existence is irresponsible.

I remember reading about the debate in Kansas, and I even bookmarked a link on it, but yahoo took the article down.

KTOG · 08-05-2005, 12:21 PM

Einstein and Hawkings believe in God yet they are Scientists ... just because you can explain stuff through math doesn't make you a heretic.

c312 · 08-05-2005, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty

It seems crazy to me. Science teachers are supposed to teach science!

Intelligent Design is not science. It's based on faith. Not everyone follows the same faith. Ignoring evolution as a part of human development and existence is irresponsible.

I remember reading about the debate in Kansas, and I even bookmarked a link on it, but yahoo took the article down.

Many scientists and mathematicians have come to beleive that the odds of the world coming together in a big bang are such a longshot that they have become skeptical

c312 · **Re: Evolution vs Creationism -** 08-05-2005, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KTOG

[url=http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usdesi054371665aug05,0,5384426.story?coll=ny-uspolitics-headlines:71c9d]Link[/url:71c9d]

Schools have accepted Newton's, Einsteins, Copurnicus' teachings after they were persicuted by the church. Don't you think its time for evolution?

Their theories have also been mathematically and observationally verified in many ways.

KTOG · 08-05-2005, 02:46 PM

Proof?

This is my field of expertise and I will be more than happy to discourage you.

ninty · 08-05-2005, 02:53 PM

You say a lot of things but you never back them up with anything.

I know there are scientists that would disagree with the big bang theory, but are we even talking about that?

We're talking about evolution on the earth. The earth was not formed by the big bang. The earth is about 3.5-4 billion years old. The universe is 13.8 billion years old if I remember correctly.

The rapid expansion of the universe is a fact. Its remnants can be seen using Doppler red shift. You can also see cosmic background radiation as a result from the rapid expansion.

Evolution is a fact. Life on earth started out in the oceans. Water is essential in life. Microorganisms evolve into more complex structures > organisms begin to populate the land and eventually, after billions of years, you get us. And yes, it is billions. It is believed living organisms started out much earlier than previously thought. Perhaps only half a billion years after the creation of the earth. You are 3 billion years of evolution.

For evolution and how the earth began, I highly recommend a PBS program called "Origins".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/

PS: Ktog and I would be happy to debate physics, astrophysics and the universe with you I’m sure.

c312 · 08-05-2005, 02:53 PM

let me get some stuff, I just learned a lot of stuff about macroevolution that suggests it may not be true, ie: indications that men lived with dinosaurs

KTOG · 08-05-2005, 02:57 PM

*cracks knuckles*

c312 · 08-05-2005, 03:03 PM

here's an interesting thought:

DNA contains more organized information than a complete set of Encyclopedias. Imagine if we received a radio transmission from outerspace containing the information of a complete set of Encyclopedias. We would assume that the information was sent by something intelligent, yet we have the same idea happening in nature through DNA and most people beleive it is random. Just a thought, I know there is still random coincidence and all those things, but still...

and if evolution is the transition from one species to a better, more advanced species, where are all the fossils of the species in between that died because their stubby still developing wings/bone structures/appendages made them easy prey? Darwin himself said that such fossils should exist in mass.

KTOG · 08-05-2005, 04:02 PM

I never said Dawinism, I said evolution. Darwinism is the social basis of evolution, there is not a lot science involved. Evolution is mostly genetics where sudden changes (non-grotesque beings) are used to change the physical and mental abilities of a creature. Darwin made his theories 150 years ago, when there wasn't genetic studies and evolutionary biology.

Who says DNA is random? Most likely people with no scientific background.

Poseidon · 08-05-2005, 04:23 PM

I used to be a monkey? eek: