Yeah, im one of those average Joes. I was wondering, are there problems with evolution being taught in schools, and abortion in say... European countries?

No, because evolution is real. Prove it's false without saying God this and God that. But you can say GOD DAMMIT!!!

Its dishonest not to mention creationism. It is a scientific theory whether you like it or not

It's not a scientific theory by any stretch of the imagination. Theories in science are comfirmed with observation, and experimentation. Creationism is not.

At best, it's a hypothesis, and a very bad one at that.

Despite the fact that I strongly believe in evolution, I still respect the fact its a theory. I have no problem with teachers stating before beginning the unit on evolution "Evolution is still a theory."

^Because evolution is a theory, the problem arises when they try to demean it's credibility by stating that evolution is only a theory.

Zman- Creationism is by no means a scientific theory.

Both should be tought how ever in science class of a public school evolution and the big bang theory should be taught more in depth. They both have more things to prove its truth, and science is all about proof.

ID and Creationism should be only taught in Religious Studies classes. Nothing else.

quote:Originally posted by jsaxton14:

Despite the fact that I strongly believe in evolution, I still respect the fact its a theory. I have no problem with teachers stating before beginning the unit on evolution "Evolution is still a theory."

What does "is still a theory" mean?

Are you implying it should be something else?

In science, "theory" does not mean it lacks evidence or that it has not been proven, or that it is not a fact; nor does a theory have to turn into a law when it has X-amount of evidence or support.

Saying "it's still a theory" is to submit to ignorance.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-17-2005).]

I dont think Europe has the same problems with evolution being taught in schools. The religous makeup is alot different over there.

quote:Originally posted by 00258:

No, because evolution is real. Prove it's false without saying God this and God that. But you can say GOD DAMMIT!!!



*applauds*

quote:Originally posted by TheLaUghiNgHeretic:

I dont think Europe has the same problems with evolution being taught in schools. The religous makeup is alot different over there.

More realistic, for one thing.

But Australia has to copy America, don't we?

'Intelligent design' is going to be taught in early highschool over here by 2007

Well, thats the plan. But this has made an awful amount of science teachers and science boards upset. They don't want to be teaching something that can't really be confirmed in the classroom.

(And today kids, for a prac, we're going to witness a miricle!)

The idea of teaching 'Intelligent design' is to apparantly open our children's minds to other possiblities. But so far, the only theory of intelligent design that will be taught is that of Christianity.



Religion is better off taught in a RE class where it wont be confused with science and teachers will actually have the time needed able to go in depth with it.

quote:Originally posted by flatplat:

But Australia has to copy America, don't we?

'Intelligent design' is going to be taught in early highschool over here by 2007

I am Australian, and I haven't heard anything of the kind. Particularly given that only 25% of Australians regularly go to church, I think trying to fob off ID as science to the Australian population is going to be a lot fucking harder than it is in the US.

What other countries.

Although every country has their fringe groups the two main areas that I know of besides the US.

•Australia. A large part of creationism started there and is being pushed there.

•The middle east. There are many Muslim creationists. Oddly one of the biggest christian creationist groups in the world supports and helped build the largest Muslim creationist group. Strange, huh.

Creationism is a theory.

Here I would disagree with you Rust. Some forms of creationism are scientific theories and they were the leading theory up until the 1820's. It wasn't a very sturdy theory and is of course a falsified theory.

Science is not about proof.

There is a saying, "proof is for mathematicians and alcoholics." or something like that. Nothing in science can ever be proven. Science is about falsification. In science you spend your time trying to show a theory wrong, the more you fail the more the theory is accepted.

Here we go again!

When they come up with "the missing link" I won't buy into evolution theories.

Keep the science of studying or origins but keep out the theories that are still yet founded. Evolution as it stands with forensics and with "proven" fact supports the theory of creation as described in Genesis.

Yep, I said it, there is no evidence we evolved from fish nor is there concrete evidence there is cross species mutation between humans, plants, fish or ground dwelling animals then or now.

As the evidence stands, fish were created as fish, plants were created as plants, animals were created as animals and humans were created as humans.

Until the "missing link" is found I'm not buying the "we evolved from a single cell through billions of years of mutations" theory.

The fosil record, the chromosome mapping within speciation and so on all point to we are as we are and we were never fish.

Evolution is yet to be proven.

Flame on!

You really don't get it, do you Sig_Intel? I shall speak slowly for you.

Even if Evolution is wrong, that does not mean that Creationism is right.

And I was hoping in the other thread you were starting to understand.

People have provided you with the resources to at least begin to understand, if you don't want to then that's your problem.

You did make a claim in there that evidence supports genesis, maybe you can provide a post in mad scientist that shows us this support (remembering to double check evidence).

Something I would recommend you read, http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mortonsdemon.htm

God bless Australian scientists. (http://tinyurl.com/7pxst)

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:



Creationism is a theory.

Here I would disagree with you Rust. Some forms of creationism are scientific theories and they were the leading theory up until the 1820's. It wasn't a very sturdy theory and is of course a falsified theory.



By "creationism" I'm talking about "biblical creationism". If you believe that is a scientific theory, then please explain why.

It is not falsifiable. We can make no predictions with it. It has no evidence supporting it. It is rigid and does not allow for correction/change in the event of new discoveries.

That's no scientific theory.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

By "creationism" I'm talking about "biblical creationism". If you believe that is a scientific theory, then please explain why.

It is not falsifiable. We can make no predictions with it. It has no evidence supporting it. It is rigid and does not allow for correction/change in the event of new discoveries.

That's no scientific theory.

One of the reason I said some theories. I agree most creationists today have hacked and abused their theory (and God) to try and keep it believable but I wouldn't call it a theory.

However old creationism (the belief in a global flood, unchanging species, young earth, etc) was a theory at one point, not a very solid one but it was all they had. It is testable and makes predictions.

By "old creationism" you've described what I'm referring to as "biblical creationism"; and I maintain that is not a theory.

It's not testable because it claims a unverifiable god, imbued with omnipotence, exists. He can trick us with out us even knowing it. There; no tests are conclusive or even reliable. You of all people should know that that was exactly the defense they used when that hypothesis was being attacked.

As for predictions, which ones are those?

Even if that is part of the peoples beliefs as long as said God isn't used as an excuse for something it doesn't matter and the science part can be extracted.

For example,

God caused a flood and the world was completely covered with water killing most animals 4500 years ago.

The italics are the scientific claim. It is testable and makes predictions, such as a jumbled geology, a preflood, postflood mark of some sort, civilizations destroyed 4500 years ago. Add noah into it and we should see a single point of origin for most animals. etc.

Every creationist claim that you have falsified is obviously testable and most likely makes predictions.

Add "God/Satan tricked us" when the test fails, and it becomes a non-test to begin with! It's not a test if you can't fail it.

As for predictions, not only could those point to other hypothesis as well, but a theory isn't just making predictions. Even if we concede that it could possibly make a prediction, it would still remain unfalsifiable, it would still remain rigid and unchanging, and it would not be supported by evidence. That's not a theory, that's a hypothesis.

You've yet to justify why we should think of it as a theory and not a hypothesis (and I'm being lenient - Falsifiability is considered a requirement for it to be a scientific hypothesis, let a lone a theory. I'm ignoring that and calling it a "hypothesis" even when it is not falsifiable)

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-17-2005).]

You are still confusing the religious parts with the scientific. Believers may say that God/Satan tricked us, but so what? That doesn't change the scientific aspects of their belief or that it was falsified.

I guess we can call it a hypothesis, I don't care eitherway.

I'm not confusing them; the underlying argument in the hypothesis itself is that religion is scientific, and that our origins can be explained according to what is contained in that religious text.

God being able to trick us is, according to biblical creationism, a fact of life, not some religious mysticism that doesn't come into play in any scientific tests we might do; on the contrary, it's something that looms in every single "test" we can possibly imagine, and that has been used historically to defend the hypothesis when it fails.

quote:Originally posted by literary syphilis:

You really don't get it, do you Sig_Intel? I shall speak slowly for you.

Even if Evolution is wrong, that does not mean that Creationism is right.

Thanks for speaking slowly for me..your words are much easier to read.

As for replying to the original question..

Euro's are under the thumb of UN ideology and that ideology is socialist humanism. Evolution is the atheist view of our origins. Since there isn't a god in the mind of antheist they still have to come up with a counter to a God created universe. Is there anything wrong with it? Time will tell....

What is there to teach about abortion? It's getting rid of unwanted life. Live free!!

Oh. My God.

You've made the leap from blissfully ignorant if well-meaning religioso to conspiracy-theorist klaxon in one fell swoop.

Congratulations.

quote:Originally posted by literary syphilis:

Oh. My God.

You've made the leap from blissfully ignorant if well-meaning religioso to conspiracy-theorist klaxon in one fell swoop.

Congratulations.

Like I said, time will tell.

There is prophetic concurance to all of this. As for being ignorant, I am at least able to see it from both sides.



Secularism is going to squash faith - it is written. The doctrines of God will be ushered out of the public places and in it's place will be a governance that will be nothing but oppressive and tyrantical. It has to be so that the peace and order can be maintained.

Mankind has proven it true that through secular government comes genecide and other harsh forms of social controls to enforce 'the' perfect society.

There will be a day when mankind no longer puts up with sound doctrine but instead will gather up for themselves, teachers that will tell them what their itching ears want to hear.

Those days are near.

I like this quote...

quote:They say intelligent design's central plank of a theological or philosophical notion of supernatural intervention is a belief which cannot be observed, tested, validated or falsified.

"They are free to believe and profess whatever they like," the letter says.

======= http://tinyurl.com/b63s2

A hypothesis is a working assumption. Typically, a scientist devises a hypothesis and then sees if it ``holds water'' by testing it against available data (obtained from previous experiments and observations). If the hypothesis does hold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory.

=======

Given the above definition, I'd say Creationism is not a theory... Lineage in DNA between individuals, rules out a hypothesis of static species... We also have no test data to perform miracles in the lab, and then repeat them...



[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 11-18-2005).]

Yeah, I dont have any problems with evolution or abortion....

Im an athiest.

I was just wondering if people bitch about this stuff in other countries like that do here.

Uhh, and no one really answered the initial question yet.

[This message has been edited by Cpt.Winters (edited 11-18-2005).]

Self-Bump.

Someone from Europe just give some input, please.

Although not a first hand account, I have talked to quite a few people from europe about evolution and creationism and the majority of them had never even realized there were people who still believed in creationism till they got on the internet and found sites and forum supporting it and news about big legal battles in the US. To them teaching creationism in schools is a non question.

i used to believe in evolution, until i was given evidence in two parts: Religion and Science

the scientific part was the part that made me disbelieve evolution

i assume this is mainly about macroevolution, which, unless someone can tell me now, isnt proved by any evidence.

person who said that there is no data to perform miracles

what do you mean by "no data" they are called miracles because there is no explanation that fits science. And scientifically prove math for me when you reply.

ill stay on this topic for awhile, i have a message for all that believe in evolution

You have a message, is it about religion? If so there is another thread you could probably post it in here about creationism and evolution so you don't befuddle his thread.

Is it about science? Cool, we have been asking creationists in other said thread to post the evidence in mad science they keep claiming for creationism. Don't forget to do a search and take a look at Rust's thread dealing with common false creationist arguments.

And welcome.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 11-19-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

i assume this is mainly about macroevolution, which, unless someone can tell me now, isnt proved by any evidence.

Why does this come up so often... Yes there is overwhelming evidence; many Totse members have posted links in numerous threads on Macroevolution... The only evidence I have found against macroevolution is from religious websites, that mislead young christians...

quote:

person who said that there is no data to perform miracles

what do you mean by "no data" they are called miracles because there is no explanation that fits science. And scientifically prove math for me when you reply.

The catholic church has a lengthy history of requiring non-believers to provide ridiculous proofs and impossible tasks when describing theories.. If you want me to prove maths to you, then you prove to me God exists first, using only sprinkled donuts...

Secondly and this is the most crucial part… In order for something to be regarded as science, the theory has to be put forward using scientific methodology…

First rule of this methodology is a stimulus must be observed, examined, then a hypothesis devised, experiment performed, experiment repeated, conclude results… Handover to scientific community to scrutinize, have all bias of people perform the experiments… Then declare it true and teach it..

Second Rule, it has to be falsifiable… You need to have a variable (That can be tested) in your hypothesis that can make the theory false if that variable had a different value… If you don’t, it is not science… Simple as that… What is a variable you can think of, that might disprove Creationism?

So, creationism… As spontaneous generations of species have not been witnessed by Humans… The stimulus has not be observed, can not be examined, we have “no data” (We don’t know what God did to create the animals, or what chemicals and conditions he worked with, apart from accounts of people that said it was done instantly) to perform experiments on it to prove it either way… We cannot repeat those experiments… Therefore it is not science…

You provide me an experiment that proves a mechanism of creationism and I’ll believe you, I believe science I don’t care who puts it forward, I believe science… Experiments have been repeated that proves dna mutation, proves individual adaptation, fossil records that prove macroevolution, a hypothesis that progresses logically and as it has been scrutinized and “held water” for so long now, I believe it… That’s what science is… You HAVE to discover science, not create it to fit a hypothesis…

I will continue, if you want to know more about what science is… This is quick off the top of my head… But believe me, if creationism was scientifically proven I’d teach it… Simple as that… Even if creationism was correct and happened exactly as it did in the bible(I’m not saying it is in anyway) then its still not science, you have to work within the methodology…

quote:

ill stay on this topic for awhile, i have a message for all that believe in evolution

I'm all ears...

[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 11-19-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Is it about science? Cool, we have been asking creationists in other said thread to post the evidence in mad science they keep claiming for creationism.

And welcome.

The champion Christian of this forum, Digital Savior, doesn't even bother. Or she claims she has some but just doesn't get around to showing it.

I would've said jackketch but he can barely spell. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

ill stay on this topic for awhile, i have a message for all that believe in evolution

Great, I can't wait for you to disprove one of the most established theories in science. Have at it.



[This message has been edited by Paradise Lost (edited 11-19-2005).]

I think the forum Champ is ArgonPlasma... champ of being an idiot!

quote:Originally posted by Cpt.Winters:

I think the forum Champ is ArgonPlasma... champ of being an idiot!



He's like a Snoopy-wannabe, only a lot less funny.

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

ill stay on this topic for awhile, i have a message for all that believe in evolution

When can we expect this gem?

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.

- Isaac Asimov

Everything is a theory, because everything boils down to the subatomic level and its relationships functions and laws, and beyond that we have yet to delve there in sufficient capacity.

<g> you dont seem to have much luck of getting answers to your original question :P

At least here, evolution wasnt taught much in biology, as it was more concentrated on genetics and different plants&things here at the moment. Then again, in religion classes, creationism wasnt pointed out either, but they concentrated on different religions, and life of Jesus. And later, our religion teacher snapped and thought that cats were to rule the earth as the monarcs of Britain... but that's a whole different story.

In short, here, no one gives a shit about the evolution/creationism debate. It's deemed so pointless, that it doesnt get any attention.

Oh, and of things being created as they are now, without any evolution in between; there are some....things... alive this day, of which we cant say if they are animals or plants. One celled things with both chlorophyll and an eye, fungi with memory, etc...

as a brittuner i can say that no debate exists here about whether to teach id in schools, anyone who suggested that id was taught in school would get laughed at, and rightly so.

maybe id SHOULD be taught in america, making the next generation of americans into idiots, while we europeans take over their country with gene warfare and an army of clones! mwahahahaha, they do not have the scientific knowhow to defeat us, mwahahaha, look at them praying mwahahahaha WHAT! What is that wall of water! why is it suddenly stormy?!?!? who is that big guy in the hole in the clouds!!!!

"God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining." - Douglas Adams