Why do people reject evolution?

[disgruntledgamer]

Alrighty the comparison was bad. just a disclaimer first i do believe in evolution. what i have been arguing in the not the falsehood of either point of view. I've been trying to comment that a creationist aint likely to change their mind or an evolutionist.

The evidence is overwhelming for both sides according to both sides. Evolutionists say it is 99% proven. Creationists (or intelligent design-ers?)say their theory is 99% proven. They are sill theories and not proven 100% beyond a doubt(like gravity), creationism or intelligent design has therefore just as much merit as evolution just depends on who you talk to. As in they both do have the right to be taught. In a class, and yes a science class; they are scientific theories.

The argument of 'well since they're teaching intelligent design, they have to teach every other creation story' not really. Most other creation stories aren't called science by a vast majority of the USA or their believers. according to PEW 78% percent of the USA is a form of christian. And I'd bet my hat a majority like to believe their creation story. So lets say only 73% of the USA believes in the creation story, well fuck now democracy kicks in.

Any-who you aren't in school I'm guessing, and if you have kids you can nudge them in what ever direction you want. There is no point in arguing. A creationist, intelligent designer, evolutionist or a pastafarian is not going to change their opinion if the truly have faith in their beliefs. As in it aint no skin of your dick.

1. Well for starter evolutionist can actually show you why it's 99% proven, we can give you facts, evidence, observations, and experiments while Creationist / Intelligent Designers show you the bible, there is absolute no evidence to support creation.

2. No creationism isn't a scientific theory it doesn't even qualify as a hypotheses, it's basically an untested idea, if you don't understand why this is watch my video on Creation Science made easy video I posted a few pages back.

3. Listen 78% percent of the USA can believe in creation if they want to, they can tech creation in their church if they want to, but not in a science class room because it's not science, just like saying "God told me to run over my husband" is not an acceptable excuse in court.

4. You got it right when you called creation a story because it is a story nothing more nothing less. stories are fine just not in a science class room.

5. Yes it is skin off my member, because it's taking away from real science, there's a thing called separation from church and state, and the church has no place in a public class room just like it has no place in a court room.

 

[dslatch]

As i have said countless times on this damn thread. ready for it. there is no sense i trying to convince others.

No, there is indeed not. But it is kind of sense in pointing out fallacies in arguments so undecided people are not being tricked by false evidence and such.
If anyone tells me that the eye could not have evolved because "what use is half an eye?" I'll sure as hell point out how even a simple photoreceptor to distinguish light from dark has exellently aided earthworms for millennia.

A vote does not effect scientific theory, it effects curriculum's made by school boards. A school board in the bible belt will approve it, one in silicon valley will not.

I was talk a creationism when I was in school I think grade 5. it didn't destroy my mind, when my parent learned they asked which one i believed i said 'i didn't understand either of them' (i later chose the one with hairless monkey's(why did we evolve out of the tail?)).

Votes affecting curricula is exactly why we can't have close-minded YEC in those school boards. Because a) teaching religious topics outside of non-mandatory religion classes is against any constitution (especially the US) and b) teaching lies as facts is harmful to society as a whole. It's good that you didn't get swayed by either concept until you were old enough to properly think for yourself but that doesn't mean that everyone else will also be uninfluenced. Especially considering how there's private schools where they ONLY teach YEC.

And tails are kind of unnecessary for our lifestyle. Even our closest cousins, the big apes, don't have tails because they are simply of no use when you spend most of your time on the ground. They are essential for a tree-life for grabbing and balancing, once you spend a lot time on the ground and/or get big enough a tail won't do much for you.

When i said gravity was proven i meant... pick up a pen, hold it above your head and release it where does it go, in the general direction of the earths core. Proven in the sense that we know it's there. And how about a new comparison: All matter has mass.

Pick up a batch of E.coli, put it on a citrate basis and watch it evolve outside of its genetic baseset. The only thing hindering you is access to these things, not how easy they are to do. Not that there isn't enough evidence right in everyday things. Actually, why don't you just pick up antibiotics and take them for everything and observe that at some point it won't help anymore, that's a pretty good example, especially for the US with its idiotic "antibiotics free for everyone all the time" policy.
New comparison from me then: all life has common and similar structures

Creationism isn't science, intelligent design is a bit closer to science i consider it a contrary theory to evolution that deserves to be heard. an argument is both ways. as in i wont pull my kids out of a school because i do not agree with what is being taught. I will just teach the other side and try to nudge them towards whichever one i agree with... cats are cute. if the floggings could instill manners like please and thank you opening doors for others, human dignity respect and the Socratic method i wouldn't mind.

Creationism is almost identical to Intelligent Design, only that the word "god" is replaced by "intelligent designer".
I suggest you read up on the <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>Kitzmiller v. Dover creationist trial (or the <url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI>full doku on youtube), the only instance where we have found a creationist transitional fossil, <url=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists>Cdesign proponentsists.
Once again, ID is no scientific theory in any proper meaning of the word and can never be, the only place it has in a biology class is to show and disprove its flaws and partly stupidity and why it is an exellent example for a pseudo-science.

Very well made argument. Just one thing though, the people of YEC do not see ID as a lie.

I do not mind if ID is taught, if the other is taught as well. Otherwise where is the fun that. The point of a science class in my opinion is to teach and make one think. It's harder to think of one thing and accept it if there is nothing to compare it to.

 

[dslatch]

Don't take offense but you sound a tad anti-religious. I'll say it a again. my point is good luck shaking the resolve of a believer. And so what if they research it, if they have faith they will not falter. Belief and faith do not need facts they need faith in beliefs.

NOW im off to work...

Well, I may sound that way but I am not anti-religious per se. I consider myself agnostic - and I am against religious institutions.

But that is not the talk here. I don't want to convince someone to throw away his beliefs - evolution does not contradict the belief in a deity, it just contradicts a small part of most beliefs that have more in common with fairytails than anything grounded in reality. What I want is to correct someone on his mistakes. Like I pointed out your false example with taste in music. Science is not a belief (even though some people may treat it like that) simply because there is evidence and experiments everyone can recreate with a few basic tools. Religion lacks those and thus a theistic belief has no groundation in facts or reality.

And I would get my kids out of a school that consideres that any kind of science class should teach creationism or ID. Both are not even close to be considered a scientific hypothesis simply because we can't test it and thus have no place in any discussion regarding science. They are not equal and should not be taught as such because this would be just a big, fat lie.

This is just a small example but: I was taught creationism and ID in school. I was taught by a religious teacher in religion-classes. Where he taught us not only the christian belief but from every mainstream religion there is: Hindu, Buddhismus, Islam, Judaismus and Christianity. And he always made clear that all those ideas (the best description for that) are just that - ideas with no basis in science. Another relgion teacher also taught biology, he lost his faith during the theology studies and considered himself atheistic. He did the same but also taught evolution in biology where it was quite a pain to hammer it in people heads that there is no such thing as micro- and macroevolution.

Don't take offense but you sound a tad anti-religious. I'll say it a again. my point is good luck shaking the resolve of a believer. And so what if they research it, if they have faith they will not falter. Belief and faith do not need facts they need faith in beliefs.

NOW im off to work...

Well, I may sound that way but I am not anti-religious per se. I consider myself agnostic - and I am against religious institutions.

But that is not the talk here. I don't want to convince someone to throw away his beliefs - evolution does not contradict the belief in a deity, it just contradicts a small part of most beliefs that have more in common with fairytails than anything grounded in reality. What I want is to correct someone on his mistakes. Like I pointed out your false example with taste in music. Science is not a belief (even though some people may treat it like that) simply because there is evidence and experiments everyone can recreate with a few basic tools. Religion lacks those and thus a theistic belief has no groundation in facts or reality.

And I would get my kids out of a school that consideres that any kind of science class should teach creationism or ID. Both are not even close to be considered a scientific hypothesis simply because we can't test it and thus have no place in any discussion regarding science. They are not equal and should not be taught as such because this would be just a big, fat lie.

This is just a small example but: I was taught creationism and ID in school. I was taught by a religious teacher in religion-classes. Where he taught us not only the christian belief but from every mainstream religion there is: Hindu, Buddhismus, Islam, Judaismus and Christianity. And he always made clear that all those ideas (the best description for that) are just that - ideas with no basis in science. Another relgion teacher also taught biology, he lost his faith during the theology studies and considered himself atheistic. He did the same but also taught evolution in biology where it was quite a pain to hammer it in people heads that there is no such thing as micro- and macroevolution.

Displacing a kid because you do not agree with one lesson seems a tad drastic. Remember when it comes down to it your the largest influence on your kid just nudge them in the direction of whichever lesson you believe thy should accept.

Also a wold religions class is like driving stick, it should be a mandatory class. Say you area young christian la with his rosy cheeks and stars in his eyes, that has only been taught ID. That child's perception on that topic has been shattered and his point of view was not even worthy of a mention.

 

[dslatch]

snip

Snap

Snippity

Snappity

I never said they couldn't be wrong. What I meant by 'Its no skin off your dick' is it aint your problem, and there is no point in trying to fix their 'problem' of ignorance(I hear that shit is bliss).

But he's right that your initial comparison was a bad one. You compared things that cannot be wrong to things that can.

Plus, what about the fact that they try to teach it in school? Is it cool to teach kids known falsehoods as truth in school?

Alrighty the comparison was bad. just a disclaimer first i do believe in evolution. what i have been arguing in the not the falsehood of either point of view. I've been trying to comment that a creationist aint likely to change their mind or an evolutionist.

That it's unlikely doesn't matter.

The evidence is overwhelming for both sides according to both sides. Evolutionists say it is 99% proven. Creationists (or intelligent design-ers?)say their theory is 99% proven. They are sill theories and not proven 100% beyond a doubt(like gravity), creationism or intelligent design has therefore just as much merit as evolution just depends on who you talk to. As in they both do have the right to be taught. In a class, and yes a science class; they are scientific theories.

Stupid false equivalence. Evolution is more proven and it is actually accepted by scientists in the field. That's what matters. Creationism is rejected by scientists.

Also don't give that stupid 'only a theory' bullshit, it's already been shot down in this thread. 'Depending on how you talk to' is a retarded argument. And not all theories are equal. And it is not a scientific theory just because you're not smart enough to know what one is.

The argument of 'well since they're teaching intelligent design, they have to teach every other creation story' not really. Most other creation stories aren't called science by a vast majority of the USA or their believers. according to PEW 78% percent of the USA is a form of christian. And I'd bet my hat a majority like to believe their creation story. So lets say only 73% of the USA believes in the creation story, well fuck now democracy kicks in.

Creationism isn't science either. Ask the majority of scientists in biology.

Any-who you aren't in school I'm guessing, and if you have kids you can nudge them in what ever direction you want. There is no point in arguing. A creationist, intelligent designer, evolutionist or a pastafarian is not going to change their opinion if the truly have faith in their beliefs. As in it aint no skin of your dick.

It affects society, so repeating that phrase like some redneck doesn't make it true.

snip

Snap

Snippity

Snappity

I never said they couldn't be wrong. What I meant by 'Its no skin off your dick' is it aint your problem, and there is no point in trying to fix their 'problem' of ignorance(I hear that shit is bliss).

But he's right that your initial comparison was a bad one. You compared things that cannot be wrong to things that can.

Plus, what about the fact that they try to teach it in school? Is it cool to teach kids known falsehoods as truth in school?

Alrighty the comparison was bad. just a disclaimer first i do believe in evolution. what i have been arguing in the not the falsehood of either point of view. I've been trying to comment that a creationist aint likely to change their mind or an evolutionist.

That it's unlikely doesn't matter.

The evidence is overwhelming for both sides according to both sides. Evolutionists say it is 99% proven. Creationists (or intelligent design-ers?)say their theory is 99% proven. They are sill theories and not proven 100% beyond a doubt(like gravity), creationism or intelligent design has therefore just as much merit as evolution just depends on who you talk to. As in they both do have the right to be taught. In a class, and yes a science class; they are scientific theories.

Stupid false equivalence. Evolution is more proven and it is actually accepted by scientists in the field. That's what matters. Creationism is rejected by scientists.

Also don't give that stupid 'only a theory' bullshit, it's already been shot down in this thread. 'Depending on how you talk to' is a retarded argument. And not all theories are equal. And it is not a scientific theory just because you're not smart enough to know what one is.

The argument of 'well since they're teaching intelligent design, they have to teach every other creation story' not really. Most other creation stories aren't called science by a vast majority of the USA or their believers. according to PEW 78% percent of the USA is a form of christian. And I'd bet my hat a majority like to believe their creation story. So lets say only 73% of the USA believes in the creation story, well fuck now democracy kicks in.

Creationism isn't science either. Ask the majority of scientists in biology.

Any-who you aren't in school I'm guessing, and if you have kids you can nudge them in what ever direction you want. There is no point in arguing. A creationist, intelligent designer, evolutionist or a pastafarian is not going to change their opinion if the truly have faith in their beliefs. As in it aint no skin of your dick.

It affects society, so repeating that phrase like some redneck doesn't make it true.

Sir I was never disrespectful to you. I never insulted you. I will not dignify you with a response. If you would like continue a respectful argument I require an apology and a reword of your argument. Until that unlikely day I bid you good day.

 

[Quaxar]

Very well made argument. Just one thing though, the people of YEC do not see ID as a lie.

I do not mind if ID is taught, if the other is taught as well. Otherwise where is the fun that. The point of a science class in my opinion is to teach and make one think. It's harder to think of one thing and accept it if there is nothing to compare it to.

Thank you.
Yeah, they generally don't see them as lies but sometimes I wonder just what those supposed creation-"scientists" with proper university PhDs actually think about their arguments. If a layman tried to use Irreducible Complexity no problem, I can see that the topic is hard to understand if you're badly informed. But if someone who has a PhD in chemistry tries the same argument (in a way that I had literally explained to me the first ever biology lecture I went to) or a geology professor publishes "proof" of a 6000-year old earth one has to wonder whether they are simply ignorant of the facts (and subsequently worry about their career and academical credibility) or knowingly publish false statements (and subsequently worry about their character and credibility).

As I said, I do not oppose presenting it in a biology class in the same way we present Lamarckism and Catastrophism, outdated speculations but useful for analysis of their fallacies. But I will strongly protest any suggestion of presenting it as somehow an equally valid alternative to an established scientific theory.

 

[dslatch]

Alrighty the comparison was bad. just a disclaimer first i do believe in evolution. what i have been arguing in the not the falsehood of either point of view. I've been trying to comment that a creationist aint likely to change their mind or an evolutionist.

The evidence is overwhelming for both sides according to both sides. Evolutionists say it is 99% proven. Creationists (or intelligent design-ers?)say their theory is 99% proven. They are sill theories and not proven 100% beyond a doubt(like gravity), creationism or intelligent design has therefore just as much merit as evolution just depends on who you talk to. As in they both do have the right to be taught. In a class, and yes a science class; they are scientific theories.

The argument of 'well since they're teaching intelligent design, they have to teach every other creation story' not really. Most other creation stories aren't called science by a vast majority of the USA or their believers. according to PEW 78% percent of the USA is a form of christian. And I'd bet my hat a majority like to believe their creation story. So lets say only 73% of the USA believes in the creation story, well fuck now democracy kicks in.

Any-who you aren't in school I'm guessing, and if you have kids you can nudge them in what ever direction you want. There is no point in arguing. A creationist, intelligent designer, evolutionist or a pastafarian is not going to change their opinion if the truly have faith in their beliefs. As in it aint no skin of your dick.

1. I didn't say either is 99% proven. I said this what both sides say about their theory.

2. I will reword my statement. Just theory instead of Scientific Theory.

3. I agree that is a poor excuse to run a person down. I say if a school board votes it into the curriculum it has full rights to be there, just put an '*' next to it to state it is only hypothesis.

4. Stories are nice in ay class room ex. Archimedes and the golden crown.

5. Separation of church and state doesn't work we all have to come to accept that.

 

[dslatch]

Very well made argument. Just one thing though, the people of YEC do not see ID as a lie.

I do not mind if ID is taught, if the other is taught as well. Otherwise where is the fun that. The point of a science class in my opinion is to teach and make one think. It's harder to think of one thing and accept it if there is nothing to compare it to.

Thank you.
Yeah, they generally don't see them as lies but sometimes I wonder just what those supposed creation-"scientists" with proper university PhDs actually think about their arguments. If a layman tried to use Irreducible Complexity no problem, I can see that the topic is hard to understand if you're badly informed. But if someone who has a PhD in chemistry tries the same argument (in a way that I had literally explained to me the first ever biology lecture I went to) or a geology professor publishes "proof" of a 6000-year old earth one has to wonder whether they are simply ignorant of the facts (and subsequently worry about their career and academical credibility) or knowingly publish false statements (and subsequently worry about their character and credibility).

As I said, I do not oppose presenting it in a biology class in the same way we present Lamarckism and Catastrophism, outdated speculations but useful for analysis of their fallacies. But I will strongly protest any suggestion of presenting it as somehow an equally valid alternative to an established scientific theory.

It does not have to be presented equally. Just add an '*'.

It was fun arguing with you. An excellent example the Socratic method if i do say. thank you for keeping it respectful.

 

[Eddie the head]

When i pulled the 78% number it was 4 or 5 in the morning after waking because of insomnia, as in was I wrong.

Regardless the U.S is a Republic witch means it's ruled by law. It doesn't matter if 99.99% of the country thinks something. If It's against the law, it's against the law. And it's against the law to teach religion as truth. And that's what Creationism and intelligent design are.

 

[dslatch]

snip

Snap

Snippity

Snappity

I never said they couldn't be wrong. What I meant by 'Its no skin off your dick' is it aint your problem, and there is no point in trying to fix their 'problem' of ignorance(I hear that shit is bliss).

But he's right that your initial comparison was a bad one. You compared things that cannot be wrong to things that can.

Plus, what about the fact that they try to teach it in school? Is it cool to teach kids known falsehoods as truth in school?

Alrighty the comparison was bad. just a disclaimer first i do believe in evolution. what i have been arguing in the not the falsehood of either point of view. I've been trying to comment that a creationist aint likely to change their mind or an evolutionist.

That it's unlikely doesn't matter.

The evidence is overwhelming for both sides according to both sides. Evolutionists say it is 99% proven. Creationists (or intelligent design-ers?)say their theory is 99% proven. They are sill theories and not proven 100% beyond a doubt(like gravity), creationism or intelligent design has therefore just as much merit as evolution just depends on who you talk to. As in they both do have the right to be taught. In a class, and yes a science class; they are scientific theories.

Stupid false equivalence. Evolution is more proven and it is actually accepted by scientists in the field. That's what matters. Creationism is rejected by scientists.

Also don't give that stupid 'only a theory' bullshit, it's already been shot down in this thread. 'Depending on how you talk to' is a retarded argument. And not all theories are equal. And it is not a scientific theory just because you're not smart enough to know what one is.

The argument of 'well since they're teaching intelligent design, they have to teach every other creation story' not really. Most other creation stories aren't called science by a vast majority of the USA or their believers. according to PEW 78% percent of the USA is a form of christian. And I'd bet my hat a majority like to believe their creation story. So lets say only 73% of the USA believes in the creation story, well fuck now democracy kicks in.

Creationism isn't science either. Ask the majority of scientists in biology.

Any-who you aren't in school I'm guessing, and if you have kids you can nudge them in what ever direction you want. There is no point in arguing. A creationist, intelligent designer, evolutionist or a pastafarian is not going to change their opinion if the truly have faith in their beliefs. As in it aint no skin of your dick.

It affects society, so repeating that phrase like some redneck doesn't make it true.

snip

Snap

Snippity

Snappity

I never said they couldn't be wrong. What I meant by 'Its no skin off your dick' is it aint your problem, and there is no point in trying to fix their 'problem' of ignorance(I hear that shit is bliss).

But he's right that your initial comparison was a bad one. You compared things that cannot be wrong to things that can.

Plus, what about the fact that they try to teach it in school? Is it cool to teach kids known falsehoods as truth in school?

Alrighty the comparison was bad. just a disclaimer first i do believe in evolution. what i have been arguing in the not the falsehood of either point of view. I've been trying to comment that a creationist aint likely to change their mind or an evolutionist.

That it's unlikely doesn't matter.

The evidence is overwhelming for both sides according to both sides. Evolutionists say it is 99% proven. Creationists (or intelligent design-ers?)say their theory is 99% proven. They are sill theories and not proven 100% beyond a doubt(like gravity), creationism or intelligent design has therefore just as much merit as evolution just depends on who you talk to. As in they both do have the right to be taught. In a class, and yes a science class; they are scientific theories.

Stupid false equivalence. Evolution is more proven and it is actually accepted by scientists in the field. That's what matters. Creationism is rejected by scientists.

Also don't give that stupid 'only a theory' bullshit, it's already been shot down in this thread. 'Depending on how you talk to' is a retarded argument. And not all theories are equal. And it is not a scientific theory just because you're not smart enough to know what one is.

The argument of 'well since they're teaching intelligent design, they have to teach every other creation story' not really. Most other creation stories aren't called science by a vast majority of the USA or their believers. according to PEW 78% percent of the USA is a form of christian. And I'd bet my hat a majority like to believe their creation story. So lets say only 73% of the USA believes in the creation story, well fuck now democracy kicks in.

Creationism isn't science either. Ask the majority of scientists in biology.

Any-who you aren't in school I'm guessing, and if you have kids you can nudge them in what ever direction you want. There is no point in arguing. A creationist, intelligent designer, evolutionist or a pastafarian is not going to change their opinion if the truly have faith in their beliefs. As in it aint no skin of your dick.

It affects society, so repeating that phrase like some redneck doesn't make it true.

Sir I was never disrespectful to you. I never insulted you. I will not dignify you with a response. If you would like continue a respectful argument I require an apology and a reword of your argument. Until that unlikely day I bid you good day.

I'd say making things up isn't very respectful. Such a waste of people's time. As is bringing up things that were debunked a million and one times.

Waiting on that apology. i love discussion on such a topic as this. Though it much more fun for everybody to keep it respectful.

 

[dslatch]

Very well made argument. Just one thing though, the people of YEC do not see ID as a lie.

I do not mind if ID is taught, if the other is taught as well. Otherwise where is the fun that. The point of a science class in my opinion is to teach and make one think. It's harder to think of one thing and accept it if there is nothing to compare it to.

A little quote from House, M.D. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92Im6yyrdGs&t=14s] comes to mind.

If you do not mind if ID is taught, you are still missing the point. ID is no science, and it at no point deserves to be taught as science. As someone pointed out already, it's not a theory. And by most scientific definitions of a hypothesis that I've heard, it's not even that. Elevating ID to either of those statuses is a disservice to science and truth-seeking in general.

Be honest here, do you really see no reason to oppose the teaching of ID in classes? What about alternate theories (in the loosest, least scientific sense of the word) on other subjects?

Schools are there to teach people things, not to let them decide between the reality and the fantasy.

I really don't. A well informed individual is at no risk of harm, and this keeps everybody happy as long as it is done right. Teach neither as fact but just remind the student that one has no approved proof of it, but is still a theory(not saying a scientific one).

 

[dslatch]

When i pulled the 78% number it was 4 or 5 in the morning after waking because of insomnia, as in was I wrong.

Regardless the U.S is a Republic witch means it's ruled by law. It doesn't matter if 99.99% of the country thinks something. If It's against the law, it's against the law. And it's against the law to teach religion as truth. And that's what Creationism and intelligent design are.

The USA is a democracy in everything but name, it's like how my government is socialist in everything but name(which i don't mind a bit). But this is a discussion for a different thread.

 

[dslatch]

snip

Snap

Snippity

Snappity

I never said they couldn't be wrong. What I meant by 'Its no skin off your dick' is it aint your problem, and there is no point in trying to fix their 'problem' of ignorance(I hear that shit is bliss).

But he's right that your initial comparison was a bad one. You compared things that cannot be wrong to things that can.

Plus, what about the fact that they try to teach it in school? Is it cool to teach kids known falsehoods as truth in school?

Alrighty the comparison was bad. just a disclaimer first i do believe in evolution. what i have been arguing in the not the falsehood of either point of view. I've been trying to comment that a creationist aint likely to change their mind or an evolutionist.

That it's unlikely doesn't matter.

The evidence is overwhelming for both sides according to both sides. Evolutionists say it is 99% proven. Creationists (or intelligent design-ers?)say their theory is 99% proven. They are sill theories and not proven 100% beyond a doubt(like gravity), creationism or intelligent design has therefore just as much merit as evolution just depends on who you talk to. As in they both do have the right to be taught. In a class, and yes a science class; they are scientific theories.

Stupid false equivalence. Evolution is more proven and it is actually accepted by scientists in the field. That's what matters. Creationism is rejected by scientists.

Also don't give that stupid 'only a theory' bullshit, it's already been shot down in this thread. 'Depending on how you talk to' is a retarded argument. And not all theories are equal. And it is not a scientific theory just because you're not smart enough to know what one is.

The argument of 'well since they're teaching intelligent design, they have to teach every other creation story' not really. Most other creation stories aren't called science by a vast majority of the USA or their believers. according to PEW 78% percent of the USA is a form of christian. And I'd bet my hat a majority like to believe their creation story. So lets say only 73% of the USA believes in the creation story, well fuck now democracy kicks in.

Creationism isn't science either. Ask the majority of scientists in biology.

Any-who you aren't in school I'm guessing, and if you have kids you can nudge them in what ever direction you want. There is no point in arguing. A creationist, intelligent designer, evolutionist or a pastafarian is not going to change their opinion if the truly have faith in their beliefs. As in it aint no skin of your dick.

It affects society, so repeating that phrase like some redneck doesn't make it true.

snip

Snap

Snippity

Snappity

I never said they couldn't be wrong. What I meant by 'Its no skin off your dick' is it aint your problem, and there is no point in trying to fix their 'problem' of ignorance(I hear that shit is bliss).

But he's right that your initial comparison was a bad one. You compared things that cannot be wrong to things that can.

Plus, what about the fact that they try to teach it in school? Is it cool to teach kids known falsehoods as truth in school?

Alrighty the comparison was bad. just a disclaimer first i do believe in evolution. what i have been arguing in the not the falsehood of either point of view. I've been trying to comment that a creationist aint likely to change their mind or an evolutionist.

That it's unlikely doesn't matter.

The evidence is overwhelming for both sides according to both sides. Evolutionists say it is 99% proven. Creationists (or intelligent design-ers?)say their theory is 99% proven. They are sill theories and not proven 100% beyond a doubt(like gravity), creationism or intelligent design has therefore just as much merit as evolution just depends on who you talk to. As in they both do have the right to be taught. In a class, and yes a science class; they are scientific theories.

Stupid false equivalence. Evolution is more proven and it is actually accepted by scientists in the field. That's what matters. Creationism is rejected by scientists.

Also don't give that stupid 'only a theory' bullshit, it's already been shot down in this thread. 'Depending on how you talk to' is a retarded argument. And not all theories are equal. And it is not a scientific theory just because you're not smart enough to know what one is.

The argument of 'well since they're teaching intelligent design, they have to teach every other creation story' not really. Most other creation stories aren't called science by a vast majority of the USA or their believers. according to PEW 78% percent of the USA is a form of christian. And I'd bet my hat a majority like to believe their creation story. So lets say only 73% of the USA believes in the creation story, well fuck now democracy kicks in.

Creationism isn't science either. Ask the majority of scientists in biology.

Any-who you aren't in school I'm guessing, and if you have kids you can nudge them in what ever direction you want. There is no point in arguing. A creationist, intelligent designer, evolutionist or a pastafarian is not going to change their opinion if the truly have faith in their beliefs. As in it aint no skin of your dick.

It affects society, so repeating that phrase like some redneck doesn't make it true.

Sir I was never disrespectful to you. I never insulted you. I will not dignify you with a response. If you would like continue a respectful argument I require an apology and a reword of your argument. Until that unlikely day I bid you good day.

I'd say making things up isn't very respectful. Such a waste of people's time. As is bringing up things that were debunked a million and one times.

Waiting on that apology. i love discussion on such a topic as this. Though it much more fun for everybody to keep it respectful.

Taking your time to write an apology for using that overused and shot down argument about the word 'theory'? Okay, take your time.

I have nothing to apologize for. Any-hoo have a good life sir, because I can't see one such as yourself ever evolving enough to learn proper etiquette.

 

[Quaxar]

snip

Seriously, you're not exactly helping with that approach and he does kind of have a point, your initial post was a tad bit aggressive. I can see why but I believe if we stayed ALL civil it'd be a much nicer climate for discussions and we wouldn't have to endure the "see, told you these threads turn into flaming" posts.

Very well made argument. Just one thing though, the people of YEC do not see ID as a lie.

I do not mind if ID is taught, if the other is taught as well. Otherwise where is the fun that. The point of a science class in my opinion is to teach and make one think. It's harder to think of one thing and accept it if there is nothing to compare it to.

Thank you.
Yeah, they generally don't see them as lies but sometimes I wonder just what those supposed creation-"scientists" with proper university PhDs actually think about their arguments. If a layman tried to use Irreducible Complexity no problem, I can see that the topic is hard to understand if you're badly informed. But if someone who has a PhD in chemistry tries the same argument (in a way that I had literally explained to me the first ever biology lecture I went to) or a geology professor publishes "proof" of a 6000-year old earth one has to wonder whether they are simply ignorant of the facts (and subsequently worry about their career and academical credibility) or knowingly publish false statements (and subsequently worry about their character and credibility).

As I said, I do not oppose presenting it in a biology class in the same way we present Lamarckism and Catastrophism, outdated speculations but useful for analysis of their fallacies. But I will strongly protest any suggestion of presenting it as somehow an equally valid alternative to an established scientific theory.

It does not have to be presented equally. Just add an '*'.

It was fun arguing with you. An excellent example the Socratic method if i do say. thank you for keeping it respectful.

If it were that easy in some areas... I don't remember which county or state it was but somewhere in the bible belt biology books now have stickers saying "this is just a theory and not proven".

Anyway, yes, likewise. I enjoy arguing in this thread because I can at least pretend like this is connected to my big biology exam about this topic coming up in a week... I should really go back to the books.

 

[dslatch]

snip

Seriously, you're not exactly helping with that approach and he does kind of have a point, your initial post was a tad bit aggressive. I can see why but I believe if we stayed ALL civil it'd be a much nicer climate for discussions and we wouldn't have to endure the "see, told you these threads turn into flaming" posts.

Very well made argument. Just one thing though, the people of YEC do not see ID as a lie.

I do not mind if ID is taught, if the other is taught as well. Otherwise where is the fun that. The point of a science class in my opinion is to teach and make one think. It's harder to think of one thing and accept it if there is nothing to compare it to.

Thank you.
Yeah, they generally don't see them as lies but sometimes I wonder just what those supposed creation-"scientists" with proper university PhDs actually think about their arguments. If a layman tried to use Irreducible Complexity no problem, I can see that the topic is hard to understand if you're badly informed. But if someone who has a PhD in chemistry tries the same argument (in a way that I had literally explained to me the first ever biology lecture I went to) or a geology professor publishes "proof" of a 6000-year old earth one has to wonder whether they are simply ignorant of the facts (and subsequently worry about their career and academical credibility) or knowingly publish false statements (and subsequently worry about their character and credibility).

As I said, I do not oppose presenting it in a biology class in the same way we present Lamarckism and Catastrophism, outdated speculations but useful for analysis of their fallacies. But I will strongly protest any suggestion of presenting it as somehow an equally valid alternative to an established scientific theory.

It does not have to be presented equally. Just add an '*'.

It was fun arguing with you. An excellent example the Socratic method if i do say. thank you for keeping it respectful.

If it were that easy in some areas... I don't remember which county or state it was but somewhere in the bible belt biology books now have stickers saying "this is just a theory and not proven".

Andway, yes, likewise. I enjoy arguing in this thread because I can at least pretend like this is connected to my big biology exam about this topic coming up in a week... I should really go back to the books.

Good luck with the exam bro.

 

[Eddie the head]

When i pulled the 78% number it was 4 or 5 in the morning after waking because of insomnia, as in was I wrong.

Regardless the U.S is a Republic witch means it's ruled by law. It doesn't matter if 99.99% of the country thinks something. If It's against the law, it's against the law. And it's against the law to teach religion as truth. And that's what Creationism and intelligent design are.

The USA is a democracy in everything but name, it's like how my government is socialist in everything but name(which i don't mind a bit). But this is a discussion for a different thread.

Your not wrong but, it's more right to say it's a Republic. If I asked you the shape of the earth and you said round. Your not wrong but it's more right to say it's an ellipsoid. Hell it's in the pledge of allegiance "and the Republic for which it stands." It's a republic that's the most correct way to say it.

 

[dslatch]

I really don't. A well informed individual is at no risk of harm, and this keeps everybody happy as long as it is done right. Teach neither as fact but just remind the student that one has no approved proof of it, but is still a theory(not saying a scientific one).

One thing you're forgetting is that people in class, like children, generally are not informed.

And you're wrong. Evolution is a fact.

Why would you teach what is basically nonsensical, incoherent guesswork in a class?

The child will be informed if they have been taught, and are free to choose which one makes more sense to them.

"And you're wrong. Evolution is a fact." to answer that, well simply enough I think I was having two or three thoughts at once and didn't proofread. Simple answer - Miss type.

To teach the scientific method actually. Think about it, showing a flaw can show one what not to do. also keeps everybody happy.

 

[dslatch]

When i pulled the 78% number it was 4 or 5 in the morning after waking because of insomnia, as in was I wrong.

Regardless the U.S is a Republic witch means it's ruled by law. It doesn't matter if 99.99% of the country thinks something. If It's against the law, it's against the law. And it's against the law to teach religion as truth. And that's what Creationism and intelligent design are.

The USA is a democracy in everything but name, it's like how my government is socialist in everything but name(which i don't mind a bit). But this is a discussion for a different thread.

Your not wrong but, it's more right to say it's a Republic. If I asked you the shape of the earth and you said round. Your not wrong but it's more right to say it's an ellipsoid. Hell it's in the pledge of allegiance "and the Republic for which it stands." It's a republic that's the most correct way to say it.

The word pseudo[-insert government here-] and the '*' come to mind when it comes to this one. When one joins the army here they essentially swear fealty to the queen, that does not make them a British subject or her the leader of Canada.

 

[Eddie the head]

The word pseudo[-insert government here-] and the '*' come to mind when it comes to this one. When one joins the army here they essiantly swear fealty to the

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[dslatch]

The word pseudo[-insert government here-] and the '*' come to mind when it comes to this one. When one joins the army here they essiantly swear fealty to the [EDIT] queen, that does not make them a British subject or her the leader of Canada

What the hell are you talking about?

PC crashed and in the confusion the post button was clicked.

 

[Eddie the head]

The word pseudo[-insert government here-] and the '*' come to mind when it comes to this one. When one joins the army here they essiantly swear fealty to the [EDIT] queen, that does not make them a British subject or her the leader of Canada

What the hell are you talking about?

PC crashed and in the confusion the post button was clicked.

Still no impact. The U.S is a republic, not a "pseudorepublc." It's a republic. This isn't a debate I don't know why you think it is? You also are confusing economic systems with forums of government. But lest just ignore that for now. I got to go to work, now.