Teach both Theories

[Asimov]

Hey, that's a good idea. You guys should take it to the real section of formal debate.

We never use it, it would be cool to see one in action again!

 

It doesn't even have to be daniel...could be anyone.

[Sokudo Ningyou]

....I could just never figure out why it's more plausible that we were created from worm shit and bone than a slow, gradual process of adaptation and growth. And even I'll admit science may not know everything, but it's a damn sight better at trying to figure it out than "Duuuh...God did it."

 

Though alchemy would be fun to learn in school. It could be an art credit or a philosophy credit, expounding upon the theories of old and how they do and do not work in modern times. Kids could try to create gold out of lead.

[Fweethawt]

mathematics - numerology

 

medicine - homeopathy

meteorology -  sacrifices to the gods

telecommuncations - telepathy

The Periodic Table - The Four Elements

Psychology - Scientology

 

Wait, maybe that should be

 

Scientology vs. Psychology

 

Creation - As many years as you need for it to make sense.

Then there's my favorite -- Biological reproduction - Stork story

 

[narcissist]

daniel_1012 - Christian

[Saviourmachine]

Although in some other domain:

 

Humanism - Perfectionism

[Mr. Neil]

science - calvinism

[Rachelness]

I challenge you to a formal debate, any reasonable topic in regards to Evolution and Creation.

 

I will not use talkorigins.org in any of my references.

I will allow you to choose the topic, however here are some that you might enjoy:

 

Resolved: Is it reasonable to accept Evolution as a scientific theory?

Resolved: Creationism vs. Evolution - which one is more reasonable and fact based?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would love to see this.

[Vulgaris Prime]

Creation - As many years as you need for it to make sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do yourself a favor, you lying scum: Just shut your filthy mouth. All you're doing is proving that you're yet another ignorant troll who won't do anything but sit around sniping at actual facts because GAAAAAAWD told you to.

 

Considering you have no proof for anything, then talk origins, break my faith.

 

"Projection much?"

 

Just stop posting, you ignorant little turd. You're only making yourself look like an idiot.

 

Oh, wait, I know what to put here:

[whatifidontwantausername?]

That's not nice, vulgaris prime. Just because uber christian doesnt want to make sence doesnt mean he is an idiot. He just doesnt have the mental capacity to understand science or what a scientific theory is.

 

For instance: It is my understanding that evolution does not try to explain how life was created or the universe, merely that species change over time to supposedly better species.

 

-jake

[Guest aexapo]

merely that species change over time to supposedly better species.

 

-jake

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

They change as nature sees fit . . . nothing less, nothing more. If, in a thousand years, humans have six fingers, it won't be because our genes decided to plop another another one out, it will because of some change in our environment that would cause a massive die-off where only those with that sixth finger lived and made babies.

 

Such is the essence of "evolution" -- there's no plan or intelligence and no purpose.

 

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

 

If we conquer genetic science, then perhaps there will be a little "intelligent design" to evolution.

 

We will be GODS . . . . muhahahahahaha

 

[/attempttobeanevilatheist]

[a midnight star]

Well, why not teach it all? Just put it in the class teaching myths and legends. That way they can also teach the "creationism" that was and is believed by different cultures, such as the Greeks, Romans, etc....

 

I know that in high school ,senior english was a sort of myth course teaching the gods and goddesses of old. I do not see why creationism couldn't be taught under that format as well.

[Amethyst]

How about freethinking/brainwashing? Reason/delusion? Logic/Blinding stupidity?

 

BTW, I have absolutely no problem with teaching it as mythology. The problem is that those people who advocate ID want it taught as scientific fact.

[Ouroboros]

It doesn't even have to be daniel...could be anyone.

Absolutely. Though Daniel seems to be "aggressive" enough to partake in such endeavor.

[Fweethawt]

Absolutely. Though Daniel seems to be "aggressive" enough to partake in such endeavor.

 

I wonder if Dannyboy saw THIS?

 

 

 

Yes, that's one of my shameless plugs attempting to get people to respond to one of my threads.

 

[a midnight star]

How about freethinking/brainwashing?  Reason/delusion?  Logic/Blinding stupidity?

 

BTW, I have absolutely no problem with teaching it as mythology.  The problem is that those people who advocate ID want it taught as scientific fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Agreed. Science has now decided that NOTHING is fact. Since it keeps changing and new variables are now being discovered (bad choice of words, but the right one won't come) they are consistantly changing what they themselves believe to be true.

 

That being said, on the other side of the coin, I do not believe that evolution should be taught as if it is fact either. There are still too many holes to justify is being taught as fact. Now as an educated guess, or even best scenario would be better. I had this biology professor who would swear that it was a fact as opposed to only a theory, this to me is wrong as well.

 

Simple fact, I too do not believe the biblical creation story, we simply do not know how the galaxy was formed.

[Asimov]

Agreed. Science has now decided that NOTHING is fact. Since it keeps changing and new variables are now being discovered (bad choice of words, but the right one won't come) they are consistantly changing what they themselves believe to be true.

 

That being said, on the other side of the coin, I do not believe that evolution should be taught as if it is fact either. There are still too many holes to justify is being taught as fact. Now as an educated guess, or even best scenario would be better. I had this biology professor who would swear that  it was a fact as opposed to only a theory, this to me is wrong as well.

 

Simple fact, I too do not believe the biblical creation story, we simply do not know how the galaxy was formed.

 

 

Facts are facts...theories explain the facts. It would be nice if people would present some holes in the theory rather than just state that they are there.

[woodsmoke]

Agreed. Science has now decided that NOTHING is fact. Since it keeps changing and new variables are now being discovered (bad choice of words, but the right one won't come) they are consistantly changing what they themselves believe to be true.

 

That being said, on the other side of the coin, I do not believe that evolution should be taught as if it is fact either. There are still too many holes to justify is being taught as fact. Now as an educated guess, or even best scenario would be better. I had this biology professor who would swear that  it was a fact as opposed to only a theory, this to me is wrong as well.

 

Simple fact, I too do not believe the biblical creation story, we simply do not know how the galaxy was formed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've yet to meet a scientist who says this.

 

Plenty of things are fact. 1+1=2 is fact. Gravity is a fact. The three states of water are facts.

 

And yes, evolution is also a proven fact.

 

If I'm remembering correctly, the "theory" isn't concerning evolution itself. That honor goes to the methods used by evolution (i.e. natural selection). I could be wrong on that, so don't quote me on it. I'm sure Zach or Neil could explain it much better than I, but I do know that evolution is a proven fact which takes place on the cellular level 24/7.

[Amethyst]

Science has now decided that NOTHING is fact.

 

No, it's the IDers who have decided that nothing is fact. Most scientists don't support ID.

[crazy-tiger]

Agreed. Science has now decided that NOTHING is fact. Since it keeps changing and new variables are now being discovered (bad choice of words, but the right one won't come) they are consistantly changing what they themselves believe to be true.

 

That being said, on the other side of the coin, I do not believe that evolution should be taught as if it is fact either. There are still too many holes to justify is being taught as fact. Now as an educated guess, or even best scenario would be better. I had this biology professor who would swear that  it was a fact as opposed to only a theory, this to me is wrong as well.

 

Simple fact, I too do not believe the biblical creation story, we simply do not know how the galaxy was formed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Erm... evolution is a fact...

 

We know that evolution happens... that is fact. What we don't know yet is how it happens... that is what the ToE is trying to explain.

 

Teaching evolution as an educated guess would be like teaching that the galaxy is an educated guess. We don't know how either process works, but the end result is right in front of us.

[Godless Dave]

Though alchemy would be fun to learn in school.  It could be an art credit or a philosophy credit, expounding upon the theories of old and how they do and do not work in modern times.    Kids could try to create gold out of lead.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My college used to have a January-term class in alchemy, taught by a chemistry professor. If you turned lead into gold you got an automatic passing grade and didn't have to attend the rest of the class.

[MQTA]

Erm... evolution is a fact...

 

We know that evolution happens... that is fact. What we don't know yet is how it happens... that is what the ToE is trying to explain.

 

Teaching evolution as an educated guess would be like teaching that the galaxy is an educated guess. We don't know how either process works, but the end result is right in front of us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It really doesn't matter WHAT is Taught in schools. School students aren't learning a subject to learn the subject, they're only learning what needs to be put on tests as the 'correct' answer. As long as their brain doesn't go TILT, it's acceptable. And as long as more than 70% of the students can regurgitate answers to test questions, nothing will change.

[crazy-tiger]

It really doesn't matter WHAT is Taught in schools.  School students aren't learning a subject to learn the subject, they're only learning what needs to be put on tests as the 'correct' answer.  As long as their brain doesn't go TILT, it's acceptable.  And as long as more than 70% of the students can regurgitate answers to test questions, nothing will change.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I really wish I couldn't agree with you on that...

[MQTA]

I really wish I couldn't agree with you on that...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

as having a 6th grader who can't answer the questions on homework without help from his parents, who are often stumped and have to relearn old crap or learn the same old crap a new way, y eah, me too.

 

Just last night we were combing his book to answer the questions. NO learning, just finding where in the book the answer to the fill in question is. He has no real interest in learning what's in the book, nor did I, back then.

 

Whatever stood out, I still remember, otherwise it's just combing the book to satisfy his homework and hopefully for him to learn what's going to be on his next test.

 

I also don't think you can teach anyone anything, you can only help them learn it for themselves. Unfortunately, if you fill them with a fantasy foundation, when they hit the real foundation, it'll be harder for them to decipher.

[a midnight star]

As far as "facts" are concerned, scientists will caution you that even though they will appear to be using the term in the same way as everyone else, there are background assumptions which are crucial. When most people refer to a "fact," the are talking about something which is definitely, absolutely and unquestionably true. For scientists, a fact is something which is assumed to be true, at least for the purposes of whatever they are doing at the moment, but which might be refuted at some point.

 

It is this implicit fallibilism which helps differentiate science from other human endeavors. It is certainly the case that scientists will act as if something is definitely true and not give much thought to the possibility that it is wrong - but that doesn't mean that they ignore it completely. This quote from Stephen Jay Gould illustrates the issue nicely:

 

Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. ...In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

 

The key phrase is "provisional consent" - it is accepted as true provisionally, which means only for the time being. It is accepted as true at this time and for this context because we have every reason to do so and no reason not to do so. If, however, good reasons to reconsider this position arise, then we should begin to withdraw our consent.

 

Note also that Gould introduces another important point: for many scientists, once a theory has been confirmed and reconfirmed over and over again, we get to the point that it will be treated as a "fact" for pretty much all contexts and purposes. Scientists may refer to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, but in most contexts Einstein's ideas here are treated as fact - treated as if they are simply true and accurate descriptions about the world.

 

 

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_sci_hypo.htm

 

 

Generally a fact is an event that has happened, or a statement that is generally regarded as true — whether one accepts it as real (true) or not. There are issues concerning whether all statements claimed to be true need be claims of fact. Statements about the truth of a theory or a scientific law, for example, are often regarded as not being claims of fact. Sometimes, of course, there are differences of opinion over what is factual, and there are some methods for attempting to minimize those differences.

 

 

In science, a fact is data supported by a scientific experiment. A fact is an honest observation. A scientific fact is an honest observation seen by many scientists. A scientific fact is a scientific observation that is so accepted that it becomes difficult to consider other interpretations of the data. A fact may tentatively support or refute a model of how the universe works. Facts do not prove a model is correct. One observation of any phenomenon does not prove anything.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

 

I personally do not believe in creationism, but nor do I trust evolution in it's entirety. I simply do not know, and science may think that they know, but only time will tell. I am not going to change my mind on evolution just because I am not an exer. I have seen plenty to suggest that evolution is incorrect. That is my personal opinion and I have a right to it.

[a midnight star]

I've yet to meet a scientist who says this.

 

Plenty of things are fact. 1+1=2 is fact. Gravity is a fact. The three states of water are facts.

 

And yes, evolution is also a proven fact.

 

If I'm remembering correctly, the "theory" isn't concerning evolution itself. That honor goes to the methods used by evolution (i.e. natural selection). I could be wrong on that, so don't quote me on it. I'm sure Zach or Neil could explain it much better than I, but I do know that evolution is a proven fact which takes place on the cellular level 24/7.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

and how many known scientist have you actually met?

 

 

and as far as gravity goes, it too keeps changing. If it is a fact and law, why does it keep changing?

 

The first mathematical formulation of gravity was published in 1687 by Sir Isaac Newton. His law of universal gravitation was the standard theory of gravity until work by Albert Einstein and others on general relativity. Since calculations in general relativity are complicated, and Newtonian gravity is sufficiently accurate for calculations involving weak gravitational fields (e.g., launching rockets, projectiles, pendulums, etc.), Newton's formulae are generally preferred.

 

Steven Weinberg noted that we would still build a suspension bridge to modern gravity theory with Newton's laws. Newton's theory is much simpler than general relativity, and used very often, so it is usually taught first.

 

 

 

Theoretical concerns

There is no prospect of identifying the mediator of gravity. Newton himself felt the inexplicable action at a distance to be unsatisfactory (see "Newton's reservations" below).

Newton's theory requires that gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously. Given classical assumptions of the nature of space and time, this is necessary to preserve the conservation of angular momentum observed by Johannes Kepler. However, it is in direct conflict with Einstein's theory of special relativity which places an upper limit—the speed of light in vacuum—on the velocity at which signals can be transmitted.

[edit]

Disagreement with observation

Newton's theory does not fully explain the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of the planet Mercury. There is a 43 arcsecond per century discrepancy between the Newtonian prediction (resulting from the gravitational tugs of the other planets) and the observed precession3.

The predicted deflection of light by gravity is only half as much as observations of this deflection, which were made after General Relativity was developed in 1915.

The observed fact that gravitational and inertial masses are the same (or at least proportional) for all bodies is unexplained within Newton's system. See equivalence principle.

 

and.....

 

Even to this day, scientists try to challenge General Relativity with more and more precise direct experiments. The goal of these tests is to shed light on the yet unknown relationship between Gravity and Quantum Mechanics. Space probes are used to either make very sensitive measurements over large distances, or to bring the instruments into an environment that is much more controlled than it could be on Earth. For example, in 2004 a dedicated satellite for gravity experiments, called Gravity Probe B, was launched. Also, land-based experiments like LIGO are gearing up to possibly detect gravitational waves directly.

 

So since gravity is a fact.... Which is correct and can you honestly tell me that it won't change again? If it will change, then what will stop the scientist from frinding other varibles and change the THEORY of evolution again? Do you not think that there is a reason why it continues to be a theory instead of fact or a law? I personally think that they are wary because there is still so much that is unknown and science is always changing.