This has been a recurring issue since at least the 1925 Scopes "Monkey Trial" and pops up every now and then.  Please read the question carefully and note that it refers to PUBLIC, that is secular schools.  Religious schools clearly have the right to do as they will, so please don't fight that fight.  Bob Jones University (BJU) can teach whatever it likes, NO QUESTION.

I support the teaching of evolution exclusively in public schools because it is good science and because all the alternatives require faith in one religious dogma or another, regardless of the creation myth esposed.  None of them gel with the fossil record, or with the science of biology.

Evolution for science.
Creationism is appropriate for a religion or philosophy curriculum.

I voted neither. Creationism and Evolution IMO are theories. I think children are owed a brief definition of what each are and then be done with it and let the child decide for himself later on in life if he/she is philosophically minded.

I went for both.  I think they should be both taught as theories so that the children can have ample information to use to decide where their beliefs stand. 

This was a difficult decision for me....I agreed with Bobby AND Dagny, but with more thought I chose both.

You can't prove one right, and you can't prove the other wrong. Their are countless events and facts that make Evolution correct and countless events and facts that make Creationism correct. So many question and not enough answers. Who knows which one is correct? or if they both aren't correct? or both wrong?  Believe whatever you want to because it will NEVER be proven either way while we're on this Earth.

I chose both. I think creation should taught as in, "Many believe in creation....while scientists believe in evalution."

Off topic for just a bit. I also believe that religions should be taught-not "This is what you have to believe in" but as in, "Christians believe....Jews believe...Muslims believe...etc."

Sorry to get off topic a bit.



Cat

I chose both. I think creation should taught as in, "Many believe in creation....while scientists believe in evalution."

Off topic for just a bit. I also believe that religions should be taught-not "This is what you have to believe in" but as in, "Christians believe....Jews believe...Muslims believe...etc."

Sorry to get off topic a bit.



Cat


I agree with the religion teachings.  Maybe it would help people to better understand those of other faiths.

Both.

I agree with the religion teachings.  Maybe it would help people to better understand those of other faiths.



Exactly. That is my point.


Cat

Evolution cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it is much more plausible when assessed by the principles of scientific deduction.
Creationists tend to retreat to the more general "intelligent design" argument, finding literal Biblical creation a bit of a stretch to defend.

I chose both. I think creation should taught as in, "Many believe in creation....while scientists believe in evalution."


Thats exactly how I feel about it.

There are ways to touch on both in class without making it a religious issue.  I admired a science teacher I had eons ago in school, he was excellent at covering both while at the same time not alienating anyone or endorsing one or the other.

I chose both. I think creation should taught as in, "Many believe in creation....while scientists believe in evalution."

Cat


I agree with Cat.  I think both should be taught.

Neither...(see Bobby's post for reasons why...)

Neither, because even Darwin said that evolution was a theory. And although creationism might contrude a separation of Church and state, I don't think private prayer should be kept out of school altogether. Religion should be protected from the State as the State is protected from religion. They are both covered in our Constitution. 

I said both.
I understand that "religious issues" can't be discussed in public schools.  However evolution, which is the belief of atheism, is already forced into public schools' curriculum.  And since it can't really be scientifically proven, ya might as well go ahead and use the other religious theory as an option. 
Just because you are teaching what someone believes doesn't mean you're "forcing" it on someone.  I know what evolution is, but I certainly don't believe it.  It's just good to know so you can have a good basis for debate.

Thank all of you who responded with some very thoughtful posts.  I guess I made the selections too simple.  I totally agree that in classes the various "creation myths" should be a part of classes on the various religions of the world, and in philosophy classes.  I should have specified "in science classes".

Now let me make my case for that.  At one time there was a fairly universal creature that in English we call a dog.  They all looked more or less alike your average mutt.  Humam interventions (selective Breeding - that is human engineered evolution) has created the many "breeds" of dogs we know.  So we have the St Bernard and the Chihuahua.  Clearly regardless of which sex of either wanted to mate with it's opposit, the going would be tough.  They are not seperate spicies because of all the interveening dogs with which they can breed, but imagine that they are the only 2 types of dogs.  They would be seperate species because they could not breed.  As a result, they could not produce viable offspring and would be recognised as separate spicies. 

So I say that evolution is not a theory, but a biological fact, and students in our science classes should be taught as much as thet can learn about how it works.  In this light there are fantastic advances.  For example, the human genome has now been maped.  Both the mitocondrial and Y DNA have been maped, and both "Adam" and "Eve" have been indentified.  This is all science, which is what I think our kids need to know.

I restate, the Theory of Evolution is logically interwoven with the fabric of our scientific knowledge.  Science does not conspire to negate faith.  Scientific principles can only be established through observation, experiment, repeated experiment, conclusion, and more observation.  Someone suggested the theory of evolution cannot be proven.  Let's be clear.  A theory is a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena (to give a Webster's).  Theory is not the same as hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena.
I don't know jack about physics, so don't quiz me please!
:o
However, I do know that prior to Einstein, Newton's theories were the authoratative scientific explanation of physical phenomena.  Einstein's Theory of Relativity disproved some, but not all of Newton's theories.  Many of Newton's theories are still sound scientific law.

One could argue scientists have a secular agenda to kill God, or one could argue that the Theory of Evolution's propositions are not verfiable under current scientific understanding.  If a new Einstein comes along and demonstrates through scientific principles that life began with a man, Adam, who was made from a stick and a ball of mud, and then a woman, Eve, was made from a rib plucked from Adam, then Evolutionists will have egg on their faces (and it is sort of a chicken and egg situation).

Several years back, the state of Kansas tried to ban the teaching of the Theory of Evolution.  My question was, how, if you don't teach evolution, shall you go about teaching geology?  From geology, it all falls apart.  If you call Evolution into question, you must call into question how the planet was formed, from there, you question astronomy, and from there, physics.  No physics, no engineering, no engineering...well, you get the general idea.

Evolution is a fundamental part of our understanding of the modern world.  I don't know of many creationists who would give up their cars and computers as the work of Satan, because you cannot back-explain the principles on which they operate to Holy Creation.

That's why, as I say, Creationists have retreated from "Creation" to "Intelligent Design."  "OK, we may be wrong, but, but, but, that doesn't make you right!"

Will I learn to keep my big mouth shut?  Probably not...

Creationism is a bucketload of mumbo-jumbo passed on from generation to generation, given credence only because it's been passed on from generation to generation.  The only way this particular meme can survive is for susceptible people to be indoctrinated from an early age, hence the desire of some groups for it to be taught to children before they become rational enough to realise it's rubbish.  If it's to be taught in schools at all, it should be with a heavy dose of salt, pointing out along the way that people used to be burned at the stake for suggesting that the world wasn't flat.

Evolution as a theory is something that has become prevalent because it is currently the most accurate way of working out how the whole biosphere came to be how we see it now.  If a better explanation comes along, evolution can be pensioned off with other superceded theories - but it would have to be a better explanation of how we got to where we are now, capable of being rigorously tested.

What should be taught at school?  The critical faculties to be able to analyse opposing theories and come to a rational conclusion.

Will I learn to keep my big mouth shut?  Probably not...

Creationism is a bucketload of mumbo-jumbo passed on from generation to generation, given credence only because it's been passed on from generation to generation.  The only way this particular meme can survive is for susceptible people to be indoctrinated from an early age, hence the desire of some groups for it to be taught to children before they become rational enough to realise it's rubbish.  If it's to be taught in schools at all, it should be with a heavy dose of salt, pointing out along the way that people used to be burned at the stake for suggesting that the world wasn't flat.

Evolution as a theory is something that has become prevalent because it is currently the most accurate way of working out how the whole biosphere came to be how we see it now.  If a better explanation comes along, evolution can be pensioned off with other superceded theories - but it would have to be a better explanation of how we got to where we are now, capable of being rigorously tested.

What should be taught at school?  The critical faculties to be able to analyse opposing theories and come to a rational conclusion.




I believe he asked weather or not they should be taught in school, not which one you believed in.  To me nthey both sound stupid, neither evolution creationism sound logical.  But I will state for the record I believe in God as does 91.427% of Americans according to a recent Gallup poll, it actully went up.  Passion of the Christ anyone?

I don't think it's so much a question of whether these subjects should be taught. I think the real question is "Why shouldn't they be taught"? Creationism stands at the very basis of most religious teaching, and has done since primitive tribes got together and started trying to explain the world. Evolution is the modern basis for most scientific theory relating to the origins not only of mankind, but of the world and everything in it. What we must not do is confuse creationism, which is theology, with science. Creationism requires no burden of proof. For creationism to work, one simply needs to believe in it. For science to work, there has to be evidence. Evolution is science. Those who dismiss evolution as "just a theory" are look at the issue rather simplistically. A lot of scientific theories can be proven with laboratory experiments. Unfortunately, evolution take millions of years, so we have to rely on the evidence left behind over those millions of years to develop our understanding of if it works and how it works if it does. The geological and fossil records are part of this evidence. As technology develops in the area of genetics, more and more evidence of the fact of evolution is discovered, but because it is an ongoing process, we'll never have all the evidence (unless someone lives forever, studying it the whole time). If evolution is dismissed as "just a theory", then many other scientific theories have to be dismissed also. What should be taught in schools then, is not whether creationism or evolution is correct, but the ability to differentiate between them and understand that they are two different ways of understanding our world, and the analytical ability to choose between them.

I believe he asked weather or not they should be taught in school, not which one you believed in.  To me nthey both sound stupid, neither evolution creationism sound logical.  But I will state for the record I believe in God as does 91.427% of Americans according to a recent Gallup poll, it actully went up.  Passion of the Christ anyone?


I'm sorry, GWB, but I have to ask this: Why does evolution not sound logical? It's a deeply grounded scientific theory supported by incalculable mountains of evidence. Evolution is pure science. What is illogical about it? I'm not attacking your point of view, mind. Just curious as to why you think this. And just for the record, just because you believe in evolution, doesn't mean you can't believe in God: "What makes evolution happen? God does!"

I'm sorry, GWB, but I have to ask this: Why does evolution not sound logical? It's a deeply grounded scientific theory supported by incalculable mountains of evidence. Evolution is pure science. What is illogical about it? I'm not attacking your point of view, mind. Just curious as to why you think this.


I don't know why, its jut a little to much for my mind to think about, and so is creationism.  Some big explosion some odd amount of years ago, then a sun which is a medium-sized star shining on water and over time so things starting slowing growing and growing and changing into today?  It is very possbile and it has some proof but sheesh.  And throughout time ALMOST everything that was supposed to have evolved is gone.  You don't see it anymore because it evolved into something today, yet we humans are suppose to have evolved from monkeys yet their are still fricking monkeys.

This thread asked weather or not religion should be talked about in school and now we are talking about religion in general, not weather or not it should be taught in school.

I don't know why, its jut a little to much for my mind to think about, and so is creationism.  Some big explosion some odd amount of years ago, then a sun which is a medium-sized star shining on water and over time so things starting slowing growing and growing and changing into today?  It is very possbile and it has some proof but sheesh.  And throughout time ALMOST everything that was supposed to have evolved is gone.  You don't see it anymore because it evolved into something today, yet we humans are suppose to have evolved from monkeys yet their are still fricking monkeys.


Well that's over simplifying things a little too much, but you seem to have hit on the one aspect of evolution that sticks in the craw of many people: that man evolved from monkeys. What's probably more correct is that modern humans and modern monkeys and apes evolved from a common ancestor, a creature that had biological characterisitcs similar to both that, over millions of years, developed into separate creatures. I'll admit that evolution is often difficult because the timeline involved stretches back about 4 BILLION years, but that doesn't make it illogical, just hard to comprehend.

people used to be burned at the stake for suggesting that the world wasn't flat.



:) I didn't notice this little snippet before. That's actually a misconception. The world was known to be round from ancient times, and even the Inquisition knew this. If people were burned at the stake, it was because they had the temerity to suggest that the earth revolved around the sun, instead of the other way around.

I picked 'both'. 

I don't know why, its jut a little to much for my mind to think about, and so is creationism.  Some big explosion some odd amount of years ago, then a sun which is a medium-sized star shining on water and over time so things starting slowing growing and growing and changing into today?  It is very possbile and it has some proof but sheesh.  And throughout time ALMOST everything that was supposed to have evolved is gone.  You don't see it anymore because it evolved into something today, yet we humans are suppose to have evolved from monkeys yet their are still fricking monkeys.

You make a good point, science has not explained a great many things about the nature of the universe.  They keep trying, sometimes they get it right, sometimes it turns out differently from what they thought.  This is also a fundamental difference.  When you teach creation, you advocate faith rather than inquisition.  Inquiry is essential to education.  Faith is not.  I'm not knocking faith, mind you, faith may be vital in areas of life where inquiry is not.

Another concern I have is the agenda Christian political activists who have been most vocal about teaching Creation.  I can't trust they would be happy with the teaching of creation according to many cultures and many religions.  The fundamentalists active in pushing this agenda are a minority of Christians, but they're relentless in their determination to impose their faith.

But Charles Darwin, the inventor of evolution,  even said it was just a THEORY. An science has left a lot of holes in "proving" the theory "correct". Like why is there good and bad? Could apes survive on their own before caveman times? And how do fossils prove that anything other than dinosaurs existed? Evolution is easily disputable, as is most of the research.
And like Philbo here, I have to learn to keep my mouth shut. Only I also need to learn to let God do my talking for me.
Those who dismiss evolution as "just a theory" are look at the issue rather simplistically. A lot of scientific theories can be proven with laboratory experiments. Unfortunately, evolution take millions of years, so we have to rely on the evidence left behind over those millions of years to develop our understanding of if it works and how it works if it does.

I believe he asked whether or not they should be taught in school, not which one you believed in.
Ah, so you didn't get as far as my last paragraph, then.


And throughout time ALMOST everything that was supposed to have evolved is gone.  You don't see it anymore because it evolved into something today, yet we humans are suppose to have evolved from monkeys yet there are still fricking monkeys.

Species don't become extinct because they evolve into something else- when new species (or variants on existing ones) evolve, the old one is still there: individual monkeys didn't turn into human beings, that's not what it's all about.  Tell me, did the school you were at teach evolution, creation or neither?


:) I didn't notice this little snippet before. That's actually a misconception. The world was known to be round from ancient times, and even the Inquisition knew this. If people were burned at the stake, it was because they had the temerity to suggest that the earth revolved around the sun, instead of the other way around.

Conceded - though the implication still stands.


I'm not knocking faith, mind you, faith may be vital in areas of life where inquiry is not.

We're talking Buffy, here, right?

Creationism is a bucketload of mumbo-jumbo passed on from generation to generation, given credence only because it's been passed on from generation to generation.  The only way this particular meme can survive is for susceptible people to be indoctrinated from an early age, hence the desire of some groups for it to be taught to children before they become rational enough to realise it's rubbish. 


No...
It survives because some people do believe in an all-powerful supernatural being.  "Creationism" existed before someone tried to come up with a different theory, and it's all because the natural man thinks, "Oh no! If it's not rational, it can't POSSIBLY be real...there's no WAY there's someone out there more powerful than I am!"

BTW, if anyone's interested, check out http://www.drdino.com.  I've watched all of this guy's seminars and it looks like you can also download them from his website.  Hope you could take some time to have a look...or a listen.

I'm kind of surprised that no one responded to my post  regarding St Bernards and Chihuahuas, or did I not clearly explain myself? 

In terms of the fossil record, several "missing links" have been discovered, like dinasaurs beginning to develop feathers (having dino-chicken for dinner lol).

Sexual reproduction is (in addition to a fun way to do it) a product of evolution, as is the mitchondiral DND passed through the female line and the Y chromosom we guys pass on only to our sons.  Turns out you can leard a lot of history through each, like that most, but not all Native Americans (Indians) can be traced to a now relatively small group of people in Siberia.

This is all about evolution in action, and IMHO should be a significant part of any science curriculum.  Save creationism for philosophy ans history of religion classes but keep it out of science classes.

Save creationism for philosophy ans history of religion classes but keep it out of science classes.


If you look go to the website I linked to, the guy uses science to explain creation.  It's actually quite interesting, and makes you think.

No...
It survives because some people do believe in an all-powerful supernatural being.  "Creationism" existed before someone tried to come up with a different theory, and it's all because the natural man thinks, "Oh no! If it's not rational, it can't POSSIBLY be real...there's no WAY there's someone out there more powerful than I am!"

BTW, if anyone's interested, check out http://www.drdino.com.  I've watched all of this guy's seminars and it looks like you can also download them from his website.  Hope you could take some time to have a look...or a listen.

I know there's a burgeoning field of Creation Science.  I'm not familiar with most of it.  It does strike me as strange they call it "science."  They seem to be trying to customize theories of origins to the Book of Genesis.  The prejudice is still "The Bible is Right."  Such a prejudice is anathema to scientific inquiry.  They come up with some pretty strange answers.  Creationists have postulated the exact size and girth of Noah's Ark needed to accomodate two of every creature.  One asks, "must have been dark in there, how did they keep it light?"  The answer: Fireflies!
Fundamentalists have been trying to disprove Darwin for decades, sometimes with ferocity.  If there is a cadre of avenging atheists in the scientific community, I haven't heard them lately.  When I do hear scientists address creation these days, they don't use anti-religious rhetoric.  They have said that Creation Science has not stood up to scientific inquiry.  Fundamentalists have condemned this as a "humanist" or "secularist" prejudice.  I just don't see it that way.

In expending effort to wrap the Bible in science, I think Creationists undercut the true power of religious faith.  Evolution tells us nothing about our spiritual lives.  It can't teach us any ethics.  It can't motivate us to behave decently.  These things are more important in many respects than understanding the origins of the universe. 

It doesn't diminish the importance of religion to say we won't teach it in science class.  I do believe religion and philosophy need a greater role in our educatious system.  But not:
1. as science
2. imposing one faith as ultimate truth.

Nicely said, Maxwell.

:) I didn't notice this little snippet before. That's actually a misconception. The world was known to be round from ancient times, and even the Inquisition knew this. If people were burned at the stake, it was because they had the temerity to suggest that the earth revolved around the sun, instead of the other way around.


Ah! Wasn't that to do with Galieo? He said the Earth moved around the Sun and, because it didn't comply with their teachings at the time, I think the religious leaders (Catholic?) made him sign a document to say these teachings were false. That's scandalous for religion to deny people the truth in that way.  >:(

Ah! Wasn't that to do with Galieo? He said the Earth moved around the Sun and, because it didn't comply with their teachings at the time, I think the religious leaders (Catholic?) made him sign a document to say these teachings were false. That's scandalous for religion to deny people the truth in that way.   >:(

You're thinking of Copernicus, he's the one who discovered the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa.

IndyGent,
You wouldn't say Darwin "invented" the theory of evolution.  It would be better expressed as Darwin developed the theory of evolution through his observations.

Some people believe its a combination of the two.  Also as I said earlier 91% of America believes in God but I highly doubt that 91% believe in creationism.  But shouldn't this become FACT before anyone lectures anyone on being right or wrong?

Some people believe its a combination of the two.  Also as I said earlier 91% of America believes in God but I highly doubt that 91% believe in creationism.  But shouldn't this become FACT before anyone lectures anyone on being right or wrong?

What is a "fact" in science?  Remember Indiana Jones' lecture?  Archeology is the search for fact, not truth.  Facts in science are not immutable.  They are simply the most logical deductions.  There are no absolutes in mathematics.  There are absolutes in religious beliefs.  If you say a theory must be "unquestionable" before being considered "right," you have ended science, and started religion !

Also as I said earlier 91% of America believes in God but I highly doubt that 91% believe in creationism. 


That's silly.  If you believe in God, how could you not believe that He created the universe?  Oh well, I guess it's just like all those religions who like to only believe various little snippets of the Bible, and refuse to believe the rest.

That's silly.  If you believe in God, how could you not believe that He created the universe?  Oh well, I guess it's just like all those religions who like to only believe various little snippets of the Bible, and refuse to believe the rest.

Only Fundamentalists believe you must take the Bible literally word for word.  They don't teach Creation as Science at Notre Dame, a Catholic University, for instance, but they do at Bob Jones, a Fundamentalist university.
Non-fundamentalist theologists view the Bible as more allegory, metaphor, and parable.  A problem one runs into making the literalist argument is the language.  The Bible is a canon of documents culled from hundreds of years.  It's been translated from Sanskrit, to Hebrew, to Coptic, to Greek, to Latin, and to English.  Words mean different things in different languages.  Pat Robertson would like to say he takes the Bible literally, but he's never read it in any language but English, thus he must believe that God spoke to Moses in English!  English didn't exist in Biblical times.
Matthew 19:24 says it's "easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."  Pat Robertson, a very rich man indeed, said that passage is misinterpreted.  He claims the "Eye of the Needle" was a very narrow gate to the city of ancient Jerusalem.  Hey, that's a metaphor!  Whatever happened to the literal?  Seems it's only literal when it comes to Pat Robertson pronouncing judgment upon others, but it's metaphorical when applied to him.  You see how quickly it becomes convoluted. 
Fundamentalists charge others with picking and choosing from the Bible, but they're some of the worst offenders in that department.
The Muslims, on the other hand, say you can only read the Koran in Arabic.  Your English "translation" of the Koran is not the true Word, but merely literature inspired by the Koran.

Catholics and Non-fundamentalist Protestants have decided it's better to allow religion and science to co-exist.  That's life.

I honestly wish I knew.
Their is powerful debate on Both sides,
Perhaps, God created using Evolution,
I will ask God someday, when I see him.

You're thinking of Copernicus, he's the one who discovered the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa.


Yes Copernicus discovered this but Galileo formed these theories into an argument against the church's teachings of the day.

http://entrypoints.com/LogicPage/Galileo'sRebuttal.html

Only Fundamentalists believe you must take the Bible literally word for word.  They don't teach Creation as Science at Notre Dame, a Catholic University, for instance, but they do at Bob Jones, a Fundamentalist university.
Non-fundamentalist theologists view the Bible as more allegory, metaphor, and parable.  A problem one runs into making the literalist argument is the language.  The Bible is a canon of documents culled from hundreds of years.  It's been translated from Sanskrit, to Hebrew, to Coptic, to Greek, to Latin, and to English.  Words mean different things in different languages.  Pat Robertson would like to say he takes the Bible literally, but he's never read it in any language but English, thus he must believe that God spoke to Moses in English!  English didn't exist in Biblical times.
Matthew 19:24 says it's "easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."  Pat Robertson, a very rich man indeed, said that passage is misinterpreted.  He claims the "Eye of the Needle" was a very narrow gate to the city of ancient Jerusalem.  Hey, that's a metaphor!  Whatever happened to the literal?  Seems it's only literal when it comes to Pat Robertson pronouncing judgment upon others, but it's metaphorical when applied to him.  You see how quickly it becomes convoluted. 
Fundamentalists charge others with picking and choosing from the Bible, but they're some of the worst offenders in that department.
The Muslims, on the other hand, say you can only read the Koran in Arabic.  Your English "translation" of the Koran is not the true Word, but merely literature inspired by the Koran.

Catholics and Non-fundamentalist Protestants have decided it's better to allow religion and science to co-exist.  That's life.


That's the problem with most people.  You can't just say the Bible is all literal or it's all metaphor and then just pick a few verses out of the blue and go "Oh...uh...well THAT means....."  Some parts are literal, some are parables, some are metaphors.  But you have to look at the whole context of the passage and many other verses tied to it to understand what it means.
In the scripture you just gave, that's where Jesus was talking to a rich man who asked him "What good thing shall I do to enter the kingdom of heaven?"  Jesus tells him to keep the commandments, and he also tells him to give all that he has to the poor, and to follow Jesus.  But the rich man is too greedy to do that.  So then Jesus says it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.  Well it's impossible for a camel to do that, so that means it's even MORE impossible (?) for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, right?....but just what does that mean?  Well, read other scriptures about salvation and entering heaven, you find that one must surrender to Jesus and follow him.  Worldly things no longer matter.  Does that mean that someone with a lot of money can't go to heaven?  No, but if they are saved they won't "worship" their wealth.
It sounds like that Pat Robertson guy wants to appear religious, but he's essentially very greedy.  As for Bob Jones (the third and his forefathers...), he's not all that great either.  He refuses to believe in predestination...which is CLEARLY a Biblical doctrine...but that's another story...
About the English translation of the Bible (as well as others...), here's the thing.  I know a lot of "Christian" people who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, but there probably needs to be corrections made because they're sure the translation totally screwed it up.  Well, if you believe in an all-powerful God, who wants for His Word to be spread throughout the world, what makes you think mankind can stop him?  If you believe in a sovereign God, know that He will have His Word prevail throughout all generations.  No need to go on a scavenger hunt for the "original" texts (which btw, can't be found...just cuz they're older doesn't mean they're the originals) and no need to revise what's already been provided.

Yes Copernicus discovered this but Galileo formed these theories into an argument against the church's teachings of the day.

http://entrypoints.com/LogicPage/Galileo'sRebuttal.html

Good point. :)

I basically agree with you.  Unfortunately what Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and other evangelical luminaries have done is to ally Christianity with the Mammon-worshipping Republican Right.  This is very poisonous, and I would argue, sacriligious!


Again with the ever-present political insert. ::)


I myself believe there is a God.  I'm not flawless by any means, but who is.  However, I also realize that there are the extremists in Christianity, as there is in all religions.  I don't have to subscribe to them to belive in God.

Yes Copernicus discovered this but Galileo formed these theories into an argument against the church's teachings of the day.

http://entrypoints.com/LogicPage/Galileo'sRebuttal.html


The Church hated Galileo even more than Copernicus, because Galileo could prove he was right, by way of being able to show that, if the moons of Jupiter (which he discovered) orbited their planet, it was pretty likely that the Earth went around the Sun the same way.

Another concern I have is the agenda Christian political activists who have been most vocal about teaching Creation.  I can't trust they would be happy with the teaching of creation according to many cultures and many religions.  The fundamentalists active in pushing this agenda are a minority of Christians, but they're relentless in their determination to impose their faith.


This is an excellent point also. Unlike evolution, which isn't religion, creationism is founded in religion. Not everyone who attends our schools is a Christian. Not everyone in our country (yours and mine) is a Christian, so which creationist theory do we teach? It should not be up to the education system to teach religious dogma. That's the church's job (whichever church you belong to). Realistically, if we are to teach the Christian creation model in schools, we should also teach all the other Creation models as well, because not everyone who is learning there is a Christian. Teaching ONLY the Christian model is imposing the Christian belief system on people who aren't necessarily Christians, and that's not the role of a school.

Myself, I believe in both Creation AND Evolution.

I see God as a living being, just as the Earth is.  And thisis evident even today, where animals and people are both changing and adapting.  I guess I see God as the ultimate scientist.  He changes us and the rest of nature, making little changes as needed to help us and everything else survive.

I guess you can say in my view, God created evolution.

This is an excellent point also. Unlike evolution, which isn't religion, creationism is founded in religion. Not everyone who attends our schools is a Christian. Not everyone in our country (yours and mine) is a Christian, so which creationist theory do we teach? It should not be up to the education system to teach religious dogma. That's the church's job (whichever church you belong to). Realistically, if we are to teach the Christian creation model in schools, we should also teach all the other Creation models as well, because not everyone who is learning there is a Christian. Teaching ONLY the Christian model is imposing the Christian belief system on people who aren't necessarily Christians, and that's not the role of a school.




Bravo. There are many creation stories out there and all are very fasinating. I heard a few of them years ago when I took a mythology class. The one I vaguely remember was the Mayan creation story-something about twins falling from the sky.



Cat

Geeez!  Those must've been some pretty darned big fireflies ;D

Exactly, either Noah took tons of fireflies, which would break the two-of-each rule, or he had two supersized fireflies!

Exactly, either Noah took tons of fireflies, which would break the two-of-each rule, or he had two supersized fireflies!


This underlines the stupidity of those who accept Creationism as science. It isn't.

This underlines the stupidity of those who accept Creationism as science. It isn't.

Those who accept "Creation" as science aren't necessarily stupid, but I don't agree with them.  Like I say "creation science" breaks the fundamentalist dogma of literal Biblical interpretation.  A lot of converts to "Intelligent Design Theory," which says that God created the universe, but not everything the Book of Genesis says is literal.

Those who accept "Creation" as science aren't necessarily stupid,


Hmmm. Perhaps what I should have said is that the idea of Creationism as science is stupid, not that adherents of it are necessarily brainless. :) "Intelligent Design Theory" is not necessarily the same as Creationist science, which is (typically) the belief that the Bible is not only a religious textbook, but also a factual scientific one.

Bravo. There are many creation stories out there and all are very fasinating. I heard a few of them years ago when I took a mythology class. The one I vaguely remember was the Mayan creation story-something about twins falling from the sky.



Cat


And all those creation stories pre-date the scientific era.  Before we, as a spicies, figured out how to use observation and reason to figure things out, we made up stories, like creation, and other myths, to explain what we didn't understand.  We now know better.  Shouldn't we relegate these myths - including Adam and Eve" to anthropology,  philosophy, and history, and get them out of science?

That was intentional, since I'm not a big fan of Darwin's. I just said "Invented" because it seems concocted without research. But I'm not keeping anybody from attempting to prove evolution and/or discredit creationalism.

You're thinking of Copernicus, he's the one who discovered the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa.

IndyGent,
You wouldn't say Darwin "invented" the theory of evolution.  It would be better expressed as Darwin developed the theory of evolution through his observations.

Jumping-in late here because I have the extra time to post...hee-hee

I say, IMO, evolution be taught in school and let creationism be an option for the parents/guardians to teach at home or have it be learned in the religious institution, if they should have one.

Perhaps a good idea would be for school to have an optional class of "Philosophy and Religion", which a student may attend for the learning of creationism.

That was intentional, since I'm not a big fan of Darwin's. I just said "Invented" because it seems concocted without research.

This is not quite correct. Darwin developed his theory based on his research during his time on the Beagle, particularly after his visit to the Galapagos Islands. He did an enormous amount of research.

I agree.  Religion has no place in science.  Heck, IMO, religion should stay in the home and church.  I don't need people telling me what to believe.  I have a mind of my own, I'll decide what I believe or disbelieve.


Now, now: religion must also be allowed on the streets and any public place. Individuals have a right to express their religious beliefs. They have a right to share them with you in a public forum, even if you don't want to hear them. (In that case, you have the option to stay home, where they shouldn't be able to intrude.)

However, religion in public should be displayed by the individual, not by the government.

Oh, but other kinds of preaching happen all the time. I'm often confronted outside the grocery store by people asking for donations for their cause. Helping the poor, for example, is just another value that people try to preach to one another. All part of free speech. They can talk, and you get to decide whether to listen. :)

I agree, they can talk until they're blue in the face, but when someone tells me that I'm going "South" (to put it nicely) because I am Catholic, that's where they cross the line.  ESPECIALLY when they do it in front of my kids and I have to try to explain to them why the lady said Mommy was going there. >:(


That kind of person gives their faith and belief system a bad name.

Now, now: religion must also be allowed on the streets and any public place. Individuals have a right to express their religious beliefs. They have a right to share them with you in a public forum, even if you don't want to hear them. (In that case, you have the option to stay home, where they shouldn't be able to intrude.)

However, religion in public should be displayed by the individual, not by the government.



Maybe I should practice my Wiccan rituals in the park. I wonder how the town would react to that.  ;)



Cat

Exactly, either Noah took tons of fireflies, which would break the two-of-each rule, or he had two supersized fireflies!


Actually, Noah didn't take just two of each.  The Bible says God told Noah to bring every clean beast and also the fowls of the air on by sevens, but they would walk on by twos. "...the male and his female."  The unclean beasts were to be brought on by twos.  By the way....wasn't there a window or something for light?  How else did he let the ravens and the dove out?

Anyway, as far as what to teach in the classroom, I think it shold be either both or neither.  As I see it, Atheism is a religion in itself, and it basically teaches some sort of evolution rather than creationism.  So if you're forcing me to listen to one "religious" belief in the class, why not give the other option?  If you don't want any religious theories at all, well don't teach either one.  When I was in high school (which was very small and I think just about everyone was Christian)  we always skipped the evolution stuff.  We did learn the basic stuff in elementary, but that's all.

Actually, Noah didn't take just two of each.  The Bible says God told Noah to bring every clean beast and also the fowls of the air on by sevens, but they would walk on by twos. "...the male and his female."  The unclean beasts were to be brought on by twos.  By the way....wasn't there a window or something for light?  How else did he let the ravens and the dove out?

Anyway, as far as what to teach in the classroom, I think it shold be either both or neither.  As I see it, Atheism is a religion in itself, and it basically teaches some sort of evolution rather than creationism.  So if you're forcing me to listen to one "religious" belief in the class, why not give the other option?  If you don't want any religious theories at all, well don't teach either one.  When I was in high school (which was very small and I think just about everyone was Christian)  we always skipped the evolution stuff.  We did learn the basic stuff in elementary, but that's all.

Evolution is not the creationism of atheism.  That's illogical.  What do you mean "skipped the evolution stuff"?  As I said before, it is also illogical to single out the theory of evolution and hold it in contempt, yet stilll teach other scientific principles. Do you believe in plate tectonics?

Evolution is not the creationism of atheism.  That's illogical.  What do you mean "skipped the evolution stuff"?  As I said before, it is also illogical to single out the theory of evolution and hold it in contempt, yet stilll teach other scientific principles. Do you believe in plate tectonics?


Can you prove to me that evolution is a scientific principle? 
As for "skipping,"  well, we never made it all the way through most of our textbooks anyway, and a lot of times in science or english lit. or government classes, the teacher would skip some things.  And in science classes, they always happened to skip over the evolution chapters....nobody seemed to have a problem with it.  Besides, we already knew the basics of evolution from elementary and maybe some of junior high school.  We weren't taught creationism in the classroom though, so there.  Happy? Religion stays out of the class.

Can you prove to me that evolution is a scientific principle? 


No, I can't prove it to you because you will refuse to believe it.  The scientific community isn't claiming evolution is the ultimate truth, they're saying it's the most rational explanation so far.  When the Creationists show how creation makes more sense via scientific inquiry, creation will take the place of evolution.

No, I can't prove it to you because you will refuse to believe it.  The scientific community isn't claiming evolution is the ultimate truth, they're saying it's the most rational explanation so far.  When the Creationists show how creation makes more sense via scientific inquiry, creation will take the place of evolution.


And because I believe the Bible, I can find rational explanations to scientific findings in the Bible.  But I can't prove it to you because you don't believe the Bible, right? Just like I don't believe evolution.  So, since they are both beliefs, (and since the evolution is already being taught) why don't we teach them both? Or better yet, neither!  I mean I'm not all UPSET about no creation in the classroom, would you be UPSET if they took away evolution?  And the students can have the right to discuss which one they think is most rational. How's that?

As I said before, it is also illogical to single out the theory of evolution and hold it in contempt, yet stilll teach other scientific principles. Do you believe in plate tectonics?


Well, let's try comparing evolution to a less disputed scientific principle, like gravity.

What do we teach about gravity?

We teach how it is observed. (Things fall down. That's because of gravity.)
We teach the specific measurements and consistent behaviors we are able to observe. (Big masses have more gravitational pull than smaller masses.)
Do we teach what makes gravity work? (Seriously, I'm asking - how much do we know about why things gravitate toward large masses?)

When we study atoms, we learn that electrons orbit around a nucleus full of protons, and the negative charge of the electrons cancels out the positive charge of the protons. Do we learn why the electrons are negative? Do we learn where the electrons originated?

How does evolution compare to the other scientific studies we are taught?

(I realize some of the questions I've asked here about other principles are probably answerable, at least to some degree, and may not be taught in high school simply because they are so complex. However, isn't there eventually going to be a point where it goes beyond observation and into theory?)

To what extent is evolution observable?

Well, let's try comparing evolution to a less disputed scientific principle, like gravity.

What do we teach about gravity?

We teach how it is observed. (Things fall down. That's because of gravity.)
We teach the specific measurements and consistent behaviors we are able to observe. (Big masses have more gravitational pull than smaller masses.)
Do we teach what makes gravity work? (Seriously, I'm asking - how much do we know about why things gravitate toward large masses?)

When we study atoms, we learn that electrons orbit around a nucleus full of protons, and the negative charge of the electrons cancels out the positive charge of the protons. Do we learn why the electrons are negative? Do we learn where the electrons originated?

How does evolution compare to the other scientific studies we are taught?

(I realize some of the questions I've asked here about other principles are probably answerable, at least to some degree, and may not be taught in high school simply because they are so complex. However, isn't there eventually going to be a point where it goes beyond observation and into theory?)

To what extent is evolution observable?


Interesting, as usual.  Evolution IS observable from  both the (incomplete) fossil record and, as I suggested far up on this thread, through our manipulation of domestic animals.  The creation, through selective breeding, of "breeds" is evolution in action under human guidance.  Eliminate all the breeds of dogs between the Chihuahua and the St. Bernard and you have to seperate spicies, they can't possible breed.

As to Queen...'s assertion that she "learned the basics" of evolution in grade school, I'm affraid its much to complex for a grade schooler to acctually understand, so I would suggest that an important part of her education in science was neglected in middle and high school if her teachers "skipped" those chapters. 

Not teaching evolution in high school puts students at a disadvantage when they apply to college, so not teaching it seems to me to be a counter-productive option.

Interesting, as usual.  Evolution IS observable from  both the (incomplete) fossil record and, as I suggested far up on this thread, through our manipulation of domestic animals.  The creation, through selective breeding, of "breeds" is evolution in action under human guidance.  Eliminate all the breeds of dogs between the Chihuahua and the St. Bernard and you have to seperate spicies, they can't possible breed.

As to Queen...'s assertion that she "learned the basics" of evolution in grade school, I'm affraid its much to complex for a grade schooler to acctually understand, so I would suggest that an important part of her education in science was neglected in middle and high school if her teachers "skipped" those chapters. 

Not teaching evolution in high school puts students at a disadvantage when they apply to college, so not teaching it seems to me to be a counter-productive option.

A St. Bernard can breed with a Chihuahua, it's just not done for obvious reasons
;)

If you're not being rhetorical when you ask "How is evolution observable," than you really did miss out on the principles of science.  I would say get thee to a library!

Evolution is ALL observation just as Creationism is ALL faith! 

A college professor (in Texas, I believe) was recently excoriated by the right-wing because he required students to sign a statement declaring their belief in evolution before he would recommend them to any medical school.  His point of vew was that if you don't believe in evolution, your capacity for medical training would be handicapped.  The right-wing took their usual Christian-as-victim tack.  How many of them would go under the knife with a surgeon who had only a Biblical understanding of biology?

Interesting, as usual.  Evolution IS observable from  both the (incomplete) fossil record and, as I suggested far up on this thread, through our manipulation of domestic animals.  The creation, through selective breeding, of "breeds" is evolution in action under human guidance.  Eliminate all the breeds of dogs between the Chihuahua and the St. Bernard and you have to seperate spicies, they can't possible breed.


We don't teach gravity based on the fossil record. ("The cracks at the bottom of the egg suggest it fell downward!") Nor do we generally teach that man's manipulation of nature also occurred naturally thousands of years ago. ("Corn has the ability to grow in evenly spaced rows.")

Breeding dogs teaches us genetics, but it doesn't teach us where the dogs came from.

Do the two components of fossilized history and genetics combine together neatly to give credence to the theory of evolution? Or are there still some gaps?

(Honestly, I'm asking - I, too, went to that school where they glossed over the chapters on evolution.)



As to Queen...'s assertion that she "learned the basics" of evolution in grade school, I'm affraid its much to complex for a grade schooler to acctually understand, so I would suggest that an important part of her education in science was neglected in middle and high school if her teachers "skipped" those chapters. 

Not teaching evolution in high school puts students at a disadvantage when they apply to college, so not teaching it seems to me to be a counter-productive option.


Welcome to the Bible Belt. ;)



If you're not being rhetorical when you ask "How is evolution observable," than you really did miss out on the principles of science.  I would say get thee to a library!

I thought science was primarily based on observation?



Evolution is ALL observation just as Creationism is ALL faith!

Two people observe the same phenomenon: a human embryo bears remarkable resemblance to a chicken embryo.

The creationist says, "Obviously, God designed them both."
The scientist says, "Obviously, they had a common ancestor."

They are observing the exact same thing. What more proof does the scientist have than the believer? (Or, given the options of creation or evolution, is it just a case of Occam's Razor?)
 

A college professor (in Texas, I believe) was recently excoriated by the right-wing because he required students to sign a statement declaring their belief in evolution before he would recommend them to any medical school.  His point of vew was that if you don't believe in evolution, your capacity for medical training would be handicapped.  The right-wing took their usual Christian-as-victim tack.  How many of them would go under the knife with a surgeon who had only a Biblical understanding of biology?


That's taking it too far. How much do you need to know about the evolutionary ancestors of humans to operate on a human with the exact same anatomy as every other human? If they didn't believe in using medicine to heal, that would be a valid objection, but how does a belief in evolution affect a doctor or surgeon?

A St. Bernard can breed with a Chihuahua, it's just not done for obvious reasons
;)



Without human intervention I think it would be almost, if not completely impossible.  How would a male Chihuahua be able to "deliver his essence" to a receptive St Bernard?  Wouldn't a male St Bernard impale a  female Chihuahua (having never seen an erect St Bernard I may be wrong here, but just getting it in would be a major problem).  Admittedly, if we were to "milk" the male and artificially inseminate the female, they could produce viable offspring, and given that there are lots of intermediate breeds of dogs that form a potentially breeding population THEY ARE NOT NOW seperate spicies, nor did I say they were.  What I said was, that if we eliminated all those intervening dogs, Chihuahuas and St. Bernards could not interbreed, even though they might want to, and therefore would constitute seperate spicies.  My point is that "selective breeding" which we use to enhance qualities that we value in domestic animals is based on the same principles that drive evolution in the natural world.  Selective breeding is, in fact, our manipulation of the principles of evolution. 


So again, evolution is observable all around us.  Another example from nature, which I remember from a college course I took.  In England there was a caterpiller that nested in oak trees.  Before the industrial revolution most of them were light colored and blended in with the bark of those oak trees.  Birds couldn't find most of them, but did find their darker companions.  Then came the industrial revolution, which resulted in the darkening of the bark of those elm trees.  The darker colored caterpillers then had an advantaged, survived better, passed on their "dark" genes, and replaced their lighter colored cousins as the dominant color.  The biological imperative is survive to muturity and mate.  Genes that enhance those imperative get passed on, genes that don't get eliminated.

So again, evolution is observable all around us.  Another example from nature, which I remember from a college course I took.  In England there was a caterpiller that nested in oak trees.  Before the industrial revolution most of them were light colored and blended in with the bark of those oak trees.  Birds couldn't find most of them, but did find their darker companions.  Then came the industrial revolution, which resulted in the darkening of the bark of those elm trees.  The darker colored caterpillers then had an advantaged, survived better, passed on their "dark" genes, and replaced their lighter colored cousins as the dominant color.  The biological imperative is survive to muturity and mate.  Genes that enhance those imperative get passed on, genes that don't get eliminated.

I seem to remember that example - it was moths, not caterpillars, just so you know.

When you say "dominant", though, you don't mean "dominant gene"; you simply mean "more frequently occurring", right?

Without human intervention I think it would be almost, if not completely impossible.  How would a male Chihuahua be able to "deliver his essence" to a receptive St Bernard?  Wouldn't a male St Bernard impale a  female Chihuahua (having never seen an erect St Bernard I may be wrong here, but just getting it in would be a major problem). 




Mission impossible?  ;)



Cat

Mission impossible?  ;)



Cat

Neighbors of ours had a Dachsund-Golden Retriever mix.  They got him from the pound so the obvious question went unanswered.  I guessed the sire was the Dachsund, he snuck up on her while she was sleeping.  He was a funny looking dog.  He had the coat of a retriever, with the same head features.  About 1/3 the size of a Retriever, he had the elongated body and stubby legs of a Dachsund.

If you want to look for observable evidence of evolution in action, you have to look at microbiology. Micro-organisms breed, multiply and evolve at a far more accelerated rate than complex creatures. There is evidence that many bacteria that cause sickness will, after a few generations, develop complete resistance to the antibiotics that kill them so that eventually the antibiotics no longer work and have to be reformulated to deal with the new organism. The new organism hasn't just appeared out of the ether. It has evolved out of a previous one. This is why it is often so hard to develop vaccines and medicines for particular diseases, because the basic organism that causes them constantly develops new resistances. This is evolution in action, and it is observable in a laboratory. It's not, however, the sort of thing you can do in a school experiment however.

If you want to look for observable evidence of evolution in action, you have to look at microbiology. Micro-organisms breed, multiply and evolve at a far more accelerated rate than complex creatures. There is evidence that many bacteria that cause sickness will, after a few generations, develop complete resistance to the antibiotics that kill them so that eventually the antibiotics no longer work and have to be reformulated to deal with the new organism. The new organism hasn't just appeared out of the ether. It has evolved out of a previous one. This is why it is often so hard to develop vaccines and medicines for particular diseases, because the basic organism that causes them constantly develops new resistances. This is evolution in action, and it is observable in a laboratory. It's not, however, the sort of thing you can do in a school experiment however.



Good point



Cat

This is evolution in action, and it is observable in a laboratory. It's not, however, the sort of thing you can do in a school experiment however.

Resistance to antibiotics is, if you think about it, the ultimate selection pressure: if a bacterium has resistance it survives, if not... it dies.  If there are any bacteria out there with such resistance, they'll out-perform any without completely... but

At the risk of overcomplicating things, there's evidence that resistance to specific antibiotics can be conferred by transfer of plasmid DNA - plasmids are rather like beneficial viruses for micro-organisms: they can replicate within the cell and transfer between cells, which means that resistance to antibiotics can be attained without any change in a bacterium's nuclear DNA... so no evolutionary pressure.

Vaccination, on the other hand, does require an evolutionary change in the attacking organism to be circumvented - small, stable viruses which don't mutate (such as the poxviruses: chicken pox, measles etc) need just the one vaccine, but the bigger, more complex viruses are much more prone to mutation and newer strains come along fairly regularly (which is why influenza is always coming back, and the common cold never goes away).

In other words, every flu epidemic is an observable example of evolution in action...

Okay, but take for example "The Big Bang" - wouldn't that be an example of a theory that's completely unprovable and based mostly on a type of "faith"?

Okay, but take for example "The Big Bang" - wouldn't that be an example of a theory that's completely unprovable and based mostly on a type of "faith"?

They're working on it.  Scientists will be the first to tell you they don't have all the answers.  Maybe they never will.  There's a concept of God called "God of the Gaps."  Whenver science doesn't have the answer to questions, such as "what lies outside the known universe?," or "what was here before the Big Bang?," religious people would say, "A-HA! That's God."  Thus, God fills the gaps between scientific knowledge.

They're working on it.  Scientists will be the first to tell you they don't have all the answers.  Maybe they never will.  There's a concept of God called "God of the Gaps."  Whenver science doesn't have the answer to questions, such as "what lies outside the known universe?," or "what was here before the Big Bang?," religious people would say, "A-HA! That's God."  Thus, God fills the gaps between scientific knowledge.


I can agree with you on this.  After all, God created a scientific universe, and I believe he likes for people to discover things.  The good thing about believing that God created the science, though, is you don't have to keep changing your theories to adjust to new scientific findings.  I mean the Bible has been around since...ancient times, and the Flood explains a lot of things much better than does evolution and the Big Bang and whatever else.

I seem to remember that example - it was moths, not caterpillars, just so you know.

When you say "dominant", though, you don't mean "dominant gene"; you simply mean "more frequently occurring", right?


Yes, I guess.  You are right, now that you point it out, it was moths.  And those who had the gene for a darker color became the dominant population, grew to maturity more frequrntly that their lightr cousins, and bred, spreading their dark gene or genes.  I don't mean "dominant" in the Brown eyes/blue eyes sense.

If you want to look for observable evidence of evolution in action, you have to look at microbiology. Micro-organisms breed, multiply and evolve at a far more accelerated rate than complex creatures. There is evidence that many bacteria that cause sickness will, after a few generations, develop complete resistance to the antibiotics that kill them so that eventually the antibiotics no longer work and have to be reformulated to deal with the new organism. The new organism hasn't just appeared out of the ether. It has evolved out of a previous one. This is why it is often so hard to develop vaccines and medicines for particular diseases, because the basic organism that causes them constantly develops new resistances. This is evolution in action, and it is observable in a laboratory. It's not, however, the sort of thing you can do in a school experiment however.


You are absolutely right.  In fact there is a big and growing concern that infectious agents are evolving faster that our antibiotics and are especially dangerous in hospitals.  I had forgotten about these reports, and relied on my old "Animal Reproduction" course in college regarding the caterpillers/moths.

I find it very disturbing that teachers "skip over" the chapters on evolution.

Okay, but take for example "The Big Bang" - wouldn't that be an example of a theory that's completely unprovable and based mostly on a type of "faith"?


Yes, the "big bang" is a theory, but not "completely unprovable".  Not completely provable to be sure, but there is evidance supporting it.  I'm not up on the research, and not interested enough to research it, but I do remember reports of astronomers finding what they think are echos of the BIG BANG on radio telescopes. 

There are a lot of "theories" that are "completely unprovable" because there are many phenomenon that we can't reproduce in a labratory.  Nor, if we could, would they automatically come out the same because there is no way that we could reproduce the exact conditions under which they occured in nature.  You need to appreciate the difference between lab science and "historical" science.  We know that in lab science if you put A and B together in a test tube you get Z.  You can't do that with historical science, where you are trying to reconstruct a long gone environment. 

The Big Bang theory is not based on faith, but on observation and the application of human reason.  Going along with your biblical proclivities, let me ask this; If God didn't want us to figure this stuff out, why did he burden us with such big brains, and so much curiosity?  Or is that just a cruel cosmic joke?

If God didn't want us to figure this stuff out ...

Now you're asking the wrong person. :P

While I may not be able to be entirely objective, I am trying to evaluate the merits of evolution as a subject to be taught as "science" alongside more measurable and reproduceable observations. I'm trying to see where evolution falls along that spectrum between "faith" and "knowledge", to see where it stands in relation to creation.

and the Flood explains a lot of things much better than does evolution and the Big Bang and whatever else.

Waaait a minute, how so?

Waaait a minute, how so?


Take "dinosaurs" for example.  Scientists keep coming up with all these explanations for "what happened" to them.  Oh it must've been a meteor.  Nono wait, I guess they starved to death and then all the other animals/people popped up after they were dead.  Or whatever it is they say now.  You read the Bible and it makes a whole lot more sense:

Genesis 1 mentions God creating "water above the heavens."  Water above the atmosphere, pretty cool, huh.  This would, of course, cause a large concentration of oxygen on the Earth, allowing people/animals/plants/etc. to grow healthier and live longer.  The Bible records show that people would live over 900 yrs. old! (That is, if their brother didn't kill them first  ;) )  Anyway, so people were living long lives, why not the animals? And we know that the dinosaurs were reptiles, and reptiles never stop growing.  So just imagine if your pet iguana lived to be 600 how big he would be!
Well, anyway so what happened to that water now?  The Flood!  What else?! Read about people who lived after the flood, and you see lifespans gradually got shorter and shorter.  (All this tampering with the ozone layer!  :D  lol)  Makes perfect sense.  If "dinosaurs" don't live as long, they don't grow as big.  Perhaps some particular "species" may have become extinct, or at least very rare to find, but it's not like they were all wiped off the face of the Earth.
By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if a lochness monster really does exist....*tree fitty!*  ;D

Queen... I'm sorry, but the parable of the Great Deluge is one of the key points in Creationist Science arguments that the Bible is a scientific document, and it's just NOT PROVABLE. There is no evidence at all to suggest that the Flood ever happened. If it did, then the world and everything in it is just less than 6000 years old, and geology proves that this is not true. The Flood is a parable, not a true story.

If it did, then the world and everything in it is just less than 6000 years old, and geology proves that this is not true.


What exactly is it that "proves" the earth is BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD.....cuz that carbon dating crap is a bunch of bologna

Btw, in the Bible,  "parables" are mostly found in the NT.  The OT is mostly history and Hebrew law.

What exactly is it that "proves" the earth is BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD.....cuz that carbon dating crap is a bunch of bologna

Btw, in the Bible,  "parables" are mostly found in the NT.  The OT is mostly history and Hebrew law.

Who says carbon dating is crap?
Higher levels of oxygen have been hypothesized to have allowed for larger size for dinosaurs.  Apparently, God exempted Noah from hauling Bronasaurs and Tyrannosaurs onto the ark!  There is no evidence of mankind existing at the same time as dinosaurs, Noah or not!
If you dismiss generally accepted scientific evidence out of hand, then anything's possible, I suppose.

And we know that the dinosaurs were reptiles, and reptiles never stop growing.  So just imagine if your pet iguana lived to be 600 how big he would be!

Well, if dinosaurs were just the same reptiles we have today, their eggs would be the same size as reptile eggs today, right?

So, what about fossilized dinosaur eggs? How big are they?

Those would be proof that dinosaurs were a different species from anything known today. It's not just that reptiles don't live as long; it means some larger species must have died out somehow.

Inherit the Wind, and in a strange way the right-wing populism resemble the populism of William Jennings Bryan, but when you look closer, you see there is no populism, just the Cross of Gold to crucify this nation upon!!!

Well, if dinosaurs were just the same reptiles we have today, their eggs would be the same size as reptile eggs today, right?

So, what about fossilized dinosaur eggs? How big are they?

Those would be proof that dinosaurs were a different species from anything known today. It's not just that reptiles don't live as long; it means some larger species must have died out somehow.


Maybe so, like how about the leviathon and the behemoth?  Those sound an awful lot like dinosaurs to me!  One possibly even a fire-breathing dragon.

Maybe so, like how about the leviathon and the behemoth?  Those sound an awful lot like dinosaurs to me!  One possibly even a fire-breathing dragon.


So... you didn't answer about what happened to them, or why we no longer see them today. The Bible doesn't really explain that, does it?


Saying "carbon dating is crap" is not the same as giving a scientific explanation. Maybe you could elaborate on what's wrong with carbon dating methods?

Saying "carbon dating is crap" is not the same as giving a scientific explanation. Maybe you could elaborate on what's wrong with carbon dating methods?


Why don't you, lil miss family brain?

The only thing possibly wrong with carbon dating is the assumption that levels of C14 (the radioactive isotope of carbon that decays slowly) have stayed by and large constant over the past millennia.  It's certainly good for the last few tens of thousands of years, even hundreds - won't tell you much about jurassic pre-history, but if you were to suppose that the earth has only been around for 6000 years or so, you'd need to come up with a pretty convincing theory about why C14 levels increased so drastically yet smoothly to make us *think* the world was older.

Then there's geological strata: look at the grand canyon, see the sedimentary strata which get laid down slowly over the ages and try and explain how that all came about in 6k years - oh, yes: "God did it"... FFS, there are hundreds or thousands of things that can be reasonably explained by time periods running into millions of years.  Please don't come back with an argument along the lines of "because I don't understand it, it can't be true"

Why don't you, lil miss family brain?


Because I'm not the one making the argument, and I wouldn't know the answer to that question anyway.

But, if you're gonna make that argument, you have to be able to back it up. Do a Google search or something... see if you can find an explanation that would help convince people that you're not just saying "no it's not!" without anything to back it up.

What exactly is it that "proves" the earth is BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD.....cuz that carbon dating crap is a bunch of bologna

Btw, in the Bible,  "parables" are mostly found in the NT.  The OT is mostly history and Hebrew law.


If carbon dating is "a bunch of bologna" then the atom bomb doesn't work.  Tell that to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  You can check out the science of carbon 14 dating rechnique on the net, so I'm not goung to try to explain it.  If you want to reject it because it contradicts the bible or whatever other religious beliefs you hold, well, ok.  If you want to hold the old testament as "history" ie historical fact, ok.  Can't argue with you.  You are working on faith.  That's your right.  But I do object to your calling proven scxientific fact "bologna".  In this case, what evidance do you have that carbon 14 dating isn't accurate?

Why don't you, lil miss family brain?


Because you're the one who made the claim. If you make a claim, you need to back it up. Explain, with proof, how carbon dating is crap. If you can't back up your claims, don't make them.

If carbon dating is "a bunch of bologna" then the atom bomb doesn't work. 
Well, that would be a relief.  On the other hand, if there was evidence of satan appearing on Earth in modern times, it was the atomic bomb!
  :o

Don't forget, Maxwell Smart, "The Nude Bomb."
:P

Take "dinosaurs" for example.  Scientists keep coming up with all these explanations for "what happened" to them.  Oh it must've been a meteor.  Nono wait, I guess they starved to death and then all the other animals/people popped up after they were dead.  Or whatever it is they say now.  You read the Bible and it makes a whole lot more sense:

Genesis 1 mentions God creating "water above the heavens."  Water above the atmosphere, pretty cool, huh.  This would, of course, cause a large concentration of oxygen on the Earth, allowing people/animals/plants/etc. to grow healthier and live longer.  The Bible records show that people would live over 900 yrs. old! (That is, if their brother didn't kill them first  ;) )  Anyway, so people were living long lives, why not the animals? And we know that the dinosaurs were reptiles, and reptiles never stop growing.  So just imagine if your pet iguana lived to be 600 how big he would be!
Well, anyway so what happened to that water now?  The Flood!  What else?! Read about people who lived after the flood, and you see lifespans gradually got shorter and shorter.  (All this tampering with the ozone layer!   :D  lol)  Makes perfect sense.  If "dinosaurs" don't live as long, they don't grow as big.  Perhaps some particular "species" may have become extinct, or at least very rare to find, but it's not like they were all wiped off the face of the Earth.
By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if a lochness monster really does exist....*tree fitty!*   ;D


I gave him a dollar. ;D 8)

A fellow board member gave me a link to this site:  http://www.evidenceofgod.com/answers/creation.htm 
I haven't gotten a chance to read everything yet, but it looks like it was published by a former atheist who made these discoveries while trying to prove the Bible wrong.  Just give it a look.
Btw, I don't appreciate people telling me I can't believe in the Bible to support creation...what kinda crap is that?

A believer can find evidence in the Bible to support whatever topic they are arguing for just as easily as a non believer can find evidence to support what they are arguing against. 


This is pretty much what I've been trying to say.  Neither evolution nor creation is "provable" .  And whoever believes one theory, won't listen to the other.  Whenever I try to mix science into creation, people are like " :o  >:(  but...but...you can't use the BIBLE!"   

Besides, I'm not exactly getting full scientific explanations from them either.  Basically just "All this can only be explained by evolution because I don't believe in God."