Creationism vs Evolution, Equal? - Page 16

**Damien** · 17-04-2007, 23:33

These sum up my arguement against creationism as a science in a funny, although slightly harsh, way.

danielf · 17-04-2007, 23:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

These sum up my arguement against creationism as a science in a funny, although slightly harsh, way.

Love the second one. However, to be honest, science works like that occasionally. Some people will just get entrenched in their position, and just look for evidence that supports it, or retreat to silly positions where they can't be 'caught'. On the whole, and particularly over time, it does work in the way it should, as the majority opinion changes, and silly theories get weeded out or replaced by other silly theories.

SMG · 17-04-2007, 23:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

These sum up my arguement against creationism as a science in a funny, although slightly harsh, way.

I think it realy is that simple. If "Creationism" can be proved, then it gets equal status. If not, its binned.

skyblueheroes · 18-04-2007, 07:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

These sum up my arguement against creationism as a science in a funny, although slightly harsh, way.

**Chris** · 18-04-2007, 09:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

These sum up my arguement against creationism as a science in a funny, although slightly harsh, way.

And my favourite - although sadly I can't locate the cartoon online at the moment - is "Hydrogen: a light, colorless, odorless gas, that given enough time, turns into people."

Now, we can swap crass soundbites or we can try to work towards some kind of mutual understanding and respect for sincerely held opinions. I know which I'd prefer.

**Damien** · 18-04-2007, 10:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

And my favourite - although sadly I can't locate the cartoon online at the moment - is "Hydrogen: a light, colorless, odorless gas, that given enough time, turns into people."

Now, we can swap crass soundbites or we can try to work towards some kind of mutual understanding and respect for sincerely held opinions. I know which I'd prefer.

I didnt mean any offence, Just found it funny

There is enough science for Evolution, certainly more than Creationism. I cant really see any good case for Creationism to be taught as a science even In a state school.

18-04-2007, 10:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMG

I think it realy is that simple. If "Creationism" can be proved, then it gets equal status. If not, its binned.

but science by definition is the best explanation for a subject at any one time. Its constantly up for review and therefore never truly proven. The rules of gravity for example has in resent history been proven to be off by certain calculation when the 2 probes (cant remember the names) went off course at opposite edges of the solar system.

The missing link that I was taught in schools never existed as Homosapiens and Neanderthals existed at the same time

Infinity cant be explained the list is endless

A scientist has faith in what he believes is true so what when that truth is found to be wrong

**Chris** · 18-04-2007, 10:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

I didnt mean any offence, Just found it funny

There is enough science for Evolution, certainly more than Creationism. I cant really see any good case for Creationism to be taught as a science even In a state school.

There is plenty of science for Creation. The data sets that are used are the same. They are however interpreted differently. Evolutionary scientists complain about 'selective' use of data. Believe it or not, creationist scientists make the same charge against evolutionists.

I would not expect any school to give parity to the two models of how we came to be here, however to pretend there are no alternatives is simply dishonest.

Xaccers · 18-04-2007, 10:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

And my favourite - although sadly I can't locate the cartoon online at the moment - is "Hydrogen: a light, colorless, odorless gas, that given enough time, turns into people."

Which ironically isn't as true as the cartoons posted

Science is able to admit mistakes, creationists are not.
Could you admit that the particular god you believe in could make mistakes?

danielf · 18-04-2007, 10:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

I would not expect any school to give parity to the two models of how we came to be here, however to pretend there are no alternatives is simply dishonest.

But the issue is whether it is an alternative that stands up to scientific scrutiny. And creationism does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. It's pseudoscience.

**Damien** · 18-04-2007, 10:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

There is plenty of science for Creation. The data sets that are used are the same. They are however interpreted differently. Evolutionary scientists complain about 'selective' use of data. Believe it or not, creationist scientists make the same charge against evolutionists.

I would not expect any school to give parity to the two models of how we came to be here, however to pretend there are no alternatives is simply dishonest.

I've not seen it. Evolution happens around us, I dont see why its so hard to believe it happens to Humans too.

18-04-2007, 10:27

At the end of the day what does it matter? From a scientific viewpoint we are all just gonna die then nothing so who really gives a toss whether we are taught evolution or not?
If death is the end there is no point to anything its all just a waste of time

Xaccers · 18-04-2007, 10:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

At the end of the day what does it matter? From a scientific viewpoint we are all just gonna die then nothing so who really gives a toss whether we are taught evolution or not?
If death is the end there is no point to anything its all just a waste of time

Filling a science timetable with lessons on non-scientific subjects takes up precious time that should be spent on science. It would be like teaching about the Saxon invasion in PE lessons.
During my GCSE's, in biology we didn't have time to cover everything on the silibus.

Stuart · 18-04-2007, 10:32

Actually, while I personally believe in Evolution, rather than Creationism, I find it interesting to ponder the following (for which, AFAIK, Science provides no answer).

How was Evolution created? How were the rules and mechanisms it uses defined or designed? After all, logic tells us that any system has to have rules (even systems in nature). How were those rules defined?

Evolution enables beings to change to fit their own needs and/or environment (for instance, humans walking around on two legs rather than 4 paws). How was the system that allows those changes implemented?

18-04-2007, 10:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Filling a science timetable with lessons on non-scientific subjects takes up precious time that should be spent on science. It would be like teaching about the Saxon invasion in PE lessons.
During my GCSE's, in biology we didn't have time to cover everything on the silibus.

Well as I pointed out I was taught incorrectly I was taught about a missing link that wasnt there. Maybe the whole "how we came to be" could just be dropped full stop cuz at the end of the day no one knows for sure what happened.Maybe schools should concentrate on the fact we are here and things relative to the here and now rather than the billions of years ago

---------- Post added at 10:35 ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 ----------

People have said that belief in creation is a belief magic. Tell me please how the belief that a molten rock cooled and then life "magically" just started is any different at all?????

I can accept evolution happened after life begun on this planet. But I cant accept that life just happened