school mandates changes to evolution.

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Th3 b0ng 1337, Nov 12, 2004.

  1. Basically. The difference between Law and Theory is a bit nebulous. Some things are called Laws that are, technically, theories. The word "Theory" in common usage is directly analogous to "hypothesis" in science. Saying "Evolution is a theory, not a fact" is fairly misleading as not many highschoolers will understand the difference between the colloquial meaning of Theory and that used in the sciences.
     
  2. quoted from khari "At this point it's simply Biologists and Geologists attempting to convince dumbasses from the Southern United States what the rest of the world has known for centuries."

    get your head out of your ass for 5 #$%#ing minutes and stop talking shit about the south when you dont even live here. creationism is NOT taught in any science class room down here. it is against the law to teach creationism in class rooms in the south.
     
  3. A law is statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity. (dictionary.com)

    There is also a theory of gravity, which attempts to provide a theoretical framework for that law. The two are different, and the reasons behind gravity can never become a law.
     
  4. And that's how it should remain. Also, I wasn't insulting everyone from the South, simply those who believe in a Young Earth/literal flood ect. And yeah, I got carried away a little bit. Lighten up.
     
  5. the thing that bothers me about creationists is that they are so quick to say that humans were created on the 6th day, and darwin was on crack or whatever.

    yeah at the moment we don't have any ways of proving 100% darwins theory or the idea of creationism. But keep in mind a centuries ago humans thought that earthquakes, volcanoes and other natural occurances were acts of god. However since then science has created very convincing arguments for plate techtonics and so fourth.
    obviously no one will really know how living beings came into existence, but at the end of the day everyone will believe what they feel themselves makes the most sense. and really that should be good enough for anyone.

    to the issue of teaching creationism or darwinism in schools is pretty straight foward. in my view they should teach both or none at all. either way no one (ie parents or school board members or teaching staff) will be happy with either decision.
     
  6. i agree with that last paragraph 100%
     
  7. They should both be taught. Evolution in Science, Creation in religion class. If your school doesn't have religion class then tough shit.
     
  8. Do you also agree that we should teach hindu creation "theories" or Aboriginal tales of creation as well?
     
  9. they should both be taught in science. Not creation as in adam and eve etc, but the possibilty of a something creating everything we see in existence, and explore the scientific evidence for it. And yes, there is a lot of it, Stephen Hawkings believes everything we see has been created somehow by something, and he's a smart guy <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A> <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/emoticons/tongue.gif"></A>
     
  10. read my post below ur one which i am quoting.
     
  11. But he would never lecture about it in a science class, and he believes in Evolution.
     
  12. yes he would, creationism and evolution doesnt rule each other out.
     
  13. Evolution doesn't exclude "God created everything". Also "God created" makes no testable predictions. We could look for evidence as to HOW god created everything, but then we'd be right back at evolution as it's what the evidence supports.

    But it should be stressed, espescially in the states where it seems to be a much more divisive issue, that Evolution neither confirms nor denies a God, in every science class.
     
  14. He certainly never mentions it in his writings, or any of the transcripts of his I have read. But you are correct in that Creationism and Evolution do not need to be mutually exclusive.
     
  15. yea, i agree with that.
     
  16. Is that you in your avatar?
     
  17. For some reason I remember you as a hard core Young Earther. Is my memory #$%#ed?
     
  18. hey, teach evolution and whatever, i can still choose not to believe it. And anyhoo, i think we've all argued bout this on SC.net so many times, and no body really changes anyones minds so meh.
     
  19. VICTORY!
     
  20. This has been about as civil a conversation as I can remember here. It's always fun to discuss, as there's bound to be a few posts to get you thinking.
     
  21. Haha! You look insane.
     
  22. Seriously, there hasn't been a hardcore, irate, vicious thread about Evolution/Creation around here for about 6,000 or 13,000,000,000 years.
     
  23. well, nice talkin with you, lol... i needa go find some dinner now....
     
  24. The last one was probably the "short proof for evolution" back in the last version.
     

Share This Page