Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[Bjossi]

Bjorne please don't close this topic, I don't think it will harm anyone for this topic to exist.

 

I'd never do that on my own, such action needs staff consensus, and besides it wouldn't do much good to silence opinions and views (The ones that haven't already been expressed here that is.). Look at my post as an advice to not take BTGbullseye too seriously, he is a peculiar fellow who likes to be disliked.

[Lord Sinister]

I am sure that this topic will remain open provided that debate is reasonable, sane, and argument/insult free. And that no one is being a jerk. And that everyone supports their side of the debate properly.

 

I smell sarcasm....

 

There was not an ounce of sarcasm in my post, I assure you.

 

And as Bjossi says, unless things rapidly got ridiculously out of hand in a way that necessitated instant closure of this thread followed by private discussion of its fate, the closure of a thread of this magnitude if things seemed to be slowly getting out of hand would be a joint Staff action.

[Eedo Baba]

I guess you are foolish enough to think that my arguments were serious........

 

Nope, you've just set such an extremely low standard for intelligence and sanity in your posts, I had to assume you were being serious.

[BTGBullseye]

Wait a moment. Are you suggesting that, without real-time eyewitnesses, there's NO WAY to know what happened in the past?

Why is everyone focusing on just the 'Video or time machine" section and completely ignoring the part that says "or something that PROVES it without extensive conjecture"? So far all I've seen is a lot of conjecture, and no proof.

 

The Earth was formed by material from the accretion disk coalescing

Where's the proof? Sure it seems plausible, but it is still just conjecture.

 

Internal heat (caused by pressure)

[sarcasm] Yeah, that can't possibly have come from any other source, only pressure... [/sarcasm]

 

Still no proof...

 

Over time, organic material formed and began to grow and divide, forming the most primitive life. That life eventually evolved until we are here.

 

This is all backed up with literal mountains of evidence.

So where is the proof? Even having a fossil that to a cursory inspection seems to support your beliefs doesn't prove that it was anything but a single entity, and has no evidence showing that there was ever more than one of them.

 

 

I await anything but the loads of conjecture you've been labeling as fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS: I think "conjecture" is going to be my new favorite word for use in this thread, it's a perfect description for all the origin theories.

[Michael Archer]

Bullseye, I haven't been following this thread, but I hope that you're not discrediting evolution simply because it's a "theory" (Atomic Theory, Newton's Gravitation Theory are all legitimate despite being called "theories")

 

If you can come up with a better theory; one that is backed up by decades of scientific research, empirical studies, hundreds of fossils i.e. things that are objectively demonstrable, we'll teach that to our kids. In the meantime, evolution is the best we've got.

 

Before you do, remember: lack of proof is not proof for something else. Even if what you're saying about the other people's facts about evolution being false are true, this does not mean proof for creation.

[Eedo Baba]

So where is the proof? Even having a fossil that to a cursory inspection seems to support your beliefs doesn't prove that it was anything but a single entity, and has no evidence showing that there was ever more than one of them.

I await anything but the loads of conjecture you've been labeling as fact.

 

You stretch to find flaws in the abundant proof towards accepted science, and seem to think these flaws are important, but what are you defending? Something with absolutely no proof whatsoever, which you don't seem to think is so bad.

[danielsangeo]

So where is the proof?

 

What would you accept as proof?

[Lord Sinister]

So where is the proof?

 

What would you accept as proof?

 

What is he trying to prove?

[danielsangeo]

I think what BTG is asking for is eyewitness accounts to the formation of the Earth as proof...or perhaps formation of life or perhaps eyewitness accounts of dinosaurs or whatever.... I'm not sure what BTG wants.

[BTGBullseye]

I have yet to see anyone read through one of my posts without saying that I'm just wanting creation only in schools... Not what I'm getting at at all.

 

Gravity is a law, not a theory anymore. Atomics are no longer theories either. Evolution is a theory.

 

I'm trying to say merely that the teaching of Evolution as a fact is outright wrong, and just as wrong as teaching that any religion is fact. Every school I've been to, or knew someone who went there has taught Evolution as fact, and that is a blatant disrespect for science. (a true science lover will have absolutely no issue with letting it remain a theory, and be taught as such, until conjectureless proof arises)

 

 

What would you accept as proof?

Something that requires no conjecture to support Evolution.

[Lord Sinister]

I'm going to do the unthinkable and paste this link to Wikipedia that seems to be related.

 

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

[Doom Shepherd]

Gravity is a law, not a theory anymore. Atomics are no longer theories either. Evolution is a theory.

 

Gravity is a fact. Newtonian and Einsteinian Gravitation are theories.

Evolution is a fact. Lamarckian and Darwinian Evolution are theories.

"Atomics" isn't a thing, so we'll skip that until you can better explain what you think you're talking about.

 

The fact is, all evolutionary theories excluding Darwinian Evolution (and its modifications) have been discredited, and ALL of the components of Darwinian Evolution (Mutation, Natural Selection, Speciation, etc.) have been verified through observation.

 

What you are trying to do is identical to attempting to argue that Mathematics isn't real because we can't calculate Pi to the last digit.

[Michael Archer]

Evolution is a theory, just like atomic theory and probability theory. It doesn't get any more scientific than evolution. Everything that evolution presents is demonstrable, so it makes sense that it should be taught in schools. Creation is not demonstrable and is taken entirely on faith.

 

Gravity is a law, not a theory anymore. Atomics are no longer theories either. Evolution is a theory.

 

Again, the term "scientific theory" does not in anyway express doubt. A scientific theory is a model to explain how things work in real life.

 

I believe evidence is first gathered, and then a model is built to explain that. Just like the atomic theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory

 

Gravity is a fact. Newtonian and Einsteinian Gravitation are theories.

Evolution is a fact. Lamarckian and Darwinian Evolution are theories.

 

"Theory" and "fact" are not mutually exclusive.

[danielsangeo]

Gravity is a law, not a theory anymore.

 

Yes, it is. As others have said, scientific theory is not conjecture.

 

What would you accept as proof?

Something that requires no conjecture to support Evolution.

 

Like what? Provide an example.

[Axeldeath]

Gravity is a law, not a theory anymore. Atomics are no longer theories either. Evolution is a theory.

 

And here's where BTG is found to be a bullshitter of extreme proportions. Gravity is not a law, if you understood how science works you would know this. In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

 

Some people ( BTG ) think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

 

Shall I repeat myself again? A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

 

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

 

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations) happens, just like gravity does. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations. [/rant_over]

[danielsangeo]

Axeldeath: tl;dr: Evolution is all three: law, theory, and fact.

[ProHypster]

I think I got to explain my position here:

 

1. I understand that evolution is in fact a scientific theory and has laws based on the theory assuming the theory is true.

 

2. Remember the centuries long scientific Phlogiston theory which also had laws within it once? Yeah. And that tried to explain combustion, something pretty easy and common compared to the problem of how we were created.

 

3. I also believe the theory probably will never be proved wrong though, that's according to the fact that most of the theory explains things that took place billions of years ago, another personal reference I have is from the bible, but that is not important to evolutionists I believe.

 

4. I believe Mutations exist, but read this and you'll laugh (To help you, think about the healthiest age of the sperm in a father, maybe you'll get it although I now doubt it): http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4894696.ece

 

5. It's not up to what I believe anyway, it is right to have your own opinion over this, that means don't take evolution for granted because the majority of a sub culture agrees on it, don't take religion for granted becasue the majority of another sub culture agrees on it. However especially if you don't really care about explaining the world and are a pesimist don't try to support either side here.

 

Yes I know, still no paper done. One day, one day.

[danielsangeo]

I think that there are degrees of "wrong". Simply saying that something was "wrong" in the past doesn't necessarily mean that something "wrong" today is of equal import. Let us take "pi" as a f'rinstance.

 

A long time ago, without much math skills, they worked out that pi=3. Later, with more refinement, they found that pi=3.1 Then 3.14. Then 3.142. Then 3.1415. Then 3.1416. Then 3.14159. Then 3.141593. Then 3.14159265....

 

Later, with more and more refinement (we're still refining it today), we're out into the billions of digits for pi. Does that mean that we, today, are as wrong as those that said pi equaled 3? No. Does that mean that pi=3 was completely wrong for the time it was in? Also no. It was the best available evidence at the time.

 

Science desires...no, CRAVES...pointing out flaws. It allows refinement. Those that claim that "Big Science" is trying to "keep evidence away that challenges Big Science" just doesn't know what they're talking about. Anyone that can point to a huge flaw in the theory of evolution would be the most famous scientist of their time. Millions have tried...and some have tried to introduce hoaxes such as Piltdown Man but under scrutiny, these hoaxes are quickly discarded. Evolutionary theory, like the value of pi, continues to be refined as more evidence comes in.

 

Some things, such as phrenology, do not stand up under scrutiny and are eventually discarded as having no evidence or misusing (or even abusing) the scientific method in order to advance a conclusion. Phrenology was wrong because there was no evidence that it was right. I'd have to research "phlogiston theory" because I haven't heard of it, but I assume, at the moment, that it's similar.

 

EDIT: Just looked up phlogiston theory. It wasn't a scientific theory at all. It was a hypothesis that fell apart under testing.

[ProHypster]

I think that there are degrees of "wrong". Simply saying that something was "wrong" in the past doesn't necessarily mean that something "wrong" today is of equal import. Let us take "pi" as a f'rinstance.

 

A long time ago, without much math skills, they worked out that pi=3. Later, with more refinement, they found that pi=3.1 Then 3.14. Then 3.142. Then 3.1415. Then 3.1416. Then 3.14159. Then 3.141593. Then 3.14159265....

 

Later, with more and more refinement (we're still refining it today), we're out into the billions of digits for pi. Does that mean that we, today, are as wrong as those that said pi equaled 3? No. Does that mean that pi=3 was completely wrong for the time it was in? Also no. It was the best available evidence at the time.

 

Science desires...no, CRAVES...pointing out flaws. It allows refinement. Those that claim that "Big Science" is trying to "keep evidence away that challenges Big Science" just doesn't know what they're talking about. Anyone that can point to a huge flaw in the theory of evolution would be the most famous scientist of their time. Millions have tried...and some have tried to introduce hoaxes such as Piltdown Man but under scrutiny, these hoaxes are quickly discarded. Evolutionary theory, like the value of pi, continues to be refined as more evidence comes in.

 

Some things, such as phrenology, do not stand up under scrutiny and are eventually discarded as having no evidence or misusing (or even abusing) the scientific method in order to advance a conclusion. Phrenology was wrong because there was no evidence that it was right. I'd have to research "phlogiston theory" because I haven't heard of it, but I assume, at the moment, that it's similar.

 

EDIT: Just looked up phlogiston theory. It wasn't a scientific theory at all. It was a hypothesis that fell apart under testing.

Wrong:

First paragraph on wikipedia:

The phlogiston theory (from the Ancient Greek φλογιστόν phlogistón "burning up", from φλόξ phlóx "flame"), first stated in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher, is an obsolete scientific theory that postulated ......

[danielsangeo]

It wasn't a scientific theory, regardless of what Wikipedia says...because it wasn't backed by evidence. It was, for all intents and purposes, a guess.