Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[ProHypster]

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.

*quietly to myself: Just like the evolution theory.*

 

Young scientists... just finding out about a theory and already saying that it was a guess.

 

What happened to wisdom...

 

Anyway here is a bunch of other theories proven completely wrong if you personally don't believe in that one:

 

The Expanding Earth Theory

 

Einstein’s Static Universe - (the Static Universe is often known as “Einstein’s Universe”—who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity.)

 

Fleischmann and Pons’s Cold Fusion

 

The following is phlogiston theory background, it proves, when someone is wrong they will go on further with their fantasies and like a seed the theory grows into a tree of lies....:

 

Wood ash is much lighter than the original wood. Iron rust seems much lighter than the original iron. It makes sense that much of the weight is given off into the air as phlogiston. The calx (plural "calces") is now the pure elemental substance, while each metal ends up being a compound of a basic calx and phlogiston.

 

Charcoal is almost completely consumed when burned (as is sulphur):

 

charcoal ---> phlogiston (to the air)

 

There were usually small residues, correctly recognized to be impurities. As greater efforts were employed to purify the charcoal (or sulphur), the less residue was left after combustion. And so, charcoal is almost pure phlogiston. In the case of sulphur, its calx is considered to be an air:

 

sulphur ---> calx (gaseous) + phlogiston (to the air)

 

When wood burns in a sealed container, it will not burn to completion if there is not enough air. Thus it was deduced that any given amount of common air (as it was called) could hold only so much phlogiston. Common air that could hold no more phlogiston was called "phlogisticated air." So:

 

wood + common air ---> calx + phlogisticated air

 

Now it was discovered that some of this phlogisticated air would dissolve in water. Some of it would not. So there were now two kinds of air in this phlogisticated air. Neither of these two airs would support combustion. The air which would dissolve in water was called "fixed air." The other air was theorized to be the actual phlogisticated air.

 

Joseph Priestley (the main defender of phlogiston theory) discovered another form of air. When mercury was heated in air, it formed a red substance which became known as "the precipitate per se." This precipitate per se, when heated with no air at all, changed back into mercury and this new air. This new air supported combustion much better than common air. Wood burned brighter, and more easily. Iron shavings actually burned rather than rusted.

 

When wood burned in this new air, and you used enough wood so that the air that was left would no longer support combustion, then the air that was left was almost entirely fixed air. So, fixed air was in fact phlogisticated air, and what had previously been called "phlogisticated air" was, in fact, some other kind of air, an impurity of common air. Common air was mostly composed of this impurity, which became known as "foul air" or "mephitic air." And Priestley called his new air "dephlogisticated air":

 

common air=foul air + dephlogisticated air

 

phlogisticated air=dephlogisticated air + phlogiston

 

wood + dephlogisticated air ---> calx (ash) + phlogisticated air

 

This is why I really prefer to talk these subjects with philosophers instead of scientists or religious people, both are so stubborn in defending their theories that they will make up calculations etc etc..

[Dan-95]

This is why I really prefer to talk these subjects with philosophers instead of scientists or religious people, both are so stubborn in defending their theories that they will make up calculations etc etc..

 

 

Science: Groups clinging to their theories as if it were sacred. This is usually beneficial in that admist the stubborness, meticulous research and debate has gone by, ultimately leading to a better conclusion.

 

Religion: Age old nemesis of science but continues to adapt to the situation. Usually philisophically bulletproof.

 

Philosophy: Nothing can be ultimately proven, debate always going on. Often to choose a labelled side. Can disprove anything, sometimes ridiculously so. Current levels of science are unable to affect philosophically.

 

Philosophy really is the middle ground of the other two, able to relate to both.

 

Here's my conclusion from this...

Philosophy will get me nowhere except peace of mind.

Religion will spout the same fundamental beliefs.

Science will be stubborn but will eventually come to a complete conclusion.

 

So for me; rock, paper, scissors.

[danielsangeo]

I think scientists cling stubbornly to science just as mathematicians cling to the notion of 2+2 equaling 4. It's not faith; it's not belief; it's fact. If you put two apples on a table, then you put two more apples on a table, there will be four apples on the table. There will never be five apples on the table or three apples, or any other number of apples. It's always four.

 

Phlogiston theory was a hypothesis. There was no evidence for it and when it was tested, it was found to not be factual. They found that some materials got lighter after burning but then found that there were some materials that got HEAVIER after burning. There was no evidence for this "phlogisticated" material.

 

I think it's like Galileo and the surface of the Moon. The idea was that the surface of the Moon was completely smooth. Galileo asserted that the discoloration of the Moon was due to mountains and valleys like the Earth had and provided evidence with his telescopes. The idea was then changed to having a clear shell over the mountains and valleys and the surface of the Moon was still completely smooth. Galileo smiled and then asserted that the clear shell could also have mountains and valleys that we just could not see. The "smooth Moon" hypothesis (which had no evidence) was dismissed.

[BTGBullseye]

I think scientists cling stubbornly to science just as mathematicians cling to the notion of 2+2 equaling 4. It's not faith; it's not belief; it's fact. If you put two apples on a table, then you put two more apples on a table, there will be four apples on the table. There will never be five apples on the table or three apples, or any other number of apples. It's always four.

Yes, but they won't mutate into 4 grapes...

 

I still have yet to hear anything out of anyone else that supports Evolution with anything but conjecture, or unsupported arguments.

[Eedo Baba]

I still have yet to hear anything out of anyone else that supports Evolution with anything but conjecture, or unsupported arguments.

Yes, you've yet to hear these arguments because you tend to cover your ears.

[BTGBullseye]

Yes, you've yet to hear these arguments because you tend to cover your ears.

That tends to happen when people repeat the same nonsense a thousand times hoping that it will eventually indoctrinate me.

[Eedo Baba]

Yes, you've yet to hear these arguments because you tend to cover your ears.

That tends to happen when people repeat the same nonsense a thousand times hoping that it will eventually indoctrinate me.

 

You say that you don't believe in evolution, but then you expect people to give you credit somehow. You would have to be an uneducated moron to not understand that evolution has been proven miles more than you'll admit. You'll likely ask why I don't give any facts to support this. Because it's already been done, like 50 times in this thread! Do you get some sort of sick pleasure from infuriating people who only want to discuss something rationally? This almost seems more likely to me than you actually being this criminally stupid.

[BTGBullseye]

Because it's already been done, like 50 times in this thread!

Where? I see less than 3 links to material that is supposed to support Evolution. No references in any other way to any other material...

 

Try again...

[Doom Shepherd]

Because it's already been done, like 50 times in this thread!

Where? I see less than 3 links to material that is supposed to support Evolution. No references in any other way to any other material...

 

That's still 1000% more than the number of links that you've provided to support your argument... whatever that is, since you seem to change your mind about what kind of Creationist you are every time one of your possiblilities is soundly thrashed.

 

Thus far, your argument boils down to putting your hands over your ears and shouting "NUH-UH!!!"

[BTGBullseye]

That's still 1000% more than the number of links that you've provided to support your argument... whatever that is, since you seem to change your mind about what kind of Creationist you are every time one of your possiblilities is soundly thrashed.

 

Thus far, your argument boils down to putting your hands over your ears and shouting "NUH-UH!!!"

My argument is solely against teaching Evolution as fact in schools. Everyone else has been wrongly accusing me of wanting creationism taught as fact instead.

 

My argument is that I want to see actual evidence, not conjecture, to support Evolution. (why does nobody seem to understand that everything they've been posting in support of Evolution is unproven speculation or conjecture?)

[Doom Shepherd]

(why does nobody seem to understand that everything they've been posting in support of Evolution is unproven speculation or conjecture?)

 

The word you're failing to reach for is "deduction." It's what we have to use until a time machine is invented.

 

Your argument is that you were hit on the head in a dark room, and when you walked into the light, and saw three guys standing there, only one of whom was holding a club and your wallet, you can't PROVE he mugged you.

 

That is the standard of proof you are holding up. It is a stupid standard.

 

So anyway...

http://aigbusted.synthasite.com/Fossil_Transitions.php

 

Now, if you're gonna try and claim that ALL those multiple transitional fossils have been faked (along with many more not pictured there) I'm gonna have to call you a paranoid schizophrenic.

 

You might like this one, too. OBSERVED cases of speciation (that's when something EVOLVES into a new species.)

 

http://aigbusted.synthasite.com/Observed_Evo.php

 

There, I've just increased the evidential links by oh, about 30.

[BTGBullseye]

http://aigbusted.synthasite.com/Fossil_Transitions.php

That says there are fossils without actually showing pictures of said fossils.

 

http://aigbusted.synthasite.com/Observed_Evo.php

I have yet to read most of the links here, but so far as I've read there is no proof that it was an Evolutionary process and not just the discovery of another species.

[danielsangeo]

Every single living thing on this planet is currently a transitional species. Look in a mirror. Look at what you're seeing. It's the reflection of a transitional species.

 

This is a transitional fossil:

 

I think scientists cling stubbornly to science just as mathematicians cling to the notion of 2+2 equaling 4. It's not faith; it's not belief; it's fact. If you put two apples on a table, then you put two more apples on a table, there will be four apples on the table. There will never be five apples on the table or three apples, or any other number of apples. It's always four.

Yes, but they won't mutate into 4 grapes...

 

And a cat won't mutate into a dog. Do you know what evolution is?

[BTGBullseye]

This is a transitional fossil:

http://english.cri.cn/mmsource/images/2008/07/24/46860724dinosaur.jpg

And what makes that a transitional fossil?

[Koockaburra101]

That organism was slightly different from its parents and its offspring was very slightly different from it. Do that for a shitload of generations and the end result will be immensely different than what you started with. Evolution isn't a "ladder" with clearly defined boundaries between each step. Its a continuum that is in constant transition. Nature doesn't recognize the concept of species. That is something we've invented for classification purposes. As was just said, everything is a "transitional form" because everything is in between other things, there is no boundary where something suddenly stops being one thing and starts being another.

[BTGBullseye]

That organism was slightly different from its parents and its offspring was very slightly different from it.

So where are it's parents and offspring? I want to compare...

[Koockaburra101]

Did you even read the rest of my post?

 

You know what, never mind that. Why don't you just post your understanding of the evolutionary theory. Because the more you post the more I have this sinking feeling that you don't have the faintest clue what it's actually about.

[BTGBullseye]

Did you even read the rest of my post?

 

You know what, never mind that. Why don't you just post your understanding of the evolutionary theory. Because the more you post the more I have this sinking feeling that you don't have the faintest clue what it's actually about.

Oh indeed I do know tons about the theory, including the fact that Darwin never actually believed the theory as a fact.

 

I'm saying, if you can't prove that one came directly from another, (not immediately) you are proving nothing.

[Koockaburra101]

What Darwin thought is irrelevant, the (alleged) opinion of the originator has no bearing on the truth of the theory, surely you realize that? Most of the evidence we have for the theory wasn't even available to him since DNA wasn't even discovered yet.

But please, let's hear a basic description of the theory of evolution as you understand it. If only to bring some clarity to this discussion.

[BTGBullseye]

But please, let's hear a basic description of the theory of evolution as you understand it. If only to bring some clarity to this discussion.

The theory is at it's base simply thus: That each existing species/creature has it's origins as a random electrochemical mixture that spontaneously became living. All "evolved" through mutations and/or adaptations to the environment that were subsequently passed through the generations eventually making new "species".

 

At least that is what they've been teaching in the schools around here. (which is what this thread is about)