Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[danielsangeo]

1. For example?

 

2. Actually, Darwin, Newton, and Einstein DID have evidence for their assertions.

 

3. Some of these aren't universe originating theories (Accretion Theory). Others aren't even theories (Oscillating Universe Theory). None of the origin "theories" listed here have evidence for them.

 

4. I think you're mistaken about the Big Bang Theory. Time began when the Big Bang happened (some 10^-43 seconds after time began, the universe began to expand). As for what caused the Big Bang, no one knows and there's no evidence to suggest that there's any supernatural force or anything other than "it happened". We're still trying to find out but not knowing doesn't mean that it's illogical. We just don't know the logic behind it....yet.

 

An easy way to think about the "beginning of time" and how the phrase "before the Big Bang" is, itself, gibberish, is this: "Which direction is north of the north pole?"

Edited September 10, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[ProHypster]

1. For example?

 

2. Actually, Darwin, Newton, and Einstein DID have evidence for their assertions.

 

3. Some of these aren't universe originating theories (Accretion Theory). Others aren't even theories (Oscillating Universe Theory). None of the origin "theories" listed here have evidence for them.

 

1. Remember I once quoted Socrates about when one should rather not say the info?

If it's a lie, if you are uncertain in any way of the truth, if it is something negative.

 

2. What evidence did Newton have of gravity? Apples falling? What evidence did Darwin have of evolution? Two different bird species?... I'm not even going to begin on Einstein.

 

3-4--- Here you are right but that makes the Big Bang theory not a theory of the beginning but a theory of the earliest we know of.

 

Ok than you agree that the big bang theory actually isn't a theory about the beginning of our world it only explains what happens when time began. And I think there will be lots of adjustions to it personally anyway but this does mean that there is space for a million theories on how the big bang started and that was my point.

 

Do you agree that something illogical happened before the Big Bang?

 

*I will now let other people comment and talk about evolution vs creation here*

Edited September 10, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[danielsangeo]

1. However, if that info has evidence for it...

2. What evidence is there for gravity? Um.....things falling to the ground, which has been observed billions of times? Darwin's evolution? Read up on it. There's a lot more than you think. And Einstein had the math to back him up.

3. No, those are NOT theories. Theories are explanations and bodies of principles for available empirical data about observations that can be tested. For example, the "heliocentric theory" which states that the Earth revolves around the sun. This has been observed. Theories MUST be well-supported by evidence. The word you're looking for is "speculation", "conjecture", "supposition", or "guess". These things that are listed as "theories" are mislabeled.

 

The Big Bang is about the origin of the universe. Our world (the Earth) came later. And we have theories about how that happened, too. And we have theories on how life formed on this planet as well as how it evolved once it formed.

 

None of this precludes a creator deity or intelligent force. But then again, the existence of a creator deity or intelligent force also does not preclude a 'higher' creator deity or intelligent force to create that creator deity or intelligent force. And one 'higher' than that. And one 'higher' than that.

 

That's the problem with speculations, conjectures, suppositions, or guesses. If you don't have evidence for it, you can really just say anything. And that's not good to teach in schools.

 

I do not agree that something illogical happened "before" the Big Bang.

[ProHypster]

What does this have to do with teaching in schools, this was a big offtopic discussion with you. And then you didn't really get half of the points I made..... and answer obvious things.

 

I either really suck at english and amking my point and you misunderstand me, or you have a problem in understanding people and arguments... sorry about the rant, but that's just how it is with you all the time. Like just one example: things falling is a fact, facts can be used as evidence for many things, which by the way I haven't mentioned but facts which were used for big bang could also be used for other theories, but anyway things falling is not evidence for what Newton described as gravity in the way he did as the planet circled the sun because of gravity. Of course, planet circling the sun is a fact but it is not evidence for it doing so because of gravity, I could've easily said at the time that it was because of some swinging arm and he wouldn't have any more evidence then me. The reason his story was accepted is because it's more believable and very rational. Only now we can actually measure the force and hence have evidence for gravity.

 

Like every time I try to put a proper point up you answer to me in a way that is factual and obvious but it is not related to my point, it is about my point but it is always like you take my point word for word, you're not supposed to do that, you're supposed to take a deeper meaning from my words. I am not going to write for 10 paragraphs just so you can understand exactly the way I think.

Anyway, whatever, this belongs to a different thread anyway. Keep arguing with the creationalists here instead of me.

[danielsangeo]

Actually, it's quite on topic. I think that we should teach children in school that which has evidence, not that which doesn't have evidence. At least, if you're going to teach something that has no evidence, preface it as such.

 

Actually, for gravity, we do have evidence that gravity is causing orbits, not 'swinging arms around'. We knew about gravity before Newton. Newton just codified it into a law.

 

Long story short (too late!): I want children taught that which has evidence, not that which doesn't have evidence. Capisce?

[ProHypster]

Actually, it's quite on topic. I think that we should teach children in school that which has evidence, not that which doesn't have evidence. At least, if you're going to teach something that has no evidence, preface it as such.

 

Actually, for gravity, we do have evidence that gravity is causing orbits, not 'swinging arms around'. We knew about gravity before Newton. Newton just codified it into a law.

 

Long story short (too late!): I want children taught that which has evidence, not that which doesn't have evidence. Capisce?

I'm not going to reply to the gravity thing as again, you didn't get my point . And yes I do know all of that thank you, I am not in 3rd grade.

 

I do not understand this thing about children being tought evidence. Have I said otherwise? I would also teach them the evidence that we have for the Big Bang theory so they can review it if they want to. We both agree on the same thing and yet you manage to make it look like I have a different position then you.

 

I guess the difference between me and you is that I think the Big Bang theory is no the origin of the universe but the earliest sequence that we have evidence of. Although as I said the theory is still in progress too and will get adjusted.

[danielsangeo]

The way I saw it, it looks like you were advocating children being taught "other theories" that had no evidence. You produced this list of "theories" for the "origin of the universe", some of which aren't theories at all (they have no evidence for them) and others that weren't about the origin of the universe. I was under the impression that you wanted children be taught these as "equally valid" to the theory that has evidence: The Big Bang. And this theory ("The Big Bang Theory") also encompasses what happened prior to expansion...though we're still working on getting and understanding the evidence of what happened during Planck Time.

 

If that's not what you're doing, I apologize, but I was speaking all this time on what I want children to be taught.

[ProHypster]

The way I saw it, it looks like you were advocating children being taught "other theories" that had no evidence. You produced this list of "theories" for the "origin of the universe", some of which aren't theories at all (they have no evidence for them) and others that weren't about the origin of the universe. I was under the impression that you wanted children be taught these as "equally valid" to the theory that has evidence: The Big Bang.

 

If that's not what you're doing, I apologize, but I was speaking all this time on what I want children to be taught.

 

Yes I agree about the Big Bang being a theory of evidence I just don't agree that it is necessarily the origin of the universe. It's just something that happened.

[danielsangeo]

Oops, I edited my post after seeing your edit. Apologies again.

[ProHypster]

Oops, I edited my post after seeing your edit. Apologies again.

Yes I understand and while scientists are working on it, some people don't have time and want to understand in a as you say "speculation or educated guess" what the origin of the universe is.

 

But I wouldn't teach this to kids yet, I think their brains would explode. Just say that lots of theories (of the theory prior to big bang or in the early stages depending on how you view it) could be possible at this moment.

 

This is by the way the point I was making bringing up examples of theories, of course they were mostly irrelated because I didn't read the link, you asked for other examles, I gave you them.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[danielsangeo]

Alternatively, say "We don't know yet. There are a lot of hypotheses and speculation, but we just don't know....yet."

 

It is my lifelong goal to educate people about what "theories" are (in this context) and, more importantly, what they aren't. Theories have evidence. If we don't have evidence, they aren't theories.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[ProHypster]

Good, then we have an understanding, alright I'm leaving this huge off-topic rant. It's still supposed to be about evolution vs cretionalism.

 

Ok, you brought up another thing and it's too important not to answer because it plays a huge role in misunderstanding a discussion with you.

 

Maybe instead of teaching people what theories are, you should say to people that you only accept scientific theories which are defined as you want to teach other people. But you just cannot change the definition of the philosophical or casual theory which in science is equal to the word hypothesis.

If you want to talk only scientific theories say so, but theory is more often perceived as a philosophical term rather then scientific so if you do not state so, expect a theory to be a hypothesis.

 

My point is don't teach people the word "theory" is the same as the expression "scientific theory", you will confuse everyone and conflicts may arrise.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[danielsangeo]

I thought it was about teaching creationism versus evolution in schools. And that we were talking, in a sideways way, on the subject of creationism.

 

Or, at least, I was.

 

In conclusion: I want children taught the Big Bang Theory and evolution, not creationism. Why? The former has actual testable evidence. The latter...................doesn't.

[alphabetagamma]

Apologies for the big posting that follows.

 

The Big Bang Theory is the best theory we have to date for the evidence we see.

But that's just your opinion. I know others share it, including me, but others may not.

 

No, it's not an opinion. That's a fact.

You don't seem to be getting the idea that it's only your opinion that it's a fact. It's the Big Bang theory.

[ProHypster]

Before Daniel answers and this becomes a rant on what a theory is...

 

Theory - Scientific Hypothesis (Educated Guess)

Scientific Theory - Based on facts but not a fact itself

[Blue]

The Big Bang Theory is the best theory we have to date for the evidence we see.

But that's just your opinion. I know others share it, including me, but others may not.

No, it's not an opinion. That's a fact.

That is not being objective.

 

That is being prejudiced.

 

Or predisposed, or whatever other word you would like to use to describe a personal preference to one side of the argument or the other.

 

Matters of religion cannot be considered without bias. If eternal life in any shape or form is possible, then any sort of consideration regarding them is with the inherent bias of being in favor or opposed to such an idea, and there is no way to consider it objectively.

 

Matters of science are systems which govern the basis of Sense and Fact. They cannot govern life in as much as the capacities for which we survive (art, love, pleasure) because those things can't entirely and shouldn't absolutely be governed that way. By "The capacities for which we survive", I mean that they are things that survival does not value, but they give value to survival.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[danielsangeo]

No, it really isn't. A theory is a set of observable facts. It must have evidence before it can be called a theory. When referring to the Big Bang Theory, it is a scientific theory, not a guess, not an opinion. It has facts backing it up. Clear, observable facts. How is this "prejudiced"?

 

The sun appearing to rise in the eastern sky and setting in the western sky is not an opinion. The rotation of the earth around its axis and around the sun is not an opinion. Plants taking in CO2 and giving off oxygen is not an opinion, all housecats belonging to the same species is not an opinion, my words appearing on your computer screen is not an opinion. These are all facts. And, the fact is, the Big Bang Theory is the best theory we have for the observable facts.

 

And it should be taught as such in school.

[Blue]

Evolution should be taught in school. Big Bang theory should be established that it's the best theory we have for the source of the Universe as science explains it as of yet. Creationism should not be mentioned lest it infringe on the religious rights or inclinations of the teacher or on behalf of the government.

 

If we are agreed with this assertion it would relieve me if this thread was not posted in again.

[Michael Archer]

Big Bang theory should be established that it's the best theory we have for the source of the Universe as science explains it as of yet

 

Right. Knowledge is contextual and Big Bang Theory fits into this context by existing with the other theories without contradicting any of them. You know how scientists are trying to find a unification theory? This has to do with "contextual knowledge" as well; if knowledge existed outside of a context, it wouldn't matter. Contradictions don't exist in nature, so the scientists are unsatisfied with the current theories.

 

You know what else is a scientific theory? Germs. BTG, do you "believe" in germs? It's just a theory, after all.

[Blue]

Well I'm glad that we're satisfied with basically a summarization of what was established on several different pages but people kept getting off issue with some other aspect which made people frustrated with. Not naming names...