CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I don't have a problem with creationism or intelligent design being taught in schools, but teachers need to ensure their students understand that the theory of evolution enjoys much more academic support.
It doesn't hurt for students to learn the differing viewpoints in controversial issues - in fact that could help them learn to think rationally, rather than believe the first thing they're taught.
It doesn't hurt for students to learn the differing viewpoints in controversial issues - in fact that could help them learn to think rationally, rather than believe the first thing they're taught.
The body of creationism is misinformation designed to undermine biology, physics and chemistry. Teaching it in school alongside science means effectively reducing understanding of that science.
With a hot topic like evolutionism vs creationism, I think it can only benefit students to hear both sides of the debate. How much teaching varying perspectives "reduces understanding" really depends on the teacher's technique and the students' ability.
If you're talking about teaching a group of 4 year olds, I agree that you shouldn't confuse them by giving them incompatible information that their young minds may not be able to handle.
But a middle or high school audience is intellectually mature enough to juggle differing points of view and understand that not all arguments are equal in persuasiveness. There is no need for the teacher to present evolutionism and creationism as though they are both scientifically received theories - in fact I specifically said that teachers should add a caveat when explaining creationism.
All that needs to be said is, "Just so you know, there is a number of people who reject the theory of evolution. They believe in blah blah blah because blah blah blah and they present this and that as evidence for it, although the scientific community generally doesn't think that evidence holds water because blah blah blah."
As a side note, I did argue in another comment on this page that I'd rather see it taught under religious studies than science, because it is based on religion rather than science.
With a hot topic like evolutionism vs creationism, I think it can only benefit students to hear both sides of the debate. How much teaching varying perspectives "reduces understanding" really depends on the teacher's technique and the students' ability.
It benefits them as members of society who need to understand the background of political issues, but high-school children are also much more impressionable and tend to be worse at ambiguous topics. This sounds like something more appropriate for college.
If you're talking about teaching a group of 4 year olds, I agree that you shouldn't confuse them by giving them incompatible information that their young minds may not be able to handle.
In physics, in Texas, they are trying to make a class that uses no math to explain it. Students have deep trouble reading basic graphs showing velocity versus time, or that "x = 4" is the same as "4 = x." In other words a large portion of students are intellectually lazy and will not be able to process difficult or ambiguous material. Something as nationally contentious as evolution should be presented as purely fact, and creationism should be left alone because they won't even understand why it is wrong. They will only understand that it was given the same footing as evolution in classroom.
But a middle or high school audience is intellectually mature enough to juggle differing points of view and understand that not all arguments are equal in persuasiveness. There is no need for the teacher to present evolutionism and creationism as though they are both scientifically received theories - in fact I specifically said that teachers should add a caveat when explaining creationism.
I have no such faith in our children any longer. Maybe in Europe or Japan. Not America. The Empire is dying.
As a side note, I did argue in another comment on this page that I'd rather see it taught under religious studies than science, because it is based on religion rather than science.
Yeah, it's true that the appropriateness of a such a discussion depends a lot on both the teacher's skill and the students' maturity. I think the modern education system, as a whole, is sadly deficient in many aspects - though that would be an issue for another debate.
science in itself is pure theory which coencides with what we know. what you choose to believe and not believe is purely up to you. in the same way if i choose to believe in creationism i would expect you to respect that. i think it should be taught, it may not have what you waould call "scientific" evidence but as a wise man once said
"Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe."
You are free to believe in whatever explanation you wish.
You are not free to attempt to pass your explanation off as actual science, and push for it to be taught as fact in public schools just because you like to believe it. Something actually has to be true in order for that to happen.
A quote is no substitute for evidence, and incidentally, that quote is probably poking fun at people like you, as its author is a deist and a proponent of common sense and reason.
its funny how you argue only fact should be taught, because last time i checked, "the theory of evolution" was a theory. by your logic, neither should be taught. i do not pass my evidence off as scientific because science is questionable. your existance is not.
there is justas much an arguement for the creation theory as there is for evolution and while you are biase and disagree with it being taught, i think it should be because it is fair that all views are heard
as for the quote, i know it is notevidence for the fact, however i liked it and thought it backed up m point nicely, regardless of its orrigional context
its funny how you argue only fact should be taught, because last time i checked, "the theory of evolution" was a theory. by your logic, neither should be taught.
A tired argument that shows you have a lot to learn about evolution and science in general.
In science, the label 'theory' does not necessarily entail anything but token uncertainty. Do the terms gravitational theory, cell theory, or heliocentric theory ring a bell?
there is justas much an arguement for the creation theory as there is for evolution
Not at all true. All evidence that is currently available supports evolution and refutes creationism.
and while you are biase and disagree with it being taught, i think it should be because it is fair that all views are heard
I do not think the existence of creationism should be ignored, in the proper venues such a religion class, but I am strongly opposed to any false information being presented to children as true. Creationism falls under this umbrella.
Also, the point that quote is making is that people who believe things on faith rather than evidence are not reasonable people.
i will agree with you on the point that it should be in a religion class, however the insinuatio that it is untrue purely based on your own beliefs is astounding. the fact tha you are so narrow minded about this isabsolutely unbelievable, how can you possibly try to make such an arguement that it is false information, you have absolutely no evidence to back this assumption up other than your own belief and so i revert back to my previous arguement
and while you are biase and disagree with it being taught, i think it should be because it is fair that all views are heard
however the insinuatio that it is untrue purely based on your own beliefs is astounding.
My conclusion is based on the available evidence.
the fact tha you are so narrow minded about this isabsolutely unbelievable, how can you possibly try to make such an arguement that it is false information,
Because it is false information. There is literally no 'evidence' for creationism that had yet withstood scientific scrutiny. I'm sorry this is offensive to you or whatever, but unfortunately for you, it is true.
you have absolutely no evidence to back this assumption up other than your own belief and so i revert back to my previous arguement
This statement leads me to wonder if you have bothered to invest a second of research into the claims of creationism and the evidence that refutes it. It seems unlikely.
and while you are biase and disagree with it being taught, i think it should be because it is fair that all views are heard
'Heard' is very different from 'being taught as truth'. The former is fine, but when it comes to creationism, the latter is unacceptable.
exactly, YOUR conclusion based on the circumstances, that doen not mean everyone, the last time i checked the world doesnt revolve around you (as a scientific man you should realise that it revolves around the sun)
agian my comment stands "the fact tha you are so narrow minded about this isabsolutely unbelievable, how can you possibly try to make such an arguement that it is false information" you have remained a narowminded the entire concept of god works on faith. if you want evidance on the creation theory google it. i had a quick look through and there ar tons of arguements for it.
what you believe to be the truth is not necessarily the truth. if you want to base your life on scientific evidance thats fine. i on the other hand think that the children would benifit from a veriety of views including the creation theory which i believe.
and i refuse to have an arrogant imbecile tell me im wrong based on the fact that he cannotopen his mind for two seconds to think about the bigger picture here. i am not trying to argue with you which is right, i think at this point we just have to accept that you have your views and i have mine but i do not think that you by any means have the slightest argument to say that it should not be taught in schools
exactly, YOUR conclusion based on the circumstances, that doen not mean everyone, the last time i checked the world doesnt revolve around you (as a scientific man you should realise that it revolves around the sun)
Why are you speaking as if I am the only person who supports evolution? It has the backing of all but a tiny minority of the scientific community, and not for no reason; the evidence supports it. Allele frequencies change over time, and divergences accumulate in the DNA of different populations until interbreeding is no longer possible.
agian my comment stands "the fact tha you are so narrow minded about this isabsolutely unbelievable, how can you possibly try to make such an arguement that it is false information" you have remained a narowminded the entire concept of god works on faith. if you want evidance on the creation theory google it. i had a quick look through and there ar tons of arguements for it.
Recognizing an explanation as false based on the available evidence is not narrow-mindedness. It's called not being gullible.
I am reasonably well-versed in the library of claims that creationists most often make, and it has been some time since I have seen a new one. Some of them merely outline known questions about evolution, and parade it as evidence against the process, and other bits of 'proof' are just complex enough to convince foolish people. None of them impress me, and all of them are fairly easily dismantled.
what you believe to be the truth is not necessarily the truth.
Evolution is not true because I support it. It is true because it is testable, observable, and the massive library of evidence for it accumulates every single day. And creationism is not false because I don't support it, it is false because every single creationism claim currently in existence has been negated by real science.
if you want to base your life on scientific evidance thats fine. i on the other hand think that the children would benifit from a veriety of views including the creation theory which i believe.
You have no right to advocate the teaching of false theories and religious dogma to other people's children on the public's dime. You can believe it, you can teach it to your own children and send them to a private school that teaches creationism, but that's it. We would be idiots to represent the ridiculous beliefs of everybody who spoke up - some people believe the Holocaust never happened, that dinosaurs are fake, that the earth is flat, that the earth is only 6000 years old, that aliens guided human evolution - but none of these are supported by evidence. Evolution is.
and i refuse to have an arrogant imbecile tell me im wrong based on the fact that he cannotopen his mind for two seconds to think about the bigger picture here. i am not trying to argue with you which is right, i think at this point we just have to accept that you have your views and i have mine but i do not think that you by any means have the slightest argument to say that it should not be taught in schools
"We should be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brain falls out."
I don't care what your views are, to be honest. I am sure you will continue to believe them in spite of the continually accruing information that refutes them. You just have to accept that things that have been shown to be false have no place in a classroom, regardless of whether or not they conform to what any particular person wants to believe.
im not going to lie, i think you are an arroggant, snobish twit.
i see no reason for your arguement to stand and while you argue of mine being wrong, i see no reason why yours being better,
yes i do believe in the creation theory and do not expect to be insulted by you like this and have only maintained that my system is faorer ars it will give he chidren more of an insite.
now i dont know where you are but where i am it is very late, so i shall wish you good day
im not going to lie, i think you are an arroggant, snobish twit.
This is typical anti-intellectualism fostered by your lobby. The user zombee presents very rational, cogent arguments which fall upon your deaf ears.
i see no reason for your arguement to stand and while you argue of mine being wrong, i see no reason why yours being better,
Of course you see no reason. You are ignorant. Do you expect that a typical person should argue with an aerospace engineer about the physics of engines and mechanics of flight? You know nothing about biology, and have instead filled your head with specious arguments against evolution. That is what creationism is. It isn't a theory, it is an ideology designed to facilitate the denial of evolution. A theory explains how a system works. Creationism makes no explanation for how life was created (it invokes magic, instead of science).
yes i do believe in the creation theory and do not expect to be insulted by you like this and have only maintained that my system is faorer ars it will give he chidren more of an insite.
You earned your insult by coming here ignorant of basic science. Now you should learn from this insult, and read a college biology textbook.
im not going to lie, i think you are an arroggant, snobish twit.
This does not do much to bolster your argument, and your opinion is not worth anything to me.
i see no reason for your arguement to stand and while you argue of mine being wrong, i see no reason why yours being better,
Let's pretend we are arguing the color of the sky. You are saying it's blue, and I am trying to say it's not blue, it's neon green with orange spots, and everyone who thinks its blue is wrong. I'm getting all indignant and offended and trying to say that my belief is just as good as yours, and I can't see why you think yours is better than mine just because observable reality supports your statement and not mine.
If I was acting like this, I would rightfully be called crazy, and the only difference between this debate, and my hypothetical debate, is that evolution requires more education to understand than the color of the sky. Oh, and that the Bible doesn't say you should believe the sky is green and orange.
yes i do believe in the creation theory and do not expect to be insulted by you like this and have only maintained that my system is faorer ars it will give he chidren more of an insite.
Like I said, it fits in perfectly with the syllabus of a religion class. It does not belong in a science class and it should not be presented as true.
It is not 'fair' to treat false theories the same as supported ones; it's foolish.
i hope you show people more respectin the future
Sorry, sensitive and easily offended people are not afforded special treatment on this website. If you want to make good use of your time here, I sincerely recommend toughening up, educating yourself a little on a topic before engaging in a debate about it, and directly responding to opposing points rather than avoiding them and complaining when you feel like someone is not being nice enough to you. This is how one might actually go about learning something.
because obviously you cantcover all of them ad it would be immiture to argue that you could, however there is easily roome for one or two more theories
your absolutely right, it is beyond the power of reason, in other words it is unreasonable. Creationism is founded on faith, so it belongs in a church not in schools
what you choose to believe and not believe is purely up to you. in the same way if i choose to believe in creationism i would expect you to respect that.
There is nothing respectable about a man who chooses to believe something which is contradicted by plain reality. If you have to couch your reasoning in non sequiturs which place no value on evidence-based reasoning in order to assert that imaginings are equally weighty as research, then you have betrayed your motivations as the defense of a fragile belief system and have rightfully earned scorn.
Science (and Religion)was designed to help the world, and yet Science made up for the people it saved by bombing up the whole damn place (Pearl Harbor,9/11, etc),
while Religion destroyed people(Crusades,Witch Hunts), because people used religion as their justification to do evil. The difference between the two is, Those who used science for evil did it on their own hatred,greed and lust for power.Those who did evil with religion in mind, did it AGAINST the guidelines of their specific Holy Book ( Pretty much the same as The scientific mishaps). Bible, Quran etc.
Science ( AND Religion, which is made up of ethics in the first place, Those who conveniently interpret strangely, simply to justify their wrongs are a whole other matter) without ethics is fruitless and not beneficial in any way whatsoever. And that is what destroys the world. Power without moral or ethical guidelines. In the 1930's who would have thought that promiscuity of one person,or many people depending on the case, could cause the death of millions of people? (Aids ,Herpes etc) and all goes back to what dreaded Religion was saying from the beginning.
THOU SHALL NOT KILL, STEAL, LIE, SLEEP WITH ANYONE BUT YOUR WIFE.
The first commandment, "Thou shall not have any other god But Me' is yet to show its repercussions when disobeyed.
That is overconfidence. When you learn to spot it, you'll be closer to achieving enlightenment.
Science (and Religion)was designed to help the world, and yet Science made up for the people it saved by bombing up the whole damn place (Pearl Harbor,9/11, etc),
Actually none of those. Science was developed as a means of determining fact, evaluating claims, and understanding nature.
Religion was developed as part of culture, but also took on the role of subjugating the poor and enabling a minority to live in supreme luxury.
On the other hand, politics, specifically war and skirmishing factions, are what gave us Pearl Harbor. Religion was what made the hijackers eager to take their own lives for a political cause.
while Religion destroyed people(Crusades,Witch Hunts), because people used religion as their justification to do evil.
That's right.
The difference between the two is, Those who used science for evil did it on their own hatred,greed and lust for power.
This is correct as well, though it's better to say that they used politics and skirmishes for those ends.
Those who did evil with religion in mind, did it AGAINST the guidelines of their specific Holy Book ( Pretty much the same as The scientific mishaps). Bible, Quran etc.
As is fairly evident, both holy books make allowances for violent behaviour and it can be argued that they encourage those behaviours.
Science ( AND Religion, which is made up of ethics in the first place, Those who conveniently interpret strangely, simply to justify their wrongs are a whole other matter) without ethics is fruitless and not beneficial in any way whatsoever
Science was never an ethical or moral tool. It has an ethos which underpins the process of testing claims and forming models, but it never claims to have derived a scientific set of morals or ethics, and its conclusions are presented in an amoral way, because it is in the business of fact, not opinion.
And that is what destroys the world. Power without moral or ethical guidelines.
Which is why we have government, for example. Ethics is their role. Morality informs ethics, but after popular sentiment, and it is highly individual.
In the 1930's who would have thought that promiscuity of one person,or many people depending on the case, could cause the death of millions of people? (Aids ,Herpes etc) and all goes back to what dreaded Religion was saying from the beginning.
It causes death because major religions encourage practices which facilitate the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. The Catholic Church, for example, has a long history of spreading misinformation about condoms (saying that they have holes in them, cause impotence, or do not prevent HIV), and Protestants across America spread similar misinformation in addition to fighting sex education in schools (which would make children better informed of how to use condoms and contraceptives to prevent disease). This is just a small part of it too, as the religious have a history of being against vaccinations, because they prevent diseases which they maintain are part of god's punishment against sin.
The edicts about sex before marriage exist because thousands of years ago women were property. It had nothing to do with disease, but rather offering a virgin to a prospective husband. Now it is just a means for religions to divide people on meaningless issues for political reasons.
THOU SHALL NOT KILL, STEAL, LIE, SLEEP WITH ANYONE BUT YOUR WIFE.
The first commandment, "Thou shall not have any other god But Me' is yet to show its repercussions when disobeyed.
Pretty much all of the skeptics annotated Bible has huge fallacies, simply because the culture it was directed to and what was believed at the time( and what was going on that time, who was in control) are exaggerated by it. "adhering to his wife'. This statement is in no way wrong as you neglect to say who he was adhering his wife over- God.
It is not adhering to his wife so to speak, but adhering to his wife over the Person that made him. If the Biblical author is of a patriarchal belief(highly likely), or better yet, the translation amplified his patriarchal beliefs ( which everyone had then) it does not change the story's moral. Saying that science does not concern itself with morals simply leads me to say that power in the hands of extremists/immoral is dangerous and stupid.The Bible also says this Read Proverbs.That is why I have a problems with conservative pastors. ( I agree with with everything the Bible says- mind you) I just put the reality of the time in to consideration. Abraham marrying his half sister is a definite example of culture.
Pretty much all of the skeptics annotated Bible has huge fallacies, simply because the culture it was directed to and what was believed at the time( and what was going on that time, who was in control) are exaggerated by it. "adhering to his wife'. This statement is in no way wrong as you neglect to say who he was adhering his wife over- God.
Listen, if you're going to simply ignore vast portions of your supposed holy book because your morality tells you that they are wrong, then you already have admitted that the bible is superfluous to morality and ethics, that your judgment is better than the god you claim to believe in.
A large segment of the population treats those texts as authoritative still, and that is why we see so many efforts to bring back sexual repression, misogyny, and traditional (read: ancient) family values.
It is not adhering to his wife so to speak, but adhering to his wife over the Person that made him. If the Biblical author is of a patriarchal belief(highly likely), or better yet, the translation amplified his patriarchal beliefs ( which everyone had then) it does not change the story's moral.
Of course the biblical authors were patriarchal. That was the era they lived in, an era when women were property. It is why the Bible and Quran treat women as inferior. These are the values you support every time you spread Christianity. They are the authoritative beliefs.
Saying that science does not concern itself with morals simply leads me to say that power in the hands of extremists/immoral is dangerous and stupid.
You're missing the point. Science isn't a church, it is a method.
The Bible also says this Read Proverbs.That is why I have a problems with conservative pastors. ( I agree with with everything the Bible says- mind you) I just put the reality of the time in to consideration. Abraham marrying his half sister is a definite example of culture.
That culture is what the bible holds as ideal. It is a slice of ancient culture, and Christians are a part of it. The only way we got to where we are now, where women and other races could be equals, was by ignoring biblical values.
In all your arguments you continue to prove yourself wrong.And I admit the wrongs I emphasized in my arguments.You must now do this.Scientific enough for you?
Let's see, if we're going with the "teach the controversy idea", then let's throw a few more topics in. We should teach Astrology as an alternative to Astronomy, and Alchemy alongside Chemistry. Of course this is pretty ridiculous, and these other viewpoints have no place in a science classroom, just like creationism/intelligent design doesn't.
Note that I said "controversial issues". Is astrology vs astronomy a hot topic debate that gets people fired up whenever it is mentioned? Is alchemy vs chemistry?
Yes, astrology has its supporters. But every astrologist I have come across or read has also accepted standard astronomical theories in addition to their astrological beliefs - for example, they don't genuinely believe that the Sun and planets revolve around the Earth when they use geocentric measurements; in fact they provide scientifically supported explanation as to why retrograde occurs (e.g. http://www.astrologycom.com/retroframe.html ). Astrologists do not provide scientific evidence to disprove astronomy; the few who provide evidence at all do so only to supplement it. And because they tend to view astrology as a purely spiritual or occult hobby rather than as an eternal truth that they are obliged to teach, astrologists aren't actively running around the place trying to "convert" people into believing astrology, unlike creationists. Creationists believe evolutionism is false; that is why some lobby for creationism to be taught alongside it. Astrologists do not have a problem with general astronomical theories, so an astrology debate doesn't even exist when a teacher explains astronomy.
Alchemy the ancient science is so thoroughly disproven to the point where you'd be very hard pressed to find someone who still believes they can magically turn lead into gold. Alchemy as a set of spiritual or psychological theories has a number of adherents, but spiritual or psychological matters are properly placed in either religious studies or psychology class, as these alchemists themselves would tell you. And again, modern alchemists do not actively oppose chemistry.
So is there still any mystery as to why astrology or alchemy aren't taught side by side with astronomy or chemistry?
Not that I am opposed to it - astrological geocentric assumptions could be an interesting side dish to append to an astronomy lesson, and ancient alchemical theories an interesting introduction to modern chemistry. ("In the olden days it was believed that physical matter had this and that property, and by doing this and that you could transmute them into other substances. Now we know better...") But they are fundamentally different from the creationism vs evolutionism debate.
By your logic you should not have a problem with taxpayer dollars paying to teach kids that the earth is flat, or that gravity doesn't exist it's just god holding our shoulders, or let's teach them Cthula built the moon out of cheese and the tides are cause by sea monsters. Let's start offering physics-of-how-Santa-fits-through-chimneys 101.
It's silly. The religious are in the midst of trying to create a false equivelency. School teaches varying theories when there is support for a theory. Was the moon created when an Asteroid hit the earth and separated part of it? Or was it a large asteroid that became caught in our gravity?
Those are theories with scientific backing.
Creationism is one religion trying to surpress actual knowledge in favor of their superstitions. Nothing more.
Were you there when the world began? Were any of the scientific theorists alive when the world began? I think not. Are you suggesting because things don't make sense in science that God is completely dis proven? He is God. He doesn't have to obey the rules of science because he is beyond them. Would you say there is purpose in the universe? Do you have a theory that explains what happen after you die? Do you fear it? Does believing in science give you comfort? There is so much support for creationism. I encourage you to look for it. You are working so hard to dis prove creationism that you take little time to see anything else. There is science behind creationism as well. If you were to look you could find a debate for anything you want. There are always two sides. You are neglecting to remember that evolution itself is still a theory. Why in the world should not only creation, but many other theory's be taught in school. Teaching only evolution makes children ignorant robots who blindly believe the first thing they hear. I am a devout Christian. I was not always this way. I was the blind ignorant kid who believed what I was told, researched it and would have been on the other side of this debate very quickly. I encourage you to present any topic and I will gladly make you doubt what you believe.
"Were you there when the world began? Were any of the scientific theorists alive when the world began? I think not."
And where were you when the world began? Were any of the church leaders alive when the world began? I think not.
You should be wary of arguments that can just as easily be turned on you. The theories regarding the origin of Earth or the Universe (by the way, the theory of evolution is not concerned with such things) are based on observable laws, evidence, rational thinking and logic. As time goes on, we continually expand our understandings and technology. As this happens, some theories are overturned while others are supported. Scientists only uphold those theories that are currently backed, and are prepared for the possibility that tomorrow they might be proven wrong. This would never be possible with the blind faith inherent in religion.
"Are you suggesting because things don't make sense in science that God is completely dis proven? He is God. He doesn't have to obey the rules of science because he is beyond them."
I will not speak for the person you are debating with, but I know that many people well versed in science are fully aware that science cannot prove or disprove God. Most don't even try. The supernatural can never be a part of a scientific equation, and yet we still somehow manage to come up with increasingly advanced computers, effective medical procedures etc. Most of scientific advancements are accepted by most of the religious community. The controversies typically arise when science goes against the word of the Bible or other Holy Books. I doubt you have any moral objection to using your computer, your car, electricity, medicine etc.
"Would you say there is purpose in the universe?"
Only when an intelligence assigns a purpose to it.
"Do you have a theory that explains what happen after you die?"
Well, it is observed that we typically decompose and provide energy for microorganisms that provide essential nutrients for plants that are eaten by us or the animals we eat. As far as more supernatural explanations, I like several of them, but without solid proof I can't claim that I know any of them to be true. And there is nothing wrong with that. We don't have to fabricate answers to tough questions in order to enjoy life. In fact, it is dishonest to do so.
"Do you fear it?"
No. We all die. It is one of the only things that we all have in common. Why be afraid of the inevitable?
"Does believing in science give you comfort?"
Not really, but it isn't supposed to. That being said, a lot of scientific innovations have made my life more comfortable, and that would happen whether I "believe" in science or not.
"There is so much support for creationism."
Not among scientists, which is a problem since creationism often tries to pass itself off as scientific. But it fails.
"You are working so hard to dis prove creationism that you take little time to see anything else."
Funny, that is exactly how I feel about the creationist approach to evolution. Although there are exceptions, most of the creationists that I encounter don't even know what a scientific theory is, what evolution is, why radiometric dating actually is quite reliable or what the second law of thermodynamics is actually about. And many don't want to know the truth. How strong is faith that goes unchallenged?
"You are neglecting to remember that evolution itself is still a theory."
Well speak of the Devil in the details! A scientific theory is not a guess like the colloquial usage of the word is. A hypothesis is a guess. A hypothesis can only graduate into a theory once it has been heavily scrutinized by some of the best trained skeptics in the world. Only if it has notable backing evidence, is not falsified by existing facts and has no logical flaws can it grow up to be a theory. Also, a theory is specifically a description of a natural phenomenon. It isn't less than a fact or a scientific law, it describes facts and scientific laws. Changes in allele frequencies over successive generations and among different populations is a very well observed fact. And even as far as theories go, evolution is easily one of the strongest. It has more supporting evidence than almost any other theory, it is older than most modern theories, and in 150 years it has never been successfully falsified (remember that it would only have to be conclusively disproven once to be torn down.)
"Why in the world should not only creation, but many other theory's be taught in school."
Wait a minute! I thought you supported creation, now you asking why in the world it should be taught in school. If what you meant to ask is "why shouldn't it?", well it might be alright for a religion or philosophy class, but to be truly fair about it you would have to teach each of the hundreds of other creation stories too. Its only fair right?
"Teaching only evolution makes children ignorant robots who blindly believe the first thing they hear. I am a devout Christian."
Wow, you are incredibly good at making statements that can be used against you. You should find a way to get paid for that if you can.
"I encourage you to present any topic and I will gladly make you doubt what you believe."
Were you there when the world began? Were any of the scientific theorists alive when the world began?
No, neither were you. Which is why I trust people who actually try to figure it out instead of spew whatever fairytale they had been told or that makes them feel warm and fuzzy.
Are you suggesting because things don't make sense in science that God is completely dis proven?
No, I'm suggesting because god doesn't make sense god is disproven.
Do you have a theory that explains what happen after you die?
Yeah, it's called dying. You're dead. There is not "after." Mark Twain said it better, not that I'd expect you to understand but, "I was dead for millions of years before I was ever alive, why should dying again be any different." Basically, there's no more "afterlife" than there was a beforelife.
Would you say there is purpose in the universe?
No, I wouldn't. What's your point?
There is so much support for creationism.
The only support for creationism comes from the religious. Not a non religious source supports this silly theory. A third grader with a child's understanding of fossils could disprove creationism.
You are working so hard to dis prove creationism that you take little time to see anything else.
You sound stupid. This is the easiest thing in the world. You might as well be telling me the earth is flat as much thought as I have to put into disproving your retarded theory.
Teaching only evolution makes children ignorant robots who blindly believe the first thing they hear. I am a devout Christian.
No, blindly believing the first thing you hear is called indoctination. Which Christians have a monopoly on.
I was not always this way. I was the blind ignorant kid who believed what I was told, researched it and would have been on the other side of this debate very quickly. I encourage you to present any topic and I will gladly make you doubt what you believe.
I don't care what you were or were not. Right now you are delusional and annoying. Your manifest destiny attitude about your silly religion is why I hate your religion.
Were you there when the world began? Were any of the scientific theorists alive when the world began?
No, neither were you. Which is why I trust people who actually try to figure it out instead of spew whatever fairytale they had been told or that makes them feel warm and fuzzy.
Are you suggesting because things don't make sense in science that God is completely dis proven?
No, I'm suggesting because god doesn't make sense god is disproven.
Do you have a theory that explains what happen after you die?
Yeah, it's called dying. You're dead. There is not "after." Mark Twain said it better, not that I'd expect you to understand but, "I was dead for millions of years before I was ever alive, why should dying again be any different." Basically, there's no more "afterlife" than there was a beforelife.
Would you say there is purpose in the universe?
No, I wouldn't. What's your point?
There is so much support for creationism.
The only support for creationism comes from the religious. Not a non religious source supports this silly theory. A third grader with a child's understanding of fossils could disprove creationism.
You are working so hard to dis prove creationism that you take little time to see anything else.
You sound stupid. This is the easiest thing in the world. You might as well be telling me the earth is flat as much thought as I have to put into disproving your retarded theory.
Teaching only evolution makes children ignorant robots who blindly believe the first thing they hear. I am a devout Christian.
No, blindly believing the first thing you hear is called indoctination. Which Christians have a monopoly on.
I was not always this way. I was the blind ignorant kid who believed what I was told, researched it and would have been on the other side of this debate very quickly. I encourage you to present any topic and I will gladly make you doubt what you believe.
I don't care what you were or were not. Right now you are delusional and annoying. Your manifest destiny attitude about your silly religion is why I hate your religion.
The examples you gave are the same as ap0110's alchemy vs chemistry example. They do not generate debate anywhere near what you see with creationism vs evolutionism, so they're not exactly urgent topics.
In a country where 40% of the population believes in young earth creationism ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx ), it would be rather nonsensical to completely ignore this theory in school, as if it didn't exist. Like sex, children will learn about it one way or another. But schools can control where they first hear this theory from and how it is presented to them.
Whether something is real or not makes no material difference - the fact is that evolutionism is a very hotly contested topic, a lot of people disagree with it, and all over the place people are putting forth arguments against it.
In a world like that, should teachers cover their ears and pretend that the theory of creationism doesn't exist? Or should they address the issue in a rational, sensible way?
That is what I mean when I raise sex as an example. Sex and sexually charged imagery is all around us, so it is silly for conservatives to say that teachers should pretend sex doesn't exist and try to keep children "innocent". They have to explain sex to them, or kids will learn it anyway, and they might learn a distorted view from porn sites.
If teachers don't address creationism in class, children will learn it from their religious parents or fundamentalist pastors instead. Do you think that would be the better alternative?
As for the flat earth theory, I am unable to reply adequately to that, since I don't know when the earth was discovered to be round or the views of society at that time and shortly afterwards. But assuming it is similar to our current evolutionism/creationism debate, then yes. It would not have been wrong to teach children that quite a lot of people believed the earth was flat, because that was the truth. It would also not have been wrong to teach them why these people believed the earth was flat, because that was an important sociological issue at the time, and would have helped them better understand their world and evaluate alternate perspectives.
Finally, in what ways have I used quasi-logic or easily disproven logic?
If you had looked up the word "material" in a dictionary, you would not have made this response. You have copied and pasted my phrase and claimed that it is something capable of being believed, without regard to the fact that, taken out of context, it has no meaning. A sentence without meaning cannot be believed or disbelieved, as it does not hold a truth value.
It is nonsensical to simply speak of a condition making or not making a material difference, period; you can only speak of a condition making or not making a material difference in a particular matter / to a particular end / etc.
Now, it is true that people frequently say simply "x makes no material difference", but they are not saying it as a general, unrestricted claim as you have done; they are implying that x makes no material difference in a particular matter that they have mentioned previously. This is what I had done; implicit in my use of the phrase is that the matter referred to is the similarity of sex and evolution/creation in that children will inevitably learn about it at some point.
You had thought that it was possible to quote my claim, shed it of the implicit but necessary restriction, and still make a meaningful comment on it :/
Whether or not something is real does not make a material difference to everything. It always makes at least one difference, of course - the difference between being real or not. But not all differences are material to the argument.
On another note, I see that you have not provided an adequate response to most of the arguments I had advanced:
(1) That there are differences between the evolution vs creation debate and the analogies you cited which make your analogies inappropriate (i.e. material differences!)
(2) That it is unreasonable for teachers to have to pretend that a theory believed by 40% of the US population does not exist
(3) That, for a theory which children will inevitably be exposed to, it is better that this theory be first taught to them by a rational, knowledgeable teacher, than by parents or religious educators who may be less rational
Also, you have not answered my question: In what ways have I used quasi-logic or easily disproven logic? You made the accusation; please either provide evidence in support of it, or else withdraw it.
Wow, you really are an example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Maybe religion is right after all, keeping you all stupid.
Whether something is real or not makes no material difference
To which I replied, that you think whether something is real makes no material difference is a failure of the educational system. Because it is the only thing that matters in fact. What is real.
Material specifically means, not that I believe you didn't first look it up grasping at stings to find a way you may, just may have been right, it means concerned with "worldly" things exactly, though we think of it as stuff - and had you meant what now you say you mean you would have made it more clear to support your argument.
blah, anyway I could spend all day on the nuances of your faulty argument. It means concerned with worldly things. Seeking truth is a worldly thing. In fact, we as a species would be extinct if we were not occupied with seeking truth, a worldly thing. We would have believed ourselves into an evolutionary dead end via crusade or suicide bomber long ago had it not been for those concerned with things of the world, and how people live in the world and not some magic daddy in the sky.
It is nonsensical to simply speak of a condition making or not making a material difference, period; you can only speak of a condition making or not making a material difference in a particular matter / to a particular end / etc.
No, I never spoke of a condition making or not making material difference. I spoke of facts. Facts say evolution exists. Fossils are facts. Lack of fossils are facts. Neither the lack of or the presence of fossils hints at creationism. They both prove beyond reasonable doubt evolution. You have not material, spiritual, or made up evidence to the contrary.
If you want to speak of "condition" making material difference, I will be happy to. You will find your facade of understanding collapsing quickly though because your entire statement is contradicting hidden in quasi-academia. Condition has no bearing on material when taken in a literal sense. ie, there is specific disease that causes people to see floating human head everywhere. Rare but documented and true. They really see human heads floating and it freaks them out until they understand it. Now, it is a condition, their condition says there are human heads floating around them. It however makes no material difference. Human heads do not randomly float around people - regardless of their condition.
You contradict yourself - granted in an academic fashion, but a contradiction none the less.
You had thought that it was possible to quote my claim, shed it of the implicit but necessary restriction, and still make a meaningful comment on it :/
I did. It was meaningful. Creationism is lacking. Your argument is not creationism here, you're arguing for yourself not your standpoint and you won't find me easily distracted. One can argue whether they really exist even as their argument proves they do. I will not run into a rabbit hole of misdirected argument. I am arguing Creationism is incorrect, not "how well you argue." Argue as well as you like. A child will win a debate eventually if they are right.
Whether or not something is real does not make a material difference to everything. It always makes at least one difference, of course - the difference between being real or not. But not all differences are material to the argument.
When the argument is "only what has scientific backing should be taught," and not "whatever silly ass thing random idiots happen to believe," it makes all, literally 100% of the difference.
That not all differences are material to the argument makes no difference. What matters is that in this case we have a measurable and consistent basis for deciding what is taught. Creationism meets no criteria. The number of people who believe it, is in fact since you brought it up, ironically immaterial.
(1) That there are differences between the evolution vs creation debate and the analogies you cited which make your analogies inappropriate (i.e. material differences!)
Now you're just ignoring stuff. There is evidence of evolution. Creationism only has stories.
(2) That it is unreasonable for teachers to have to pretend that a theory believed by 40% of the US population does not exist
They don't have to pretend anything. In fact talk about how dumb the kid's parents are, I don't care. The fact is, creationism is a fairytale, and evolution is just as much fact as gravity.
(3) That, for a theory which children will inevitably be exposed to, it is better that this theory be first taught to them by a rational, knowledgeable teacher, than by parents or religious educators who may be less rational
They're exposed to Santa. Should it be taught as fact?
Also, you have not answered my question: In what ways have I used quasi-logic or easily disproven logic? You made the accusation; please either provide evidence in support of it, or else withdraw it.
Quasi-logic means you use instruments of logic while ignoring rules of logic. Which you have done. Your logic is disproven all of because, evolution has been proven to a greater extent than who killed Nicole Kidman and the earth is round... literally there is more proof of evolution than the shape of the earth. And since we're speaking philosophically, it has been disproven because by the measure by which we decide what we do and do not teach children in school creationism falls short. If it mattered what the individual believed, as pointed out, we'd teach about Santa. More than 40% of US kids I assure believe in Santa. We do not teach that because we know it is false.
So why should we hold Creationism to a different standard? You're asking that Creationism and Creationism alone be held to an entirely new standard. This is a disproof of your argument.
I could make your entire exact same argument for anything. I could demand it be taught taught Iraq had WMD's because 40% think it is true. I could demand it is taught the tides are a mystery, because 40% don't know it's the moon's gravity. I could say post-graduates shouldn't be allowed to study String Theory because less than 40% know what it is.
Your argument is silly. It has been proven such thoroughly. I expect a withdrawal... drunk as I am. This would have been way faster sober.
No. "Material", in the sense that I used it, has nothing to do with worldly vs spiritual matters. "Material" is a term commonly applicable in philosophy, law (e.g. "material fact"), and in academic or formal works in general.
The relevant definition from Dictionary.com: "of substantial import; of much consequence; important: Your support will make a material difference in the success of our program."
If there are material differences between x and y in the matter of z, it means there are differences between x and y which would affect in some significant way the matter of z.
To raise an example:
-------------
A kid is in hospital, having broken his arm. The doctor says, "That arm will need to stay in a cast."
The kid asks skeptically, "Does it really make a difference whether or not I use a cast?"
Doctor says, "Yes, it does. The broken bones won't heal properly if you don't."
There is a material difference between the kid using or not using a cast, in that if he doesn't use it, the bones won't heal properly.
Then the kid asks, "Well, white is such a boring colour. Would it be ok if I coloured it blue?"
Doctor says, "No problem. It doesn't matter what the cast's colour is."
There is no material difference between using a white or a blue cast in terms of whether or not they would allow his arm to heal properly. There is a difference, of course, in that a white cast is white and a blue cast is not white, but that is not a material difference.
Now imagine this kid is taking part in a school play where he's supposed to sneak across the stage in camouflage. The stage background is completely white. His teacher had him wear white shirt and pants, and put white body paint all over him. Then the kid asks, "Is it ok for me to have a blue cast?"
The teacher would say, "Nope, it needs to be white, or else you won't get the camouflage effect."
In this situation, whether the cast is white or blue does make a material difference. This is why I say that you cannot have something make a material difference, period. Whether or not something makes a material difference is always relative to what you're trying to achieve.
-------------
I won't reply to the rest of your arguments regarding the word "material" since they were based on a faulty understanding of the meaning and hence are largely irrelevant.
(1) You still have not provided an adequate answer for this argument. You just keep insisting that only theories with substantial scientific backing should be taught at school. It's fine for you to keep believing that; it's your standpoint and it's not unreasonable. But repeating your standpoint over and over won't make your argument more convincing. I argued that there are times when non-scientific theories can also be taught at school, and provided explanations for why I think there is a much better case for teaching about creationism than teaching about Cthulhu building the moon out of cheese. You have not responded to these arguments.
(2) You have offered a reply :D Now the argument can continue.
If you say that teachers don't have to pretend anything, exactly how do they go about teaching effectively? I argued that creationism should have a place in the classroom, so that teachers can explain what it is and what problems it has. You say it shouldn't. But you also say that teachers don't have to pretend the theory of creationism doesn't exist. So what do teachers do when a kid raises their hand during a lesson on evolution and comments, "But Daddy says God made people just as they are now"?
I remember my days in school science class, when this exact situation happened. Since teachers are prohibited by law from teaching religion, and hence creationism as it is based on religion, my science teacher literally just had to shake her head and say "No, no, no." Then she continued with her teaching.
I don't think that kid really believed in creationism; he was still trying to make up his mind. If the teacher had been allowed to explain what creationism is and how it compares with evolution in terms of scientific backing (as I am proposing), that kid might have had a much better understanding of the issue. But because the teacher couldn't say a thing, he remained as befuddled as before.
(3) You have ascribed to me a view that I do not hold. Nowhere have I said that creationism should be taught as fact. Imagine how confused students will be if a teacher first taught evolution as fact, then taught creationism as fact! What I said in my first argument was that students could be exposed to multiple perspectives, and I insisted that teachers must make it clear that it is evolution which has scientific backing.
Logic
So I take it you are making these two arguments to support your claim that I used quasi-logic or easily disproven logic:
(1) Evolution is proven, I made arguments supporting teaching a theory incompatible with evolution, therefore my arguments ignore the rules of logic.
(2) There is a measure by which we decide what we teach children at school, creationism falls short of that measure, therefore my arguments ignore the rules of logic.
Now those arguments are not logical, if anything. Their conclusions are structurally irrelevant to the premises.
I think you don't grasp the concept of logic. The rules of logic state that a valid argument is one where, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true. Logical validity is not determined by actual truth values at all.
To attack the logic of an argument, you would have to show that the truth of the premises do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
What you have done here is attack the substance of my argument. While it is not wrong to attack the substance (in fact debates usually target the substance more than the logic), it does nothing to support your claim that my arguments do not follow the rules of logic (i.e. are not logically valid).
I would go further to say that these examples you have made are also inappropriate analogies to the evolution vs creationism debate, but seeing as how you have yet to reply to my previous argument concerning inappropriate analogies, I won't waste my time typing out even more arguments that will probably also be ignored :/
You know, I really do enjoy reading most of the comments you make elsewhere on the site - you provide interesting tidbits of information. But here you seem to be stuck on finding creative ways to call me stupid, which doesn't advance the debate in a constructive manner, or do anything at all really...
If 40% believes in young earth creationism, Then I wonder how many have already heard about it but do not believe. Considering such characteristics it seems unfair to teach it in school, since science fails to be passed down though the family and fails to have multiple active clubs open to all in small areas though out the nation where people can come and learn about it. Yes, with 40% believing in young earth creationism, and I would guess quite a few in creationism generally it seems fairer to not take from science its classroom time, because then it would be even further underrepresented in comparison to creationism.
That is true - by the time many children learn about evolution at school, they've already heard about it (and its alternatives) elsewhere. I think partly that is schools' fault, since they should teach a matter to children at an age when that matter is relevant to them.
But does that mean teachers don't need to, or shouldn't, teach children about creationism? Even teaching children about creationism after they've already heard of it can be helpful.
Say a bunch of fundamentalist Christians are shoving pamphlets into my hand, telling me about what lies Darwin has spread and how evolutionists will all go to hell. What would be more likely to convince me that evolutionism isn't wrong: When my school completely ignores creationists? Or when my school rationally explains to me what creationism is, why some people believe it, and what scientific evidence has to say about it?
Some form of Creationalism is usually taught from birth, since before most of us are in school. Thus them hearing about it first from someone other then a school can not be the school's fault, unless you think children should be schooled from birth?
The school should teach children to be rational on their own, teach them what they need to know to support themselves, and minimize how much the children are indoctrinated into believing any ideology.l I do think that teaching creationalism as a optional elective as part of a religious studies class or such in the social studies department in a school where the students are interested should be allowable, although to be honest I do not believe it would benefit creationalism. A formal and honest analysis of creationalism from an unbiased position would teach it as it is: empirically unverifiable,logically pushes problems it "solves" up another level of abstraction or confounds and complicates them into an average person's disinterest, and useful only as emotional support if as that. I do not believe that time should be token out of science classes to address creationalism. I do believe science should be presented in a logical way which would make any logical flaws obvious, and in my experience it is especially so when compared to other subjects; we often times would repeat simple experiments and be asked to imploy the scientific method (which was taught well) and to use our knowledge from them to guess results of experiments we were unable to preform. Science was taught in a manner that the scientific evidence for creationalism was obvious to me the first time I heard the word creationism, and thus the scientific consensus and the reasons why it was believed was also immediately known.
Well, that is why I hedged by saying it is only partly the school's fault. Children born to religious parents are indeed likely to have heard the story of creation from a very young age, possibly before they even go to preschool, so it's hard to fault the school for not being the first to teach them. But the children of secular or less religious parents are often not bombarded with Christian tales nearly so soon - for example, I didn't hear the stories of Genesis until I had been in school for years - so schools have the opportunity to step in.
Your second paragraph I wholly agree with. It is why I say creationism can be taught alongside evolutionism. When I say "taught", I don't mean it in the sense of "this is the eternal and infallible truth, you must believe it". That is not education, that's brainwashing. I mean it in the sense of explaining to children that there are different sides to a debate, and hence provoking them to think for themselves.
And I did mention elsewhere that (1) teachers should be clear that evolutionism has basis in science, creationism in religion, and (2) I'd prefer seeing creationism taught in a religious studies class.
Well, I don't have a problem with creationism or intelligent design being taught in schools, and similarly I don't have a problem with evolution being taught in church.
Definitely - while it's theoretically possible for someone to take a creationist stance for non-religious reasons, I've yet to see someone like that. It's fair to say that pretty much every creationist ultimately bases their conviction upon religious beliefs.
You may have misunderstood my stance - contrary to the debate title, I don't think that creationism should be taught in schools. I only think that it should be allowed to be taught in schools. If a teacher wants to let students know that a lot of people reject the theory of evolution for religious reasons and believe in something else instead, they should be allowed to. Firstly, you're teaching facts when you say "so and so believes this and that"; secondly, it's useful for students to learn about their society; thirdly, discussing opposing viewpoints could hone students' critical thinking skills and deepen their understanding of an issue.
The caveat is that students must not be told that creationism is the academically received stance, and teachers must not introduce dishonest information in order to sway students' opinions (e.g. alleging that Darwin recanted on his deathbed and presenting that as evidence against evolution, when Darwin did no such thing and this has no impact on the strength of a scientific theory anyway).
I suppose creationism could be taught in school from a historical standpoint rather than a truly scientific one.
We do, in fact, learn various models of atoms that have since then been discredited based on later scientific inquiries.
In this manner, however, there would be no debate as to whether or not creationism is correct or not- it would simply be a historical idea.
After all, I think it is generally agreed upon that atoms are formed of positive centers and negative surrounding clouds rather. It may be of historical merit to discuss the erroneous and archaic belief of platonic atomism- in which earth, fire, water, and air are the primary building blocks- but it is not offered as an alternative to the current science.
I wonder what is going to happen when they find a gene that triggers homosexuality ... are the religious extremists going to cover their ears and go about picketing?
Actually, Harry Potter clearly disprobes the bible.
Since both are nothing more than books without scholarly evidence, yet both have a cultish following, perhaps muggles should be informed of the magical arts as well?
If you watch the video "Icons of Evolution" you will see that Evolution is no longer the popular choice among scientists. The more schools and institutions try and prove evolution the more they end up disproving it. Topics like Irreducible complexity, the Cambrian explosion and Schaeffer's embryo drawings are biting evolutionists in the butt because they refute themselves. I have found that the only reason that evolutionists get up in arms about teaching Creationism in schools is because they are afraid of evolution being disproved. Evolutionists know that if they are losing the argument over evolution and intelligent design. I think that it is only fair to teach ALL creation theories because here in America we are trying our best to promote equality. In order to do that we must teach the creation story of all the major world religions, not JUST Christianity or JUST Evolution. Another issue with evolution being taught in schools is that people love to glorify the "Separation of Church and State". However, Secular Humanism is a recognized religion that believes in evolution, therefore we have just crossed the Church/State boundary. The other issue is that we are brainwashing our students when we don't teach other creation theories. Students won't ask those key questions about evolution when they don't know anything different than evolution. We aren't showing them all of the options and we are shutting down those who want to question the theory of evolution (religious motivation or not). It is blatantly going against the 1st amendment of freedom of speech and expression. It is impossible to claim that the government is taking a neutral stance by only teaching one creation theory. One must teach every single theory with an unbiased approach to be neutral. We are denying students the knowledge that they deserve. School textbooks are using outdated and unreliable information, teachers are fired for raising debates in class and teaching kids that evolution is just a theory and not fact, and the evolutionists are scrambling to shut down anyone who opposes evolution.
To sum this all up:
If Evolutionists believe that Evolution is a rock-solid, irrefutable theory then there should be no problem in teaching other creation theories since they must all fall short of evolution if Evolution is as irrefutable as people like to think.
If you watch the video "Icons of Evolution" you will see that Evolution is no longer the popular choice among scientists.
A lie. Bohemian covered the actual statistics already.
Furthermore, of less importance the popularity of an idea is the reasons upon which the acceptance of it are based. Popular ideas have been wrong before, so you cannot draw a conclusion upon that; you must find out why people accept something.
I have found that the only reason that evolutionists get up in arms about teaching Creationism in schools is because they are afraid of evolution being disproved.
If evolution is false, scientists want to know it. Unlike creationists, they have no emotional or spiritual investment in the defense of their theory; their investment lies in the pursuit of knowledge and truth, even if that path leads to the debunking of long-held ideas. Creationist sites like Answersingenesis openly claim that no evidence, ever, even as of yet undiscovered evidence, could possibly refute creationism. This is not real science.
Evolutionists know that if they are losing the argument over evolution and intelligent design.
Another lie. Religious propaganda has done an excellent job of inventing a dispute in the minds of the public, but in the scientific community, there is hardly even an argument, as all the available evidence for creationism has been neatly dispatched.
I think that it is only fair to teach ALL creation theories because here in America we are trying our best to promote equality. In order to do that we must teach the creation story of all the major world religions, not JUST Christianity or JUST Evolution.
Sure, in a religious education class, this is a great idea. In a science class, it is not.
Another issue with evolution being taught in schools is that people love to glorify the "Separation of Church and State". However, Secular Humanism is a recognized religion that believes in evolution, therefore we have just crossed the Church/State boundary.
Just because a philosophy that has been branded a religion has accepted evolution does not mean evolution is a religious theory. Its evidence is solidly based in science, and there are sects and individuals who accept evolution and still believe in various deities.
The other issue is that we are brainwashing our students when we don't teach other creation theories.
Are we brainwashing them, too, when you tell them the earth is round and that it rotates around the sun? When we teach them that their bodies are composed of cells? Because those are theories, too.
Students won't ask those key questions about evolution when they don't know anything different than evolution. We aren't showing them all of the options and we are shutting down those who want to question the theory of evolution (religious motivation or not).
Right, this is why nobody ever conducts any further experiments or research in order to further define the specifics and possibilities of evolution. Oh, wait, I forgot- this is happening all the time.
It is blatantly going against the 1st amendment of freedom of speech and expression. It is impossible to claim that the government is taking a neutral stance by only teaching one creation theory. One must teach every single theory with an unbiased approach to be neutral. We are denying students the knowledge that they deserve.
I do not see why the government needs to treat something that is true, and something that is false, as equal theories when it comes to what enters the classroom. I hope you would not advocate that students be taught that the moon could be made of cheese, if a religious group popped up that believed such an absurdity.
School textbooks are using outdated and unreliable information, teachers are fired for raising debates in class and teaching kids that evolution is just a theory and not fact, and the evolutionists are scrambling to shut down anyone who opposes evolution.
Learn what 'theory' entails when used in the scientific sense.
Just because people who support creationism are 'shut down' doesn't mean there is big desperate conspiracy theory to silence their shocking revelations. It mostly means their claims are wrong and that they are not taken very seriously among scientists.
If Evolutionists believe that Evolution is a rock-solid, irrefutable theory then there should be no problem in teaching other creation theories since they must all fall short of evolution if Evolution is as irrefutable as people like to think.
In other words, if x is true, then there's no problem with lying to people and telling them that y and z contradict x but are totally just as possible and well-supported.
I personally don't believe in a god or any super natural being. When you bring up religion in debate it usually results in opposing sides becoming defensive and not listening and reasoning. They end up talking AT each other and not TO each other.
Evolution and Creationism are both theories. Each one requires a leap of faith to beilieve in and stand for. If one is accpetable to be taught in schools, then other thoeries should have that same privelage.
Evolution is pure religion, but creationism is based upon scientific facts and historic records.
Oh, the irony, it's blinding...
You have it backwards. Literally every piece of evidence for creationism has been refuted by the scientific community. It is a falsified religious theory and unless something new is presented, it will rightfully remain as such and thus is the realm of religious education classes, not science classes.
I didn't read word for word, but I did scan them all. There was a lot of good research that can prove both sides. Now, I have one question if we all were to evolve from one creature based on evolution. Then, why are the old ones still around? Why isn't there just one species?
Natural selection creates differences in populations based on environmental pressures. Environments are not uniform the world over, nor are they static; they differ from area to area, and change over time. There is not one species on earth capable of surviving in every habitat, from the dessert to the tundra to the bottom of the ocean to the sky (mitochondria do not count as their environment is a cell, not any of the abovementioned.)
Additionally, different abilities are required to fill different niches in different environments. A single uniform specie would meet far too much competition for resources to survive; therefor, organisms evolved to metabolize different materials, and utilize different food sources.
Finally, I am curious what evidence you believe supports both evolution and creationism, as I cannot think of any.
Evolution is not religion. Religion require faith. Evolutionists only believe in evolution because there is considerable evidence to support it. Religions all have some idea of afterlife. Evolution doesn't have that at all.
Creationism isn't based on scientific facts. The premise that a supernatural entity created life is unfalsifiable, therefore not scientific. However, the notion that life appeared fully formed is falsifiable and has been repeatedly falsified by evolution.
If you intend to refer to science, its time you demonstrate that you know something about it.
Actually, abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution is is theory that describes how and why allele frequencies change from one generation to the other in a population. This change in alleles is observed fact. Evolution seeks to describe it, and it needs these alleles (in other words, genetics) to exist in the first place. You can't have evoultion until you have life.
The non-creation theories behind the origin of life are referred to as abiogenesis. Although abiogenesis and evolution are intertwined, they are not the same thing.
The reason I didn't get your, umm, evidence, is because I don't refer to abiogenesis as a priomordial soup. That is an out-of-date notion that is now more promoted by Hollywood and comic books than by actual scientists. The only thing that most modern Theories of abiogenesis have in common with soup is that there was water, as life first emerged in the oceans.
No evolutionist who knows what they are talking about believes that life just appeared. We understand that life emerged slowly through a mixture of chemical process guided by observable laws of chemistry and physics. Just like these laws guide the formations of mineral deposits, clouds, snowflakes, stars and anything else appearing in nature. Creationists are the ones who believe that everything just appeared. In order to deal with the obvious impossibilities of this notion they invoke God. Problem is, a limitless, all-powerful being can't be proven, so it just compounds the impossibility of their argument.
Deterioration happens to all living beings. But they hold it off long enough to reproduce. And the offspring sooner or later start to deviate slightly over time. Eventually the deviations form new species. All observed in numerous branches of biology.
The Bible is not a viable science book. It also is not a particularly good historical text, and its value as a moral guide is highly disputable as well.
There is literally not one single piece of evidence for creationism. (the bible is NOT evidence, it is more of the claim, btw.) Can you explain to me why on certain islands, flowers EVOLVE to the exact shape of hummingbirds that dwell on that specific island, and EVOLVE into different shapes, to match the differently EVOLVED hummingbirds on different islands? Or how we need to get different flu vaccines because the virus EVOLVES and we need to change the vaccine? Or why finches EVOLVE different beak density and size to suit their dietary requirements over the years to prevent competition for food?
Creationism is a belief and has no standing in the scientific community. It literally takes the most basic knowledge of biology to know that it is false.
It is a fact that allele frequencies change over generations. Everything else that has to do with evolution, such as the idea we share a common ancestor with apes, is based upon massive amounts of empirical evidence. It is the opposite of religion, so to speak.
Sigh. Evolution is not a religion. It is a description of an observed process within the field of biology. It does not attempt to guide our morality. It does not make any comment on supernatural entities except that if a god or gods created life, evolution is part of the process. It does not require faith; scientific theories are required to be falsifiable, religious doctrines are not. It does not propose any concept of after life, but all ideologies universally agreed to be religions do.
And if it is only fair to teach creationism in schools, than it is only fair to teach ALL creation myths in school. There are hundreds, if not thousands of those.
I think creationism and evolution should both be taught in school. Neither should be taught as fact because neither can be 100% proven which is why the are THEORIES in the first place. Seriously, NO ONE knows what really happened so i don't see the point in arguing about something that neither side can win. Let both sides be taught because high school kids are mature and can decide what they want to believe in. Nobody will know who is right until they die and either nothing happens or they are in front of the pearly gates, but then it is to late to tell anyone about it so just live your life and stop arguing over something that has no end.
Oh and in the Debate title it never said that evolution and creationism both be taught in science class or in the same class for that matter so i don't know where that idea came from, but if one is required then we can't turn a blind eye to the other side.
A message from the heart to debaters who fight in favor of evolution. Adaptation is not evolution no matter how you define it. Adaptation takes a formed life form and adapts within its own fully formed makeup. It doesnt adapt by becoming a different creature.
Evolution defined as used to describe the establishment of life and nature as we sknow it is not adaptation. As a term used in the debate of Creator vs self creation of evolution.
So please stick to the definition. Adaptation is subtle. Evolution is creative in a foundational sense
Adaptation would be darkening of pigmentstion or lengthening a nose to adapt to changing atmosphere. But there is no drastic changes needed for evolution.
I dont argue and poke fun out of a dislike for you. I am hoping at some point you will question reasonably and logically some of the things you accepy as truth and isnt founded in science or logic or reasoning.
I am not being mean or cruel, I'm challenging you for a greater purpose, to question and weigh reasonably.
Like evolution starts aftwr life forms are already in process and builds on it, balancing nature in the process to foster the evolving life forms and to support its progressive action to its current presentation.
Yet when proof of the Bible has connections confirmed, in front of your face, it is denied.
Arent these connections similar. Yet at least with the Bible evidence is tangable and visible, and not just assumptive, as seen in the foundation of the biginning of life, the first life form that assembled itself to start with, then the balancing act needed to progress from the beginning.
Neither of these at the foundation are logical, no matter what biology connects similarities, and no matter what adaptations we see after the fact of a living thing at its completion.
There is only evidence of biological simillarites. Not sound science in the beginning of the first formed living thing. Nor in the balance required beyond that, with entropy working against it from the creation of the first cell, and naturally beyond that!
Creatures with eyes have eye genes. But its a big jump to then say life formed and stabilized out of nonliving matter.
Its a religion of idiots.
Its the greatest insult to the Creator. The actual creator.
Man being a god created himself out of a process from nothing.
Man breathed life into himself out of evolving from a combination of dead matter.
Not even another god, a nothing god ... the earth was void, unformed, darkness over the deep. Into nothing He brought forth life, into chaos He established the balance for life to continue.
And evolution is the god nothing. The self god, nature and man created self by selection of the best. The self made man, evolved from nothing.
If we show one theory (evolution) we must teach the other as well. I don't think we are actually created by a God, but we cant physically prove we are not. its the mystery that has left all of us in question. is it possible we evolved, sure is. Are we created by a higher power, could be as well! Or, we (humanity) founded this planet to start anew from a deteriorating other!
lets see.....the bIG bang , EVEloution etc are all lies, simply because of this.......CAn something come from nothing? no it can't.
Now, If u ask a scientist this, he'd say no, but when you mention the Big Bang. Hed say yes. Believing in God is saying that you believe in something that was always there. Which is better than saying a few things popped up out of nowhere.
Believing in God also means u believe, that there are things, and mysteries, that the human mind can not understand. HEY, we only use a small percentage of our brains.
Humans simply dont like to know, that there is something that make them look dumb.
"lets see.....the bIG bang , EVEloution etc are all lies, simply because of this.......CAn something come from nothing? no it can't."
Neither the Big Bang Theory or Theory of Evolution claim that anything came from nothing.
"Now, If u ask a scientist this, he'd say no, but when you mention the Big Bang. Hed say yes."
Wrong. He would tell you that the Big Bang Theory starts slightly after the Big Bang got going, and does not currently describe what caused the Big Bang itself because we don't have conclusive data about that. There are quantum theories (technically hypotheses) that are being developed to try to figure this out, but they are limited by our technology, knowledge of quantum mechanics and current understanding of math. Therefore, none of these hypotheses are considered anywhere near as strong as Big Bang Theory. While God is a potential answer, it is not one we should jump to just because we don't currently have another one.
"Believing in God is saying that you believe in something that was always there."
Only because you have no other answer to the conundrum, and are not interested in examining the evidence to find one.
"Believing in God also means u believe, that there are things, and mysteries, that the human mind can not understand."
Fair enough. However, the human mind is capable understanding quite a few things, and there is no reason to believe we have found the limit yet.
"HEY, we only use a small percentage of our brains."
You are way behind the times on the scientific data. It is now known that we use all of it, and has been for quite some time now.
lolthe reason you cant have conclusive data about the big bang, is because of, i daresay... their arrogance.conclusive data? OK, so a few atoms bumped into each other and, as a result of this such a complex thing such as the human brain came about as a result of this.If you were to say the origin of the "accident" of the atoms bumping into each other, which I will say is no accident, you'd have to say what or WHO started it. You seem very educated, i agree with you 160% about your implications that theists don't use logic when dealing with emotional topics such as these. Many things humans understand are rather otherworldly (here is something devoid of logic again). Humans do have a limit. And it cannot fathom the creation/origin of the universe. There is a verse?chapter in the Bible that states that God can use the simplest/most foolish thing and make the wisdom of Man seem illogical and unreasonable. I fully understand where you are coming from, but I was once in your position. Something convinced me that there is more to the World than the Natural. Something convinced me there where was another place... Due to skepticism, it does not make sense me telling you. This all I have to say for now, and I must say you are truly are one of a kind......
Obviously u misunderstood my comment. Im saying that as a result of the big bang according to scientists, created humans as well as a whole other set of living organisms etc.
"lolthe reason you cant have conclusive data about the big bang, is because of, i daresay... their arrogance."
While there may well be some arrogant cosmologists and quantum physicists out there, what is intrinsically arrogant about searching for knowledge? Personally, the arrogance I see on these issues is when people who obviously don't know the first thing about these principles accuse the scientists, who spend their lives studying these concepts in minute detail, of not knowing what they are talking about. To me it seems like many people making these arguments are basically saying "I find this stuff confusing, therefore nobody else can possibly understand it either." That, I believe, is arrogance.
The lack of conclusive proof right now has to do with the scale of the subject matter. We are talking about an unbelievably energetic yet incomprehensibly brief moment that took place almost 14 billion years ago at a "point" that doesn't really exist anymore. This isn't like figuring out who took the last cookie from the jar or who the baby's father is. Since pretty much the entire universe and all of the laws of physics count as clues to the origin, that's a heck of a lot of evidence to sort through, countless hours of equations and stargazing and fine-tuning of technology. This sort of thing doesn't happen over night. But using the fact that we don't know the answer right now as some kind of evidence against science or atheism is ludicrous. We didn't always know how to combat disease. We didn't have a very good or thorough explanation for earthquakes or volcanoes until a few decades ago, or any good way to date the Earth in an absolute sense until about a century ago. As time goes on, scientists (arrogant and otherwise), keep striving to learn more and more about the universe around them. As they do so, the list of things to be considered incomprehensible gets smaller and smaller.
"OK, so a few atoms bumped into each other and, as a result of this such a complex thing such as the human brain came about as a result of this."
I guess if you word it like that, it seems a little silly. Then again, you also tried to simplify pretty much all of science into a 31 word sentence. You missed a couple million details.
"If you were to say the origin of the "accident" of the atoms bumping into each other, which I will say is no accident, you'd have to say what or WHO started it."
Not until we know the answer. Its dishonest to claim something as truth when we don't know what the truth is.
"You seem very educated,"
No more than any one else can be if they are interested in increasing their knowledge. But thank you!
"Many things humans understand are rather otherworldly (here is something devoid of logic again)."
Actually, all the things we do understand are quite natural. Its the "otherworldly" stuff that provides no mechanism to be analyzed. Therefore, if such things or places do exist, one must question how one can truly know anything about their nature.
"Humans do have a limit. And it cannot fathom the creation/origin of the universe."
Can you delineate our limit? Provide evidence that we have reached it? And why accept that we can't fathom the origin of the universe? Why not?
"Something convinced me that there is more to the World than the Natural. Something convinced me there where was another place"
Interesting. You see I had pretty much the exact opposite experience.
"I must say you are truly are one of a kind......"
Im not claiming to UNDERSTAND anything Otherworldly. And i do agree that 'one must question how one can truly know anything about their nature' But what if i told you that scientific evidence could not disprove this 'event'? ( Science does not/can not concern itself with anything BUT the Natural as that is what science is about) What would you say to that? 'Interesting. You see I had pretty much the exact opposite experience.'
are you saying that something convinced you that the Natural is all there is to the world? I as an individual has believes that most of science if not all is true( and that The Natural and Super Natural are connected) , BUT some mysteries Cannot be solved by Science. such as matters Unnatural.
Do you mind sharing this 'exact opposite experience'?
"Do you mind sharing this 'exact opposite experience'? "
My wording was a little poor. It wasn't really a singular experience but the current end result of several years of spiritual and scientific investigation. Explaining all of the details would be time consuming and boring, but here's a brief run down of the spiritual stances I've had in my life:
Childhood: I was raised in a Christian household, but my parents' beliefs were very moderate and personal. It just wasn't a huge part of my upbringing and I didn't really think too much about it until my early teens, when my parents started becoming more active within a church. When I was 13, I realized that I didn't really believe in God or the Bible, and after a little negotiating, my parents allowed me to stay home on Sundays.
High School: I started hanging out with a bunch of Wiccans and New Agers. I read numerous books on New Age Spirituality and participated in several rituals. I also started reading about quantum physics. QP theories can sometimes seem to affirm supernatural beliefs if you tilt your head and squint (metaphorically of course), so I saw it as scientific backing for my beliefs. This was a very powerful, emotional and social time for me and while I was in the thick of it I had experiences that seemed to be impossible to explain scientifically (aside from Quantum Physics, and even that was limited). I thought in a similar way to what you described: I felt there were forces and entities beyond the realm of science, planes of existence beyond our own. I believed in a soul. At about 19, I stopped being so active in these circles, as did most of my friends. I started studying psychology.
20-23: I had been out of the "New Age Scene" for awhile and had been learning more about how the brain interprets the world around us, and some of the psychology behind belief. I started questioning some of the experiences I had had as a youth. I wondered if my wanting to believe had been affecting my judgments. I still felt that there was more to life than just chemicals and atoms, but I wasn't really sure how to analyze it anymore. Plus I wasn't as interested. I just started calling myself an agnostic and moved on to other interests.
24-28: As it turns out, I still had some unfinished business in the spiritual department. Plus I was meeting people of almost every faith you can think of. I had dropped out of school years ago, my jobs were not very stimulating and my social life started winding down. So I started reading a lot, about all sorts of aspects of human nature: history, anthropology, psychology and quite a few books on various kinds of spirituality: Christian apologetics, more New Age stuff, mythologies from all over Europe, Asia and Native American beliefs, the basics of Hinduisms and so on. I also was able to actually talk to people who had these beliefs. One thing that started becoming more clear to me as time went on was that we can't really understand anything with clarity unless we can measure it.
28-30: I got really interested in Buddhism, especially Zen. One thing I loved about it was that many Buddhist teachings affirmed what I was starting to realize. It seemed more logical, more cause and effect based than anything else I had looked into. Although many Buddhists do believe in Gods, its not actually required in the religion. Indeed, one can infer that the Buddha himself was rather critical of deities, and was trying to lean his teachings towards more personal and identifiable matters.
30-present: I've gotten myself back in school and am heavily studying science. All of what I've learned so far, and all I'm learning now has led me to Agnostic Atheism. I don't believe it is wise or honest to assert something as truth without evidence. This is not to say that God or other supernatural things don't exist, but they simply can't be quantified. So while I won't totally rule them out, I don't find it beneficial to work with such things, and I am growing quite antagonistic towards faith.
Well, that was a bit more detailed than I had planned, but I hope it answers your question.
Come to think of it i now agree. The scientific community makes the theories- not The Pathetic Christians that we always had since the Birth of Christ.
Creationism basically favors one religion over another, and Though I believe in creationism, And that science cannot explain Time,(OK so God created the world, where did HE come from?) Or anything Supernatural( which is real), how can Science be the only medium with which humans find out things? I'm not saying you become an occultist or become a christian simply for knowledge but I'm saying science is not everything.
I agree that science can't explain everything. It is based around a pretty rigid methodology. The three biggest rules are: 1) leave your biases at the laboratory door. Report what you see, whether you like it or not. 2) Every hypothesis and theory must be falsifiable. If it happens to be wrong, you would need to be able to show it so science can move away from it and change its claims if necessary. 3) No supernatural. Partially because of the falsifiability rule, but also because of issues regarding quantifiable measurements. Scientists often try to quantify such matters. If they can, they will look more into the issues. Most of the time, they end up finding naturalistic causes to the phenomena. This has actually done quite a bit for adding to scientific knowledge. But they can't do this if the measurements are impossible to obtain or are inconclusive.
These rules do limit science's scope. However it does mean that the things science can work with can eventually be understood. We can use these understandings in countless ways, and we can get predictable results. If supernatural occurrences can't be thus quantified, how can we predict them? How can we do anything to figure out why they are happening? And if their results are so unpredictable, what does that imply about their affect on our lives?
Actually they go hand in hand. I mean, we learn all about gravity in school. But no one ever talks about the fact that gravity had to come from somewhere. And sure we know atoms exist...but why? Did gravity and atoms just always exist? If people believe that, then how is that any less crazy or pseudo than believing these things must have been created by something. And like many theories that we learn in science class, creationism is just another theory. So as long as the schools are presenting it as theory and not fact, then there should be no problems.
No, evolution and creationism do not go hand in hand, they contradict each other. And no, creationism is not like any other theory you learn in science class, because all the available evidence contradicts it.
How can you claim that scientists look for evidence to contradict G-d? The nature of science is to propose a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and validate or refute the hypothesis based on the outcome of the test. Admittedly not all scientists follow this procedure- but to claim that the population of scientists as a whole are at fault is a sweeping and false claim.
When there is evidence of G-d, I will believe. It is not impossible. In the meantime, however, there is no such evidence, so I hold to the theory that the universe does not have a divine creator.
Scientists are the first to admit when they were wrong. For instance, scientists used to believe that proteins were the source of trait heritability. However, thanks to the work of Hershey and Chase, it was discovered that DNA was in fact the mode of inheritance.
If you do not wish to be as blinded by your own views as you claims scientists are blinded by theirs, you need not close the door on G-d. Hold steadfast to your hypothesis, and conduct a test. I would suggest testing whether or not a miracle occurs after praying. keep in mind that a single perceived miracle is not in fact evidence. I would suggest testing whether or not praying influences the odds of spontaneously recovering from cancer.
the conservative proportion is 1 in 60,000 cases result in spontaneous remission.
to have results significant at a 95% confidence level, you should make sure to have:
a simple random sample of cancer patients
sample size > 10/p- which is equal to 600,000 trials
alpha level of 5%
of course, the study should probably be double-blind, so you would need another simple random sample of 600,000 trials as a control group whom you would not pray for.
if the results are significant at a 5% level, then you have bona-fide evidence for the existence of G-d.
The theory that we are made up of cells is cell theory. The theory that the earth moves around the sun is heliocentric theory. The theory that gravity is a force that keeps us down is gravitational theory.
In science, theories are not called theories because there is not sufficient evidence to support them. They are called theories because science is cautious, and avoids absolutes. Not all the questions raised by evolution have been answered, not by far, but it is exhaustively evidenced. Creationism is, as of yet, supported by literally no valid evidence.
Had the intention that was perceived by you was to promote creationism I would have most likely clicked "dispute" opposed to "support".
I meant that ignorance is bliss in the sense that those whom are consumed by the ideals of creationism find themselves ignorant of the livelihood of those around them who happen to not follow or denunciate their personal path. It is these people who violate the basic human rights of others whom find themselves in not only feeling a sense of accomplishment after a good picketing, but find that they themselves have done something for the betterment of mankind. Which is where I believe the phrase "ignorance is bliss" applies to such people.
You are right, Christianity isn't a theory. It's a very real religion, that can be clearly seen. It's claims though (existence of God, Jesus having the power to perform miracles, etc) do not make the grade in the scientific meaning of the word. It is merely a hypothesis, one that can not be raised to the level of theory with out any evidence to support it.
How about a false ideology which oppresses those whom hold differentiating beliefs?
Well I am going to make the assumption that you are of the Christian faith and I shall ask you a question, this will be a 2 part question; A.) do you feel that homosexuals commit a sin in being who they are ( homosexuals ) B.) using simple logic and deduction why would someone want to be a homosexual? They are a hated group of people by the masses whom are attacked constantly ( both physically and verbally ) based off of their orientation which, as long as it is consensual, hurts absolutely nobody.
If I am correct in my assumption then I am just begging this question, and you sir belong in the same category as those whom follow the ideology of "ignorance is bliss", implicit or not may the force of hatred be with you and those whom take their beliefs to the extremist levels in any faith.
saying something is 'proven' is an archaic methodology of scientific nomenclature, as it does not leave any room for growth.
in modern science, a theory is a supported hypothesis. Creationism is, at best, an unsupported hypothesis. Those are not taught in school. After all, I may have the hypothesis that the moon is made of ice cream. Until I both test and validate that hypothesis it will not be taught in schools.
If they wan't to teach creationism in Religious Education, then let them. But it should not, and I will never condone it, being taught in science, as is is not science. It is a religious belief and should be taught as such.
assumes over-dramatic heroic stance while looking at nothing in particular somewhere in the distance with a determined look on my face Not on MY watch!
Evolution, again, is just a simple theory, not a proven fact. But, it is the most logical theory of biological development that humanity as a whole can come up with. If there is freedom of religion in a country, and no designated religion, then the ideas of religion should not be taught in schools if they are being taught in a way that encourages students to convert to this religion/religions. I do believe that students should be taught about certain religions in school, as they are a major part of history, but if any more is taught than just facts about religions, it could be corrupting the minds of students everywhere. The reason creationism should not be taught as a factual belief is that it is an aspect of a religion. If we have freedom of religion, then schools should teach only about facts that humans have agreed on as fact or at least theories of life. The beliefs in religions are not agreed on as common human knowledge, so they should not be taught as fact. The reason that the theory of evolution should be taught in schools is because it is not an aspect of any religion in particular, and is considered common human knowledge. Now some people may disagree with that it is not an aspect of any religion. Some people may consider things like the theory of evolution and the big bang theory, to be of a part of atheism. Let me set something clear...
Definition of atheism: The belief that there is no god or any other omnipotent entity.
And Nothing Else! Things like evolution and the big bang have nothing to do with this. You do not have to believe in the big bang or evolution just because you are an atheist. You can technically be religious and still believe in the big bang and evolution and stuff also (I do realize that in some religions, it is apparently impossible to believe in these things and still be a member of that religion, but I am not an expert in religion itself, so i'll leave you to figure out contradictions like this on your own if you choose to be religious). I do not believe that it should ever be flat out stated by a teacher in school, that there is no god, or your religion is false. But not teaching the theory of evolution in school because it is against a religion is a very unwise choice. Some of you may also think "Why can't schools just not teach beliefs of any religion, or anything against religion?" If we were to do this, then practically nothing could be taught. It could be part of some religion that 2+2 does not equal 4. Does that mean that we are going to stop teaching it? Of course not. So there are naturally going to have to be things taught in schools that are against some religions. Another point is that religions disagree with each other. So how could we ever teach about religion if there is no designated religion to teach. I am horrible at concluding things, so I suppose I will just leave it at that, please respond.
Evolution, again, is just a simple theory, not a proven fact.
It is not unproven and it is far from simple. The amount of evidence for The Theory of Evolution is staggering (I would provide links, but you can Google it, as this is a general matter). Comprehend that in scientific phraseology a theory is (concisely) a model which explains findings, and data. For example, experiments and investigations have shown biological matter to be composed of minuscule bodies which carry out all the basic functions of life. these are called cells, and Cell Theory explains what they are and what they do. The label theory does not change the fact that we are made of cells.
I largely agree with this. If creationism is to be taught, it's better off taught in religious studies class than in science class.
The fact is that no matter how much or how little scientific evidence there is to support creationism, the basis of this theory is the assumption that there is a God. Scientific study is conducted to give support for this assumption, not to question it. Hence it is fundamentally a religious subject.
On the contrary, evolutionism makes no initial assumptions about the existence of deities. It is incompatible with some (not all) religious beliefs, but that in itself doesn't make it an atheist theory. It's merely a secular theory - i.e. one that makes no comment over whether or not God exists. Hence evolutionism should be taught in science, a subject that deals with theories on the way the world works, as observed through objective experimentation and logic, completely independent of religious belief.
Only science should be taught in a science class. Creationism is not scientific. At best, it is an untested hypothesis. Evolution on the other hand is a scientific theory with many years of evidence from nature to support it. Creationism is based solely on the words inscribed in a holy book.
The theory of evolution in its simplest form states that allele frequencies within a population change over time. This is a fact and it is observable every day.
It is easy to get the process confused with evolutionary specifics, such as who descended from who, and when, and of these particulars we may never be sure. These gaps do not disprove evolution as a real process, they merely highlight questions we have about how evolution works and the effects it has had.
Evolution will never be proven because proof is the domain of mathematics and logic. It can only be infinitely evidenced.
The theory of evolution is not a law, and is still a theory. Though it is highly testable and holds well evidenced explanations; it still theoretical.
Don't tell me have you ever heard of the "theory of gravity?", as it is a theoretical explanation of observed force between matters.
allele frequencies within a population change over time.
That is a fact.
Human chromosome number 2 is an exant combined match of chimpanzee chromosomes 13 and 14 (a fact explained by the theory) homologous structures exist between closely related taxa (a fact explained by the theory) atavisms occur in organisms (a fact explained by the theory)
There are parts of the Theory of Evolution which still holds the label of theory.
The theory of evolution is not a law, and is still a theory. Though it is highly testable and holds well evidenced explanations; it still theoretical.
In science, laws describe occurrences but do not explain them; theories explain them. Evolution will never be a law, it will always be a theory, as it explains mechanisms of adaptation and change among living organisms. Theories can also be facts, as is the case when it comes to evolution.
There are parts of the Theory of Evolution which still holds the label of theory.
Yes, there are many ideas within the field of evolution that are still contested, such as exactly when humans developed bipedalism. However, as I said, these disagreements in no way cast doubt on evolution itself, merely the specifics of how it played out. Even if, say, evidence arose that suggested that humans evolved from squirrels less than 2 MYA, totally dispelling the possibility of a primate ancestry and a relationship to other great apes, as well as many of the things we thought we know about ancestral hominids, evolution itself would not in any way be in trouble. We would just have to majorly rearrange our ideas about how it happened in the past.
So: Not factual.
Nothing you have said has changed the fact that allele frequencies change over time.
The basic knowledge of sciences within themselves still elude me ...
I am indefinitely a humanities person. As they say everything is eventual and hypothetically I will possibly have a slightly firmer grasp on anything within the field of science in the future.
That being said I concede, and am much more confused with the situation than when I started.
Nothing you have said has changed the fact that allele frequencies change over time.
I said that was fact.
So: Not factual.
I said the specific piece I posted was not factual.
Argumentum ad populum
Ha, I was going to post an argument regarding this however decided against it but apparently left the heading up.
So I will leave this with a question: so is the Theory of Evolution a "proven theory" or is that within itself not coherent?
I apologize if I have been confusing as that certainly was not my intent. I am still practicing with concisely relating the things I have learned.
So I will leave this with a question: so is the Theory of Evolution a "proven theory" or is that within itself not coherent?
True 'proof' does not apply to any area of science except for logic and mathematics. A simple example of a proof is this:
If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.
It makes no actual claims and does not attempt to explain anything, just states that if the premise (A being equal to B, and B being equal to C) is correct, then there is no logical way that the conclusion (A being equal to C) cannot follow. Proofs illustrate a conclusion that cannot be falsified. Although evolution is a fact, there are hypothetical events that could falsify it, however unlikely they may be, such as the discovery that all of the data supporting it was invalid, the discovery of modern mammal fossils from the precambrian, and/or the reliably documented occurrence of a complex creature spontaneously forming in mid-air. As evolution is heavily evidenced, it would take a great amount of counter-evidence to actually disprove it, rather than just seriously reshuffle certain ideas, but science is cautious so it would never say such a thing is impossible. This is why evolution will always be a theory, and why there can never be 'proof' of evolution, only endless amounts of evidence.
Oftentimes, even knowledgeable people use 'proof' as a shortcut term for 'incredibly convincing and basically indestructible evidence'. This, along with the differing scientific definitions of words like 'theory' and 'law', understandably contribute to misunderstandings.
Evolution IS A THEORY not proven, And not proven wrong. In other words you are teaching a bunch of kids my age something that hasn't been proven. AS IF IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT IT WERE TRUE, Which is just as dumb as creationism is perceived.
XD Whatever helps you sleep at night. Unfortunately for you, Evolution has been proven and no amount of religious delusion is going to prove otherwise.
One as a fact, scientists do not dispute that evolution HAPPENS.
Two as a theory, natural selection, which experienced large backlash from religious communities because it made intelligent design seem more like a blind man using building blocks, rather than truly "intelligent design"
God as a theory has no scientific backing and thus should not be taught unless at private schools. Who would pay money to go to that school? Who knows XD
i could not disagree more, while you may need scientific backing others do not. whit is certain is not faith. but if you want faith, look around you. everything around you from the walls to the very screen you are looking at now, down to you, your eyes, feet, hands and mouth. you claim that you are what you out of chance and that each individual particle and atom created itself, that every cell in your body is there as a result of infinate odds. you are unique and amazing as an individual and i dont see how you cannot see the evidance within that.
i could not disagree more, while you may need scientific backing others do not.
A school's subject matter is (in best efforts) based upon reality. To that end, evidence-based curricula are use. Science is one of this, so is history. It is not the prerogative of teachers to spread myth and fantasy as fact.
whit is certain is not faith. but if you want faith, look around you. everything around you from the walls to the very screen you are looking at now, down to you, your eyes, feet, hands and mouth.
This argument is one based on equivocation, confusing "trust without evidence" for "reliability of senses."
you claim that you are what you out of chance and that each individual particle and atom created itself, that every cell in your body is there as a result of infinate odds.
Every object in the universe occupies a state which has a vanishingly small chance of occurring in precisely that pattern. Calling something unlikely based on your assumptions therefore has little meaning. The chance that you would sit in your chair, the atoms occupying the exact positions which they do, is almost infinitely unlikely but we are not looking for exact states in a phase space. We are looking for regions of states, which reduces the rarity by many orders of magnitude.
it also doesn't matter how incredulous you are towards a scientific theory. Science education isn't based on your ability to be convinced, it is based on fact, and that is why science education will continue to teach evolution.
No, because biology is a science and therefore encompasses scientific theories. Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is not. That is because creationism can't be proven scientifically. Try again! :)
If creationism is to be taught in schools, it relies on the religion that is most prevalent in that country being correct.
In the case of America, from where most people on this webpage are, that would be christianity.
The whole of Christian mythology is absurd.
If we accept the christian message, we have to accept also that christ was god come to earth to spare us for our sins, correct?
Ok... What about the people who came before Christ appeased us? Are they all doomed, purely because god couldn't be bothered to save their souls at the time? He was still throwing stroppy little tantrum?
Not only that, but Christ died to save us from God's wrath, so therefore, he died to appease God. However, if he were God, then the ridiculous and almost psychotic argument of Christianity is that God came to earth to be tortured to death by his people, so that he could appease himself and forgive his people, the creation.
That's like a parent, angry at their child, asking their child to stab them so that the child can be forgiven and the parent's anger removed...
That just makes perfect logical clarity. Or, instead, it makes Christianity sound like a sado masochistic fetish party.
If Christianity is so faulty as to be disproved in 4 paragrpahs, then its core belief about how we all got here is not worthy of credence. People should be taught facts, which come from science, not these ridiculous mickey mouse bull shit ideals.
And I am being harsh, 'cause the real world is harsh, kid...
Creationism is a religious subject, as such can't be allowed in schools. Evolution however doesn't fall into religious lines, as atheism is not a religion. So one is legal in school, the other is not.
There's one big difference between teaching myths that shouldn't be taken serious, considering the evidence against them, in a separate classroom, and teaching myths and stating them as facts, in a science classroom, and that they should be taken seriously over any evidence against them.
I wouldn't have a problem with teaching it in the former sense. This is not what's being done in certain countries, and I'm totally against that. Religion has no place in science classrooms.
It's not even given any credibility in my country (Ireland ) in fact if you came out with some of the creationist views you would be laughed at ....sent to an asylum ...or totally ignored...any one who believes in any of this grade a nonsense is by any reasonable standards insane and should be kept away from sharp objects etc
This isn't even an argument, evolution is backed up by facts, reason, observation, etc. creationism barely even counts as a hypothesis, believe whatever you want to believe but public schools paid by tax dollars should only teach scientific fact, not fairytales.
No, creationism is a religious belief and should not be part of any curriculum in a public school system, outside of learning about religions. It should never be taught as fact, because it is not a fact, cannot be proven, cannot be observed, and is completely out of sync with biology, and the laws of nature. Its complete hogwash.
I was lost in the Darkest parts of my own wicked ways, spiraling down a path of destruction leading me away from His Almighty ways, and all the while im going down ONLY ONE, He could save me. No matter how far i looked on this lowly planet, i never once found a soul who could manage, to show me the love that i truly needed, because on this planet aint nothing but hate and contempt have been breeded. the lowly snake slithering as he goes through the towns of man looking for lowly lowly souls, to feed on so that it could plant it's evil seeds, and so that throughout the generations nothing but evil and hate we could recieve, but those where the ways of the past, my brothers and sisters. the devil had a hold of us and he managed through our parents, down through the generations His ways have been lost, and because of the us, the devil has turned and tossed, We can All be saved, all we need is Thanksgiving, to the One who Above, for All of His Givings. The devils trying to stop me right now as i speak, but Faithful to the Lord and willit He, that i may be meek. Because it is He not i that gives you this message but it is The One that we All should seek. i know that it is hard to find Rest, as we all go through this test some call a game, every single last one of us, probably, training to gain and retain our fame. But That is not what this life is about, i have a Strong feeling that we are All getting our Water from the wrong wrong spout. because thats all the devil has for us is a little bit, of pleasure, then comes the pain. steady feeding our bodies what i see now Is Insane. because ya'll hafto see that we are all carnally minded, and This is the reason The LORD, us he has blinded, binding, ourselves to our own flesh, so that eventually we would All fail this Test. but know that The Lord, He loves us, and wishes nothing but the best, and all He wants is for us to Love Him all the while through this Test. some wonder why we see nadoes and quakes, He needs ya'll to know that its Ya'lls souls that He is trying to shake. and bake if you will, so the devil may not have his fill, to letchya'll know that there is NONE like that ALMIGHTY AND ALL POWERFULL ONE. i say full because Hes filled with Love, like None that we have seen on this lowly earth, but now that i have SEEN, my Eyes have been UnBlinded, and now it is He, He who signs this, letter so maybe that some of Ya'll could listen, and Maybe get the Message that He is trying to dish, out of His spout, so that ya'll might be fed, with all of His Love, His Water, And His Bread. Don't for a second think any of Ya'll are living, All of ya'll are dead and for the devil are you "living" as i sit here and do this all of the "dome" just know that it is Not me and that this is His tomb. He is singing through me in these words and this song, so that maybe one day we All can be free all the day long, and ya'll can say its cheesy if ya'll want, but just know the devil in you he does flaunt x) i had to stop and show ya'll how i felt about that one, cuz its the truth, and right now i have a Strong feeling He is swinging harder than that brother Babe Ruth, or ballin harder than micheal jordan, and in this song he Is Playing His Accordian. Ya'll just need to know that He is our Guardian, and right now im flying Higher than any single air jordan, because my love i gave to Him more than any of Ya'll so i guess i can say more than them. But dont getit twizted like boi's if ya'll know, that me and moreover Him, have a lot to show. we are all brothers and sisters, but i should call us the missers, because we all fail to see the smaller things in this world, without even thinking twice, what truly brings a man alot of happiness or to see the pain that ALOT of us have in us. i know that we are all hurting on the inside, and for ya'll who say we dont, Boi, you know that is a lie, because only with Him and not that evil leech from down south, can we truly fly. higher than the highest of trees or the tallest of mountains, But in Him we Have to trust, so that We may Drink From The One and Only True fountain, only because of Him can i do this for days, and its Because i gave Him my love, thanksgiving, and praise. so now that i have seen what it is truly to be Man, Men of God, all these hater out there who bout to say something aint nuthing more than sod. sorry if it dont make sense, just know that me and Him the latter first, We are just trying to give His children, ya'll some mother lovin cents. forgive me if i pause for no longer am i a vulgar man life is just a beach, and Now, He is playing in the sand, hopefully in the minds of the young, the daughters and sons, i have my holster, and now the Lord is my Gun, Shining Brighter, than a million suns, times two, because His love is True, actually make that twenty twenty, because He is aplenty, in me in you and All, i just hope that ya'll can hear His call, so that maybe that ya'll may not fall, into the Pit, but right now i can say the devil is probably having a fit, of anxiety cuz he is losing his "children" just know that we are God's and with me He has been pilfering, in my mind day and night, as i have been in my room trying to stay out of sight, of ya'll because all it seems like to me, that nothing to ya'll it would please, more, than to see one of your own fellow brother get shot and fall. when i look around me i dont see any real love, this evil surrounds me, but Now i DO NOT CARE, because the Lord, THE LORD, HE has found me. so now ya'll cannot touch, because with His love, im about to bust. with loving Faith and Trust, i put in Him, so that i can be led away from this life of sin, and Now that i have His Trust, my brotha's and sista's, not just the black ones, comeon now, that just is not a must, there is no such thing man, all that is, is nothing more than an evil thought, brought up in vain, so that maybe a man's soul, that leech, can be bought. Quit being evil, for it is Love, that should be sought, out so once again we may be fed from His Spout, for only He can give us what we need so that in the end we may succeed. my brothers and sisters all we need to do is Believe, and then, Anything, together, WE CAN ACHIEVE. this is an ode to ya'll so in hopes once again that ya'll may hear The Call, and will not fall, so one day me, ya'll, and The Almighty,Perfect, like a prefect without the er, Omnipotent, and Patient ONE, that together we May All Ball. and they keep telling me to stop, but i just cant my brothers me and Him are headed to the top, and right now i got The Heart Of A Lion, King, and pray tell me my brothers and sisters who are reading, what single Beast can stop that king? of the jungle we are running but with Him we can be free. out into the open pasture we all can roam, just know this is not me, and that this is His Tomb. its wierd how they're spelled alike but do not rhyme, im talking bout bomb my brothers, and its One of a Kind. in the Hopes that this petty rhyme, can help lead the black sheep, away from the Blind, being themselves, for who? tell me can save them from that? if you dont answer right then your a part of this blight that runs rampant through the streets, evil im talking about and all it wants to do is eat, your souls because it is angry at the Living God, hahahaha for it is nothing more than a sod, on His Cleat as He is Running, Hoping that some of these Words, hit you right in the stomach, and make you sick, but not you, im talking about the evil you, for we are all children of God, but we have made ourselves nothing more than a sod =( i say with a heavy heart, because all this time we have been playing the devil, his part, but with Him it is nothing but a fart, because He Forgives, and Only Through Him may we EVER, get the chance to Live, and im not talking about on the earth, im talking about another, and maybe one day you can see and i can Truly call you my Brother, for there is Life in Death, but it is only gained through this life which is a test, just know that when we die, if you have lived righteously, on that day you will Fly, for the Lord will Breathe His Breath in you when you die and like i said before You Will Fly, but not if you keep eating from the devil's table, for you can only eat from one, and i hope its Not the devil's table. for if we Eat from Him, we can All go back into His Stable, and only in doing that can we Ever truly be stable, only only if, we are eating from, The Living God's Table. and for ya'll who are sitting at your computers steadily dissin Him, i pray for you, because it you are missin, Him and the bigger picture, just know right now im taking a Big Gulp From His Ultimate Pitcher, not one from the MLB, and if you are listening then i pray that you sea, i mean see, but with Him we can fly over the one before, and higher than mike, dunk it in, right for a score, but not for 2 for it is for 3, because He is Holy in me, but atm holy in you, because you missing some parts, we all need to change, so that we may play His Part, that He intended from the Beginning, because only With Him can we ever be winning, but hahahaha not as long as we are sinning. for that is not the way that we was meant to walk, With Him we was mean to Walk and Talk. once again i say this way i, used to, but we choose to live, is insane in the membrane, but He is using me as His Template, lol or templar whichever you prefer, just know that He is Prefect, ha just without the errrr. as i sit here steadily dissin em i mean the demons in the minds of the children of the One and Only, God Who Is Kind, i hope that they depart, so we can All gaze upon The Divine, not like wine or watch, i aint lil wayne, just know that i feel like im the only one who is sane. because i AM NOT PERFECT, do not get the wrong message for that would hurt me, only He is, and He just wants some love from His Kids, but for some odd reason... we still choose to do the evil leeches bids, for i feel he has sucked to much from us, all of our blood, i mean soul, it has tucked from us, and right now He is aiming at it with a Big Ol' Blunderbuss. to shoot it and unleech it, from His Children's Soul's so one day maybe we can gaze upon, That Wonderful City Of Gold, and dont letit peak your in ter ests, for if you do your not getting whats bests, from this test that He has beset, for our minds to ponder and think on, maybe in some of the hearts out there this message is shining, for He is a Beacon of Light, to shine out all the evils, and end this ugly, hateful blight, that courses through our vains, that nasty garbage that makes us feel insane, because no one is living right, and for That NONE is sane. you can talk and sit there and chatter, but i pray and hope that none get fatter, and im not talking because of mcdonalds, im talking about your ego and pride, because We Alll NEED to push that aside, all we seem to do is breed hate and contempt, sitting there looking for another hurt sould to feed on, thinking it makes us content, but just know NOW people, lolol all your doing is letting the devil be your PIMP! ha ha ha i think that really funny, because in the words of man that just makes ya'll some ho's, and please forgive my trespasses my sisters and brothers, for my vulgar words, because i Did Not mean to hurt, He's just trying to keep our faces from being rubbed in the dirt. but it really shouldnt matter because we are mud, and from One we all came, so can i not call ya'll blood??? nah im not talking about them two glock shotta's, im talking bout from The One Who Has Always Got Us, not us as in the navy, i mean us as in the ones who might sit on that bus, the one going to school and to the ones who drool in class, and all of us who needs a kick in the, pause, ya'll know what i mean, im just sitting here trying not be obscene, all im trying to do is get the bigger picture, through ya'll minds so that maybe one day, we can All WALK IN THE LORDS WAY. forgive me if i make any of ya'll mad, if i do know that i Am sad, but how about ya'll just go to the store and go and grab on of them happy hefty bags, you know i meant glad if you didnt you are simple, and forgive me as i sit here and bust this pimple, lol sorry that was nasty just know that i didnt, and know that we are all fake, and its time for some rhino plasty, or however its spelled im just hoping some hearts will melt, like the plastic we are, and become melded into flesh, as i sit here and type in this Soul Food test, for if ya'll can't hear me then your hearts are so cold, forgive me as i trespass, because, uhm, i Am not trying to be bold, im just tryna through some fia atcha hearts, in the hopes that you may leave the Dark, ness not loch just in case thats watchu thought, all you gotta do is leave your flesh behind, and know that He is the one who Should Be Sought, out so we can drank From His Spout, cuz the Lord Knows, man it has been a drought. we are all so thirsty, but in order to be filled its The Lord who must come firsty x) just know that me and Him are going Stooopid, and for those who are real maaan i thoughtchu knew it. and if you dont i pray you haven't already blew it, up i mean your ego, like a balloon, just know right now i feel like taz boi, yup them looney toones, or tunes whichever you prefer, just know that He is Prefect, just without the err. and i say pre because He was always here, yes before you and me, but with Him i wanna letchu know that we can all be as pure, and as white as the snow, just like powder we can all be melted, i mean melded into the beings we were meant to be, so one day we may fly free as a dove, Right over the sea, so that we all can reach New Jerusalem, yup just right where we was all meant to be, that is the Golden City for those who did not, know, im just hoping that one day we can All be as pure as the snow, because the evil has taunted and flaunted and given us a show, to peak i mean perk up our ears and it, that leech i mean, gave us nothing but fears, fears of ourselves and one another, fears from our sisters and daughter, Father, and brothers, but we have a right to Fear the Living God, because to Him we have all become a sod, He is sorrowful and cries as we follow, the evil being, who was never meant to be followed, and i felt His pain at one point in time, yes i Am talking About the Divine, we both cried together, in my room, because of the little things we miss, something just as small as, a heartfelt kiss... for it is the little things that bring us the greatest joy, not some diamond chain, or a, wind up toy, the biggest thing of all that should, is His Love, should bring us the Greatest joy, in the world, for thats all it is man just cars and noise, all the long going our way, Missing the sweetest noise, zes ya'll know what i mean, im talking about the One who is Never obscene, for He is Just And Right, in each and every single way, and for our sins my borhters and sisters, we have to pay, but do not fret for it is never to late, I think we all need to call upon The Divine, and we should All go on a date, do not worry for on this date there is no rape, or murder, or hate, for that is of the devil, and Your Soul it will take, there is no worries once you follow Him, we should all be hand in hand as we walk down this path, called, life Never having to worry about no pain or strife, or for a bigger picture His Wrath, but ONLY IF WE DRINK FROM HIS PITCHER. for The All Powerful and Righteous Wrath, only comes when you stray from His Path, it is there to show us our wrongs...can you feel His Soul as i sit here and Sing His song? and with Him i will NEVER fall, because with my Brother, I will always Hear His Call. i say we but it is Him, who say these words to in the hopes, that those who have an Ear to listen may never Fall, into the Pit, all you have to do is have Faith, Follow The Ten, Believe, and never EVER Quit, for in order to gain His All Perfect and Good Graces, we have to eliminate ALL the Hate and evil, in all sorts of places, i have a feeling this song was wrote long before, just in His mind and now in mine, and i sing His song in the Hopes, that you follow Him and not any of these "popes" for no hope lies in them, lol and if you truly think aboutit that actually rhymed, just know that im thinking of Him, foremost, but ya'll too as i steadily write This Rhyme, it comes from above yup, Straight From the Divine, in the Hopes that one day ya'll can SEE, exactly it was that we was missing, so we can All fly over the sea. Man this thing is long but i should Say God, because this is His Rhyme, and not from a sod, like me or you, if you real you can feel its True, as His Sword aims at the hearts of His good, flying Straight and Through, lol i mean True, but them if you can follow my friend, all we gotta do is sing Praises and Thanksgiving to Him, until the very end, and give Him all of our love, Because WITHOUT HIM, ha There WOULD BE NO LOVE, all there would be is pain and suffering, and i hope that the ones who are, suffer, i mean acating, Might actually stop and take the time to sit there and be debating, against the devil of course, cuz all it wants to do is, lead us, right, or left, but straight off our course. Lord Please Forgive me, if i am being coarse just know that i am your back, and You Are My Horse, lol ya'll might think He's heavy but He's really not, and i Love Him till Death, i mean Life, cuz i have found It, but back to the point, because i HE HAS TAUGHT, never went to church or none of that, maybe when i was younger but none of that, for our minds our are churches, ha gotit backwards but i feel as tall as the burches, talking bout them trees man im over the seas man, just know i cant, wait, My Father, until You Kick Over My Can Man x) aw man i thoughit was funny, because he's One Cool Dude, and i am His, Bunny, i mean Collie, and know that as i, i mean He, but as i bark, that i have a Strong feeling, that i am playing my Part, or His i prefer the latter but the choice is yurs, because it is His Puzzle, and i am the last part, i cant be for certain because the Knowledge is His, but im just trying to bring His Black Sheep back, you know i mean His KIDS, He thoughtit was funny, But ya'll best Believe that He NOR i the first comes first, but neither one of us is No, pause, Dummy, lol but if you choose you can beat and bite, whatever you do just know it is out of spite, and i dont capitilize because its an evil word, just know me and HIM, are trying to end this wrongful blight, and saying these words i Hope that maybe, just maybe some can be given the Sight, that HE intended us to have, right, from Go, talking bout monopoly,lol but no no more, from the start maaaan all HE ever wanted was us to give our heart, which is HIS, because He gave to us, All that is HIS, HE just Wanted someone to talk to man, thats why HE made HIS Kids, HE was all alone, and then HE built, a Beautiful place for us, and HIM, to walk and talk all the while, just laughing and talking, seeing eachother smile =) because HE is our FATHER, He's not as mean ha as ya'll would believe, just know that HE TRULY IS ONE BENEVOLENT KING. lol ha ha i think this is funny, He knows what im talking about, cuz this is all of the top of the dome with barely a second to pause, Just Know the THE LION KING, Has Opened HIS Claws, Blessed be the children who took the time to listen, to the message that a, and The King is steadily dishin, i say a because i am one too, but know that im a servant, and from a Seed i did Grew, i dont care if it makes no sense to ya'll because i have heard the Lords Call, and they, they know who they are, are always listening, and as He types, through, me i have a feeling they are about to call, Prayer is the Best Wireless Connection X) aint no service down here got that type of Connection, i just hope that i get to see some of ya'll at that intersection, i mean Crossroads, bone thugz n harmony, they said it first, man thats the song man and if you feel their soul, then maybe you should hurt, because those bois on the streets back in the day, all they was doing was searching for some Peace, but in the streets, the oppressors, following the devil, have no love for us in the slums, just know that we All have a Holster and God Is our Gun, we dont need no metal, for The Lord our issues HE will settle, all you gotta do is Have some Faith, saying this in hope that some dont see any wraiths, talking demons people come now and please listen, as the Lord spits his song and these Words HE is dishin, out yup you getting it word of mouf, lol or mouth whichever you prefer just DONT follow that lowly snake, yup the one down south, it might try and offer pleasure and happiness butits all fake, HA what do ya'll expect from a lowly snake? remeber eve as she sat under that tree? sitting there thinking and feeling the breeze? the snake spoke in her Ear temptation it did bring, and after teel me WHO did she fear? she had a split second of happiness and thats all it can give, and after that she felt the WRATH which is ONLY HIS, lol i hope that ya'll see, the way we live people, it just wasn't meant to be, i have a feeling that there all up there laughing, with, not at me as i type out His message, and i pray ALMIGHTY FATHER, THE ONES WHO HAVE AN EAR TO LISTEN PLEASE FATHER PLEASE LET THE HEAR. and the ones who dont i pray you dont hit him hard, maybe just a little tap, just like Babe Ruth, on that baseball card x) Peace be with you my sisters and brothers, just know that HIS LOVE IS LIKE NO OTHER, GOD BLESS ALL WHO FINISHED, AND I PRAY YOUR SOULS NEVER, DIMINISH. ONE HEART IS ALL, AND WITH THAT HEART WE CAN NEVER FALL, lol i said i was finished, but i dont think HE is as you can tell this words are not mine, THEY COME FROM THE UPPER BEING, yup THE DIVINE!!! i think im going to cut Him short and please Forgive me, because i know HE could go all day, BECAUSE I CAN FEEL HIM IN ME.
pllease brother it is as you say we am scared of the world we walk in and in order for me to find my brain could you please help a Crazy man find his sanity? all i ask is that you tell me light and dark through only your eyes and your opinions, so maybe i can drink from your fountain of knowledge?
