|
|
Post by The Hush is BACK on Mar 9, 2007 2:09:16 GMT -5
What's that again? God making adam and stuff? No thanks. I think you can learn about it in your own time, or if your family is religious, learn about it at home, but I think it'sneglect to pretend the theory of evolution doesn't exist. The main problem I have with evolution is that it is still only a theory, but they push it in schools as if it were fact..... I think kids need various options to decide what they believe is right, not one guy saying one thing. I agree that there are pleny of religious nutjobs, but no one seems to say anything about the evolution fanatics who push their point as hard as the religious guys. All of I'm saying is that neither can be 100% proved, so I think we should view them that way..... as equally unproven. |
|
|
|
Post by JKL on Mar 9, 2007 14:37:43 GMT -5
If you want an example of evolution that can be duplicated in a lab, just go to your nearest microbiology lab. Those viruses mutating and adapting to drugs? That's evolution in a nutshell.
From my perspective, the big question isn't whether or not evolution occurs; if it didn't, the medicines that worked on diseases hundreds of years ago would work today. It's whether evolution is what resulted in the creation of humanity. Are we really just monkeys?
|
|
|
|
Post by Charaxes on Mar 9, 2007 15:15:38 GMT -5
The main problem I have with evolution is that it is still only a theory, but they push it in schools as if it were fact..... I think kids need various options to decide what they believe is right, not one guy saying one thing. I agree that there are pleny of religious nutjobs, but no one seems to say anything about the evolution fanatics who push their point as hard as the religious guys. All of I'm saying is that neither can be 100% proved, so I think we should view them that way..... as equally unproven. The majority of science and math are filled predominately with theory. Look at geometry and calculus. Both mathematical fields are based entirely on theory. Gravity is a theory. The particles that can be found in an atom (protons, electrons, and neutrons) is a theory. So is that the Earth revolves on an axis, and the planets revolve around the sun. That is a theory. The idea that supernatural forces exist is faith. It is clearly stated in the U.S. Constitution that religion cannot be forced onto anyone. Since everyone in the country is forced to support the schools finically, then you cannot teach religion in any way in school because you would be forcing people to support religion with their tax dollars. It’s not an issue of fact; it’s an issue of freedom. What people should be debating is whether it is unconstitutional or not. Not that if the theory is 100% true or not. |
|
|
|
Post by JKL on Mar 9, 2007 19:58:55 GMT -5
Actually, it is clearly stated in the Constitution that Congress shall pass no law promoting a religion, if you want to be particularly anal about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paj Meen Ah on Mar 10, 2007 8:24:09 GMT -5
One seems to have all the "facts" in it's court, while the other just has like nothing.
Except faith, which is fine and dandy.
Evolution may be a theory, but there are occurences , like people have said, of it happening (on a smaller scale) nowadays.
There have never been documented occurences of Intelligent design. Unless you include the original one, which was a story, becuase no one was actually there to witness it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Conchizzie on Mar 10, 2007 20:41:12 GMT -5
One seems to have all the "facts" in it's court, while the other just has like nothing. Except faith, which is fine and dandy. Evolution may be a theory, but there are occurences , like people have said, of it happening (on a smaller scale) nowadays. There have never been documented occurences of Intelligent design. Unless you include the original one, which was a story, becuase no one was actually there to witness it. But that smaller scale is simply Adaptaion, not evolution. Things will adapt slightly to their situation, but not completely change their form. There's no evidence of it yet at least. I do agree that, as one said, they are "equally unproven." That seems an appropriate analysis. |
|
|
|
Post by Paj Meen Ah on Mar 11, 2007 18:17:54 GMT -5
People tend to go with what's more likely.
If a mother walked into her garden to see mud all over the patio, and her little boy covered in mud, and he told her it was his sister (who was reading in her bedroom), the likelihood is that the mother is going to not believe him.
Becuase of all the research and work that has gone into trying to prove the theory of evoultion ,and the fact that it is widely "advertised" as the "true" story (I'm not saying it is), people beleive it is more likely true.
Which it is. The theory of evolutuion is MORE LIKELY TRUE. No one knows the truth at the moment. But how does one explain where himans came from? Or where any animals came from that werent around milions f years ago? I can't imagine God inteliignetly re-designing multiple times.
|
|
|
|
Post by JKL on Mar 19, 2007 7:07:50 GMT -5
One seems to have all the "facts" in it's court, while the other just has like nothing. Except faith, which is fine and dandy. Evolution may be a theory, but there are occurences , like people have said, of it happening (on a smaller scale) nowadays. There have never been documented occurences of Intelligent design. Unless you include the original one, which was a story, becuase no one was actually there to witness it. But that smaller scale is simply Adaptaion, not evolution. Things will adapt slightly to their situation, but not completely change their form. There's no evidence of it yet at least. I do agree that, as one said, they are "equally unproven." That seems an appropriate analysis. Adaptation and mutation are the two driving forces behind evolution. And you do see viruses and bacteria completely change forms from time to time. But there's no way to prove that animals evolved from little crawlies or anything like that unless you did a REALLY creative, billions of years long experiment. |
|
|
|
Post by Paj Meen Ah on Mar 19, 2007 12:51:33 GMT -5
Basically, Intelligent design/creationism should be taught in RME/ Religious studies.
It's not a science, and shouldn't be taught as so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charaxes on Mar 23, 2007 12:19:49 GMT -5
Basically, Intelligent design/creationism should be taught in RME/ Religious studies. It's not a science, and shouldn't be taught as so. That is quite possibly the smartest thing you have ever said. |
|
|
|
Post by Paj Meen Ah on Mar 23, 2007 13:55:08 GMT -5
Yeah.
I was voted most religiously famous person ever in 2002.
/ I read an article on the arguement of Intelligent Design in Schools last week.
|
|
