Fight over teaching evolution in Texas fizzles

[racrguy]

Creationism is a wide held theory as is Evolution.

Only one of those is a theory, and Creationism isn't it. Creationism only counts as a hypothesis and has no actual evidence supporting it,

Why not just teach both? Not necessarily Jesus created the earth but that God did and only as a theory.

As soon as you can prove god created the earth, I'm sure it will be given some thought. Until such time, to even attempt to assert that god created the earth and remain honest would be impossible.

Both require some level of faith.

Only your beliefs require faith. Mine are backed with evidence, logic, and reason.

You have to either have faith in God or you have to have faith that in the very beginning something had to come from nothing aka big bang.

You are the only person that believes that something came from nothing. The big bang theory states that all the matter for everything everywhere was condensed down into a very small point, then expanded, and continues to expand.

Neither can be absolutely proved.

Wrong, the big bang theory can and has been proven, unlike your god hypothesis.

88% of the worlds population believe in some form of God so it should get equal attention as a theory.

Just because people believe something doesn't make it true. That which you describe in this sentence is a classic case of appealing to a common practice.

I'm a Christian and don't mind evolution being taught as a theory.

It is taught as a theory. So tell me, what is your problem then?

We should all be well informed of what others believe.

I will agree, with the following condition. People should know what others believe, but they should also know that what some people believe is not based in fact and evidence and it should not be taught in schools.

[stephen4785]

Creationism is a wide held theory as is Evolution. Why not just teach both? Not necessarily Jesus created the earth but that God did and only as a theory. Both require some level of faith. You have to either have faith in God or you have to have faith that in the very beginning something had to come from nothing aka big bang. Neither can be absolutely proved. 88% of the worlds population believe in some form of God so it should get equal attention as a theory. I'm a Christian and don't mind evolution being taught as a theory. We should all be well informed of what others believe.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

Stanley, unfortunately, most of your past few posts have been unsupported assertions which are no better than urban legends. Does this mean that your assertions are false? No. There is just no reason to believe you. You’ve given no sources, nor examples of the evidence that you claim exists.



While this is an unsupported assertion, I fail to see the point of these two statements even if they were true. Science has the peer review process. Nothing in science gets to be a theory without going through the peer review process. This gives everybody the chance to show how the science is wrong. So, if papers have gone through the peer review process and not been shown to be wrong, there is no reason not to believe something some scientists barely understand, as other scientists, who do understand, have failed to show the author of the paper’s science is wrong.

If science would do as you claim it should, science could never progress to anything, because there would always be people denying what they don’t understand and science would always be forced to pretend that there is an equal competing theory. It’s regardless of who is associated with it in the past. It’s just that, much like the 6 day creationist's and/or irreducible complexity arguments, they’ve been demonstrated to be untrue so many times, there is no reason to even consider it an option until any new evidence is presented.



You should be and it should be from embarrassment. As it’s already be discussed that evolution does not posit that “We came from monkeys”. Only those who are ignorant of Evolution would claim that.

We didn’t come from monkeys as they have been evolving right beside us to fit their particular niche. We also didn’t come from apes as we still are apes. I linked a paper with my last post. You can look at it from the previous post



It’s more funny to me what people will refuse to believe so that they feel they can believe in a creator.

As it’s been pointed out, more than once, evolution and believing in a creator are not mutually exclusive. Not to mention the fact that, even if you could prove that evolution is false, the 6 day creation and/or the irreducible complexity model would not be any more supported by science, and would still not be considered a valid alternative by science.

And who are you again? You say "in the past" like you've been around for more than 107 posts. You don't have to tell me how peer review works, I'm well aware of it. But its clear to me from your post that you have little real world experience with modern academia. Before you get all bent out of shape, no I'm not saying that you didn't go to college. Two totally different subjects.

As for sources... LOL. I don't know what to say. Have you NO exposure to the real world at all? I guess you haven't heard, but there is such a thing as "common knowledge". Let me give you an example. Its "common knowledge" that you should look both ways before crossing the street. Now I'm sure you'll want a source, but I'd submit that if you don't believe me, you should try it for yourself. Like crossing the street, its common knowledge that some physical evidence for ghosts and there is some evidence for UFO's. Now, whether you want to admit that is on you. Your creationists theory is lost on me though. I couldn't care less what some people will do to "want" to believe in a creator. Until I see scientific evidence either way, I'm afraid even your beloved theory of evolution is a crap shoot imo. The theory of evolution would be better called the theory of adaptation. Species can adapt, to try and ensure the survival over the long haul. Of course even to the extent of making seemingly drastic changes to their physiology. But there is zero evidence anywhere in the world to suggest that every living thing on the planet is descendent from some single celled organism or strain of amino acids and proteins that somehow magically "formed" in some kind of primordial soup. Unfortunately, its become every bit as much of a religion to some, as actual religion is to others.

[racrguy]

Why the hell does it matter? lol

Why does it matter? Apparently you haven't been keeping up. People don't know what the terminology they're using means so I have to do one of two things 1) correct their knowledge of the terminology. 2) understand what their definitions are, so that I'm not providing what they're asking for but them dismissing it because it's not what they think it is.

[mustangguy289]

Why the hell does it matter? lol

[racrguy]

Right. Those studies take a bunch of information and make a massive jump in conclusion. (Leap of faith, maybe?)

Bring on the transitional fossil evidence because that is one thing I have specifically looked for.

In your words... show it.

Is that the only thing hanging you up on evolution? The lack of transitional fossils?

Before I provide you with the transitional fossils you're looking for that are readily available. What do you think a transitional fossil is?

[Denny]

You aren't educated enough to have a valid opinion on the topic.

Maddhattter linked to you a study in which one species was observed turning into another one.

There is such a thing as proving a fossil is a transitional fossil, via 2 methods. Genetic, and morphological.

If we didn't come from a single cell, then where did we come from? Remember, if you can't show it, you don't know it.

Right. Those studies take a bunch of information and make a massive jump in conclusion. (Leap of faith, maybe?)

Bring on the transitional fossil evidence because that is one thing I have specifically looked for.

In your words... show it.

[exlude]

Creationism ignores all the evidence and says to anything that goes against it, "was placed there by God to mystify us." Creationism has been around for a long time, well before all the evidence we have today, so the conclusion has been there. The counter evidence is now thrown away by the creationist community. I find it funny how creationists argue and argue and argue against the worldwide fossil record but will take one example at Fossil Rim as gospel.

Intelligent Design doesn't do ANYTHING with the evidence that is there. It skims over the wealth of information out there and throws its collective hands in the air saying, "I don't get it, it's too complex, God must have done it"

Neither community holds themselves to any kind of scientific discipline.

[Forever_frost]

You're starting to see why it's called a theory. There are missing portions of the explanation. We don't know 100% of the story. But we can test it, and continue to do so, and the evidence continues to support it. Like I said earlier, there is no better scientific explanation.

Honestly, and I'm not trying to insult you, I'm not expecting you to understand evolution. Most people in this thread don't understand because they don't know a lick about molecular biology, molecular evolution, genetics, biochem, and human evolution. At best, most have a rudimentary understanding of anthropology that they grabbed from a website and they were taught the basics of mutations in HS Biology.

I studied anthropology, though it was basic and offered as part of my criminal justice degree. I tend to be more criminal law and psychology, which are my fields of study. Creationism does not start with a conclusion, it evaluates the evidence that is there. Based on complexity of DNA, the environment and what is known about biology and chemistry, it is a theory that there was intelligence behind our creation and design.

[racrguy]

It was a sympathy D because you wore a low-cut shirt on the front row.

Bottom line; no species has ever been observed changing into another one. No one can claim anything came from a single cell. There is no such thing as proving any fossil is a transitional fossil.

Where is this proof, scholar (and that racer guy whatever)?

You aren't educated enough to have a valid opinion on the topic.

Maddhattter linked to you a study in which one species was observed turning into another one.

There is such a thing as proving a fossil is a transitional fossil, via 2 methods. Genetic, and morphological.

If we didn't come from a single cell, then where did we come from? Remember, if you can't show it, you don't know it.

[exlude]

And you're expecting me to have faith in a theory that has holes in it through 'missing links' of evolution

You're starting to see why it's called a theory. There are missing portions of the explanation. We don't know 100% of the story. But we can test it, and continue to do so, and the evidence continues to support it. Like I said earlier, there is no better scientific explanation.

Honestly, and I'm not trying to insult you, I'm not expecting you to understand evolution. Most people in this thread don't understand because they don't know a lick about molecular biology, molecular evolution, genetics, biochem, and human evolution. At best, most have a rudimentary understanding of anthropology that they grabbed from a website and they were taught the basics of mutations in HS Biology.

[exlude]

It was a sympathy D because you wore a low-cut shirt on the front row.

Bottom line; no species has ever been observed changing into another one. No one can claim anything came from a single cell. There is no such thing as proving any fossil is a transitional fossil.

Where is this proof, scholar (and that racer guy whatever)?

False.

We have observed speciation.

The foundation of all life does (the single cell), indeed, affect complex lifeforms. What's true for one cell (namely a germ line cell) is true for the organism in numerous situations.

I'll agree on the fossil, however, it's funny how it all works together so well.

[Hobie]

You silly fellows... nothing has been proven either way. At least I have the intellect to claim faith. You have it in evolution, but deny it with "peer reviewed" crap. Whatever makes you sleep better at night, I guess.

It boils down to this I suppose.

If you take the approach of science you observe everything and follow that to a conclusion. What leads to that conclusion can be strengthened or weakened by new technologies and discoveries which may change that conclusion altogether.

If you are a creationist you begin with a conclusion and accept what agrees with it and ignore everything else that disagrees with it never wavering in your beliefs and altering them or the conclusion you began with.

[Forever_frost]

Which takes more faith? Creation, because there's no evidence for it what so ever, and never will be.

It's not as simple as "humans came from nothing". You are skipping millions of years of evolution and speciation. Remember, the human species is only about 200,000 years old. Life is 3 to 4 billion years old. That's a lot of evolution.

And you're expecting me to have faith in a theory that has holes in it through 'missing links' of evolution

[Denny]

Lol, such hostility. But if I'm just passing, you got dropped from the class...lol

It was a sympathy D because you wore a low-cut shirt on the front row.

Bottom line; no species has ever been observed changing into another one. No one can claim anything came from a single cell. There is no such thing as proving any fossil is a transitional fossil.

Where is this proof, scholar (and that racer guy whatever)?