Debunk Evolution Thread

[KyFans11]

Teaching it in public schools would be forcing students to listen to it.

Since I am not a teacher in public school, I won't be having that problem.

[KyFans11]

I don't and haven't tried to push religion on anyone.

 

I am ashamed for even clicking on this thread......

 

I started this thread in response to LBBC who stated in a previous thread that he would debunk evolution in another thread. This was just to provide him would that forum. He responded with a two line "debunking" in post #2 and later followed up with a statement that he is bored by science and quoted from Ben Stein's movie. I did not start the thread for another exciting jaunt down Creationism vs. Evolution Lane.I've gone there many times and for many years. I just wanted to hear LBBC lay evolution to rest once and for all. I waited with bated breath for nothing, I guess.

PM him is all I know to tell you.

[HHSDad]

Let's not make this personal in your posts please.

[KyFans11]

Let's not make this personal in your posts please.

That is a tough rule to follow when you are posting opinions and trying to convince one or the other.

[halfback20]

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms

 

 

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2 (May 1981): 34-37.

[spindoc]

If you teach it in public schools you are forcing children to hear it. How is that not clear?

Clear??? Are you kidding? You think that religion is being forced on kids in public schools? Or did I read what you posted incorrectly?

[HHSDad]

That is a tough rule to follow when you are posting opinions and trying to convince one or the other.

Not if you argue the issue and post, not the person who posted it. Attacking the argument may change the opinion. Attacking the person never does.

[halfback20]

Clear??? Are you kidding? You think that religion is being forced on kids in public schools? Or did I read what you posted incorrectly?

 

I'm not sure how you keep misunderstanding my posts.

 

I do not believe Creationism should be taught (as a science) in schools BECAUSE:

 

There is no evidence (scientifically) to support it. It is based completely on faith.

 

If you want to offer it as an elective in high schools, so be it. But you can not force people to sit in and listen in a religious based class.

 

I'm not saying religion is being forced on anyone at this point in time. I'm saying if you teach Creationism as a science, in a science class, you will be forcing religion on students.

[KyFans11]

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms

 

 

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2 (May 1981): 34-37.

Competent scientists recognize that theories are not laws but serve the function of testing ideas and pursuing new relationships. “Facts never change, but the inferences from them are changeable. … The careful man does not become so enamored of an hypothesis or a theory that he cannot distinguish it from a fact. … Theories of science can no more overthrow the facts of religion than the facts of science. … One cannot build a faith upon the theory of evolution, for this theory is of no higher order than any other inference, and is therefore in a state of constant change.”

[the mathemagician]

That is a tough rule to follow when you are posting opinions and trying to convince one or the other.

 

 

 

I never take anything personal and never want anyone to do the same. Its just about passionate people being passionate about things that matter to them. Nothing more or less.

[oldrambler]

O.K., to make it short and sweet.................We did not come from no ape or monkey . As far as scientist digging up remains of pre historic type animals/creatures............imo what they found are the remains of a dead ape, period and it did not "evolve" into anything and their findings were nothing other than a dead ape or monkey :lol:. End of story and they cannot prove that was human in any way.

 

Many try to claim and prove evolution. My answer to them is to "Prove God doesn't exist", the more they try to prove that God's word is not true the more they cannot and prove that it is.

To sum it all up God said that we were created.....God said it, I believe it and that's it. :thumb:

[spindoc]

I'm not sure how you keep misunderstanding my posts.

 

I do not believe Creationism should be taught (as a science) in schools BECAUSE:

 

There is no evidence (scientifically) to support it. It is based completely on faith.

 

If you want to offer it as an elective in high schools, so be it. But you can not force people to sit in and listen in a religious based class.

 

I'm not saying religion is being forced on anyone at this point in time. I'm saying if you teach Creationism as a science, in a science class, you will be forcing religion on students.

Well, I don't think I'm the only one "misunderstanding" your posts. I'll rebut with this. You've chosen to quote an exerpt from someone who writes with the slant of one who subscribes to the evolution theorum (not remotely fact). I could offer the same rebuttal from the creation slant and we could go on ad nauseum. Because evolution cannot be proven, I disagree with it being taught as fact. I do agree that if you want to separate church and state then don't offer my children in public school something in lieu of creationism by feeding them the horse radish called evolution when it is wildly inaccurate. If you want to make both electives later in their education, sobeit.

[KyFans11]

Well, I don't think I'm the only one "misunderstanding" your posts. I'll rebut with this. You've chosen to quote an exerpt from someone who writes with the slant of one who subscribes to the evolution theorum (not remotely fact). I could offer the same rebuttal from the creation slant and we could go on ad nauseum. Because evolution cannot be proven, I disagree with it being taught as fact. I do agree that if you want to separate church and state then don't offer my children in public school something in lieu of creationism by feeding them the horse radish called evolution when it is wildly inaccurate. If you want to make both electives later in their education, sobeit.

:thumb:

[Hearsay]

How many times do we have to tell you that is because there is EVIDENCE to back up the theory of evolution. While creationism is based on NO evidence, and just FAITH.

 

How many times do we have to tell you that faith is evidence to us, and further that we do not believe that the evidence for evolution is even close to compelling. You are forcing the teaching of a theory for which the so-called "evidence" only gets you about 10% of the picture. That's not compelling, HB20. You keep coming back to "evidence" "evidence" "evidence," but we just don't agree with you. How is that so hard to grasp?

[halfback20]

Well, I don't think I'm the only one "misunderstanding" your posts. I'll rebut with this. You've chosen to quote an exerpt from someone who writes with the slant of one who subscribes to the evolution theorum (not remotely fact). I could offer the same rebuttal from the creation slant and we could go on ad nauseum. Because evolution cannot be proven, I disagree with it being taught as fact. I do agree that if you want to separate church and state then don't offer my children in public school something in lieu of creationism by feeding them the horse radish called evolution when it is wildly inaccurate. If you want to make both electives later in their education, sobeit.

 

Show me evidence of evolution being inaccurate.

 

Evolution has evidence supporting it, Creationism does not. End of story. There's nothing left to argue.

 

And I believe in God, and that our earth was created. However, that is based on my faith, not on hard evidence.