I find the whole debate ridiculous... - Page 3

Piglet · 05-31-2007, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

No, there is not repeatable evidence for creation. Evolution on the other hand is a strong scientific theory. It is the summation of much reproducible evidence into a cohesive theory that accurately predicts changes. The fossil record and the known age of the earth illustrate increasing complexity of organisms.

Creationism is a statement with no repeatable evidence. Only dogma. It has no business in a scientific class room.

Og

EXACTLY.

piglet

Piglet · 05-31-2007, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romulus

Actually its not fact there are lots of opposition to evolution other then just Christian people who believe in God. There are also scientists who have evidence for creation. Until they can prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt it should be taught alongside creation.

Romulus

Dont you mean when creationism can show ONE SPECK OF VALIDITY.
It should be taught alongside evolution theory.?

Creatioist theory is the stupidist thing humans have ever thought up.
Yes. thought up.
It rates second only to HELL
as the most idiotic distortion of human imagination on record.

The human race is trying to find it's way to maturity and the fools drag everything down with such garbage.

Yes .. Piglet is damn angry and passionate on this topic.
You want to argue.. go for it.
Creationism is crap. Will you, be just one of many who
'left the room cause they could not answer'

Piglet.

Romulus · 05-31-2007, 06:43 PM

If you havent saught out evidence for creation i suggest you do so befor you decide taht it has none.

Armel P · 05-31-2007, 07:01 PM

It has none.

Romulus · 05-31-2007, 07:31 PM

prove it lol

Armel P · 06-01-2007, 11:04 AM

lol i don' have to lol presenting evidence is the burden of proof and it has never been done lol not even to you lol

yellowsummers · 06-02-2007, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armel P

You are mixing up the concepts with vague language. You can not call religion a type of knowledge. Knowledge is something that is come to be understood by reasoning. Everything else is a hypothesis and religious beliefs are baseless hypotheses. When one makes a statement about the nature of the universe one is implying a certain knowledge is held. But if that person does not actually have knowledge obtained by reason, then presenting such ideas is a lie. Religion is not knowledge; it is an unfounded guess that satisfies the believer's ignorance of the universe. There is no reason to believe in anything religion tells you because there are an infinite number of equally possible gods and therefore an infinite number of possible gods that could not coexist with any given choice.

Yes, oops, vague reply. I meant knowledge/belief respectively- knowledge to refer to the science, belief to refer to the religion. Wikipedia has a nice little venn diagram I'm picturing in my head when I state that: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ion-of-Kno.svg

I think creationism belongs in a science classroom as much as... something that really doesn't belong in a science classroom.