• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which should be taught in school science classes?

Which should be taught in school science classes?

  • Total voters
    84
marduc said:
sure, but not as part of evolution since they are completely unrelated.

My turn, do you think, these subjects are part of evolution?
Click to expand...

Sure, unless you are arguing that the first life form was created, it had to evolve from something. Somehow matter had to combine in such a way as to evolve the first simple life form. Or are you suddenly a creationist?
 
friday said:
Sure, unless you are arguing that the first life form was created, it had to evolve from something. Somehow matter had to combine in such a way as to evolve the first simple life form. Or are you suddenly a creationist?
Click to expand...

This shows how woefully misled and poorly informed you are on the subject.
 
Your Star said:
When did he say that?
Click to expand...

Isn't that what we are arguing? Creation versus Evolution? If evolution has nothing to do with what the first life form evolved from, then it also has nothing to do with whether creationism should be taught in science classes instead of or alongside evolution. From your point of view creation and evolution deal with two completely different topics.
 
It's a silly thought, really.

Do they give the frogs and worms a last-right before they slay and dissect?

:(
 
friday said:
Isn't that what we are arguing? Creation versus Evolution? If evolution has nothing to do with what the first life form evolved from, then it also has nothing to do with whether creationism should be taught in science classes instead of or alongside evolution. From your point of view creation and evolution deal with two completely different topics.
Click to expand...

Just because evolution doesn't deal with how life was created doesn't mean you get to teach religion in science class.

This is Darwin's evolution, some evolutionary scientist do have hypothesis on how life was created on Earth, but no one knows for sure.
 
Last edited:
friday said:
Isn't that what we are arguing? Creation versus Evolution? If evolution has nothing to do with what the first life form evolved from, then it also has nothing to do with whether creationism should be taught in science classes instead of or alongside evolution. From your point of view creation and evolution deal with two completely different topics.
Click to expand...

Well, you got one thing right, evolution does not have anything to do with whether or not creationism should be taught in science class.

edit.. make that 2 things right, they are completely different topics
 
Last edited:
friday said:
The moon, when it is at it's closest orbit, is 360,000 km from the earth, or 36,000,000,000 cm. The moon moves away from the earth at a rate of 3.8 cm a year. 65 million years ago, when dinosaurs walked the earth, the moon would have been about 2,470 km from the earth, or about the distance from New York to LA.
Click to expand...
Assuming (incorrectly) the recession rate is constant,
the distance from the earth to the moon 65 million years ago equals
the distance today minus the product of the annual recession rate and 65 million.
36,000,000,000 cm - (65,000,000 cm * 3.8) =
36,000,000,000 cm - 247,000,000 cm =
35,753,000,000 cm =
357,530 kilometers.

2470 km is the distance the moon has moved in 65 million years.
The rate of recession has actually decreased over time because as the moon gets farther away the tidal effects that cause the recession get weaker.
 
Your Star said:
Just because evolution doesn't deal with how life was created doesn't mean you get to teach religion in science class.

This is Darwin's evolution, some evolutionary scientist do have hypothesis on how life was created on Earth, but no one knows for sure.
Click to expand...

Darwin defeated evolution in his Origin of Species. I've been through that already here. Can you give me one example in the fossil record of a complete chain of links between one species and another?
 
marduc said:
Well, you got one thing right, evolution does not have anything to do with whether or not creationism should be taught in science class.

edit.. make that 2 things right, they are completely different topics
Click to expand...

Then why are we debating creation versus evolution? Instead we should be debating macro speciation versus non-macro speciation. Since we have absolutely no evidence for macro speciation, I would argue that evolution can be dropped entirely and we can start over with "We really just don't know."
 
friday said:
Try, some sunday schools do. They teach the possibility that Genesis 1 is figurative language. They don't get into specifics, but they bring up the possibility that evolution is true.
Click to expand...

You're sure about that?

Does your church do that?
 
friday said:
Then why are we debating creation versus evolution? Instead we should be debating macro speciation versus non-macro speciation. Since we have absolutely no evidence for macro speciation, I would argue that evolution can be dropped entirely and we can start over with "We really just don't know."
Click to expand...

We are not debating creation versus evolution, we are debating whether creation belongs in a science class.

The only ones who want to debate creation versus evolution are the ones who think that somehow evolution challenges creation since it does not jive with some biblical math (it say nothing on the subject, nor does it have anything to do with it)
 
friday said:
... Darwin himself defeated the idea of evolution in his Origin of Species by saying that if his theory is correct, then the fossil record must contain thousands of completed chains of fully developed links between one species and the next. Not just one missing link or a handful of fossils that bear semblance to two species, Darwin said thousands of completed chains would be found in the fossil record. If Darwin doesn't convince you, I have an even better argument.
Click to expand...
Give a quote please.
 
Last edited:
friday said:
Darwin defeated evolution in his Origin of Species. I've been through that already here. Can you give me one example in the fossil record of a complete chain of links between one species and another?
Click to expand...

Just because there's no immediate evidence in your hand and discovered doesn't mean it *doesn't* exist - that merely means it's *hasn't* been found.

The conditions needed to legitimately preserve such evidence isn't a constant - there's no real telling of how much "evidence" of this nature has been lost due *to* nature - and time.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Just because there's no immediate evidence in your hand and discovered doesn't mean it *doesn't* exist - that merely means it's *hasn't* been found.

The conditions needed to legitimately preserve such evidence isn't a constant - there's no real telling of how much "evidence" of this nature has been lost due *to* nature - and time.
Click to expand...

for every transitional fossil found bridging a gap in the "chain" there are two new missing ones that suddenly appear :roll:
 
Last edited:
friday, after addressing my other posts could you tell how old you think the Earth is?
 
Anarcho-fascist said:
Give a quote please.
Click to expand...

“The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed must have been enormous. Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated chain; and this, perhaps is the most serious objection which can be urged against my theory”.
Charles Darwin.
The Origin of Species - 1859.
 
Anarcho-fascist said:
friday, after addressing my other posts could you tell how old you think the Earth is?
Click to expand...

I have no idea how old the earth is. I suppose the substance that makes up the earth could be an infinite number of years old.
 
friday said:
“The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed must have been enormous. Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated chain; and this, perhaps is the most serious objection which can be urged against my theory”.
Charles Darwin.
The Origin of Species - 1859.
Click to expand...

The rest of this quoted paragraph:

The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
The rest of this quote:
Click to expand...

Does that work for you? With all the fossils we have found, you are satisfied with not finding one single chain of links between one species and another?
 
friday said:
Does that work for you? With all the fossils we have found, you are satisfied with not finding one single chain of links between one species and another?
Click to expand...

there are numerous chains and numerous links.
 
marduc said:
there are numerous chains and numerous links.
Click to expand...

Marduc, give me one example of two different species where we have a completed chain of fossils demonstrating the evolutionary process between the two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom