• 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
You are the one who brought up the common fallacy that enough microevolution will result in a bacteria turning into a human.

Ok, what's the difference between an ape and a human that couldn't possible have come about through alot of tiny changes that occurred through environmental circumstance and microevolution? What makes us so different that we couldn't possibly have shared a common ancestor? Is it because they have too much hair? Not enough folds in the brain? Shorter than us? Don't have as much balance on two feet as us?
 
Ok, what's the difference between an ape and a human that couldn't possible have come about through alot of tiny changes that occurred through environmental circumstance and microevolution? What makes us so different that we couldn't possibly have shared a common ancestor? Is it because they have too much hair? Not enough folds in the brain? Shorter than us? Don't have as much balance on two feet as us?

Roughdraft, you probably have a good point. Humans and monkeys are very similar. We both have hands, feet, eyes, noses, mouths, etc and some of us are almost as hairy as your average monkey. I have a good way you can prove your theory: go have sex with a monkey, any monkey, maybe several to see which is most similar to a human, and see if you can produce offspring. Then explain to me how sex organs microevolved at precisely the same time for men and women so that humans can have babies, but not with their ancestors who are so darn similar.
 
Roughdraft, you probably have a good point. Humans and monkeys are very similar. We both have hands, feet, eyes, noses, mouths, etc and some of us are almost as hairy as your average monkey. I have a good way you can prove your theory: go have sex with a monkey, any monkey, maybe several to see which is most similar to a human, and see if you can produce offspring. Then explain to me how sex organs microevolved at precisely the same time for men and women so that humans can have babies, but not with their ancestors who are so darn similar.

So in other words you can't think of a single thing.

You're thinking in terms of individuals when you must think of groups with evolution. Lets say there's two groups of identical monkeys. They end up in different areas. One area is hotter and one is colder. The hotter area might mean that monkeys with sacks that droop down more away from there body are much more fertile. These monkeys have more babies and those traits are passed on. If enough of these traits are accumulated, along with many other traits over millions of years, these two groups of monkeys will look amazingly different and after a long enough period you will have two separate species.

I ask my question again, and request that you don't ask me to go and **** monkeys, what's the difference between monkeys and humans that means we couldn't share a common ancestor. What can't evolution explain?
 
A theory is has to be supported by evidence or it is not a theory. This is how I would support using creationism/ID in science classes, to illustrate that point. Evolution is a theory, creationism and ID are not. Knowing the difference is important for some one studying science.
Not all agree with you.
Those people, right or wrong, must be respected.
I, for one, am NOT sold on anything 100%.
Man probably knows 0.1% of what there is to know.
So, a little time, an hour should suffice, to present the possibility of "creation".
 
Roughdraft, you probably have a good point. Humans and monkeys are very similar. We both have hands, feet, eyes, noses, mouths, etc and some of us are almost as hairy as your average monkey. I have a good way you can prove your theory: go have sex with a monkey, any monkey, maybe several to see which is most similar to a human, and see if you can produce offspring. Then explain to me how sex organs microevolved at precisely the same time for men and women so that humans can have babies, but not with their ancestors who are so darn similar.

Different species can't produce offspring.
 
In science class, teach science. In religion class, teach religion. It shouldn't be that hard.

BTW, intelligent design is creationism. Just saying . . . . ;)
 
Roughdraft, you probably have a good point. Humans and monkeys are very similar. We both have hands, feet, eyes, noses, mouths, etc and some of us are almost as hairy as your average monkey. I have a good way you can prove your theory: go have sex with a monkey, any monkey, maybe several to see which is most similar to a human, and see if you can produce offspring. Then explain to me how sex organs microevolved at precisely the same time for men and women so that humans can have babies, but not with their ancestors who are so darn similar.

first off our sex organs are still compatible enough that we can **** a monkey if so desired (lots of other more distantly related animals too for that matter).

If the sex organs did not evolve at the same time and the offspring were not viable then they would die out and be a dead end. Plus the guy with the deformed **** is less likely to pass on his genes :roll:

As far as the evolution of sex organs of other animals (mammalia especially), they are VERY similar to ours, but regardless of even this, the survival of another species (or divergent lineage on any level) does not depend on their sex organs being compatible with another lineage -they need to be compatible with themselves, and only themselves.

You are pointing out definitive examples of what evolution is, and the mechanisms that drive it as some kind of conundrum that speaks against evolution.. kinda silly.
 
Last edited:
I never understood intelligent design, clearly we are not intelligently designed:)

It seems we just barely get by with what we got.
 
Roughdraft, you probably have a good point. Humans and monkeys are very similar. We both have hands, feet, eyes, noses, mouths, etc and some of us are almost as hairy as your average monkey. I have a good way you can prove your theory: go have sex with a monkey, any monkey, maybe several to see which is most similar to a human, and see if you can produce offspring. Then explain to me how sex organs microevolved at precisely the same time for men and women so that humans can have babies, but not with their ancestors who are so darn similar.
Originally our ancestors were hermaphrodites, then our ancestors separated into two sexes, then once there were separate sexes the external appearance of each sex could co-evove with the other. Also, admit that Darwin said the fossil record should be very incomplete.
 
They don't use carbon dating for 65 million year old fossils and there's no reason we can't calculate things just because they aren't linear.

All based on powerful telescopes, the red shift, and scientific theory... amazing...

ricksfolly
 
Moderator's Warning:
friday has been thread banned.
 
The same thing can easily be said about evolutionists and the fact that we have proof that the world is far, far younger than billions of years.

but you don't. and no, scientists who believe evolution have no agenda other than science. i've not seen any proof that that the earth is 6000 years old. do you believe that all the science is wrong when dating cave-man type fossils? in fact, how do you EXPLAIN "cavemen"? how do you explain carbon dating?
 
Creationism and intelligent design cannot possible be science because they are based on the Bible, which pre-dates the western sciences as we know them. Even Vatican scholars acknowledge this.

Science investigates and alters its laws according to new data. Creationism and intelligent design are not hypotheses, they are set beliefs which creationists then go out to find proof for. Their methodology alone makes them unscientific. A conclusion should never be pre-determined before an experiment is even set to begin.
 
Creationism and intelligent design cannot possible be science because they are based on the Bible, which pre-dates the western sciences as we know them. Even Vatican scholars acknowledge this.

Science investigates and alters its laws according to new data. Creationism and intelligent design are not hypotheses, they are set beliefs which creationists then go out to find proof for. Their methodology alone makes them unscientific. A conclusion should never be pre-determined before an experiment is even set to begin.

That's not necessarily true about intelligent design. It's possible to make that into a falsifiable hypothesis. Of course, that means it would be subject to scientific scrutiny and probably wouldn't pan out, but hey, that's still science. No shame a hypothesis not working out as long as you applied the scientific method properly. And really, there is no evidence either way on ID until that falsifiable version is formulated. I compare it to steady-state theory in cosmology. Almost everybody believe in the big bang, but that doesn't mean steady-state proponents are kooks, they just have a different take on the evidence. And if there is ever conclusive evidence they'll be proven wrong and accept it.

I agree with you, though, that most people to support ID not because they think it's a legitimate scientific theory, but as a cover for creationism.
 
That's not necessarily true about intelligent design. It's possible to make that into a falsifiable hypothesis. Of course, that means it would be subject to scientific scrutiny and probably wouldn't pan out, but hey, that's still science. No shame a hypothesis not working out as long as you applied the scientific method properly. And really, there is no evidence either way on ID until that falsifiable version is formulated. I compare it to steady-state theory in cosmology. Almost everybody believe in the big bang, but that doesn't mean steady-state proponents are kooks, they just have a different take on the evidence. And if there is ever conclusive evidence they'll be proven wrong and accept it.

I agree with you, though, that most people to support ID not because they think it's a legitimate scientific theory, but as a cover for creationism.

In order for such a hypothesis to work, creationists would have to look at all of the pre-established scientific data on evolution, examinations of geology which prove the earth is more than 6,000 years old, etc. You cannot form a hypothesis without looking at the pre-established chain of recorded discoveries (which you are in turn making a contribution to). You cannot pretend that you are a scientist while ignoring the entire scientific field. Instead, they write the entire establishment off as being agenda-based.

Creationism is not science and it never will be. They have no real discourse with long-established scientific communities, they don't use scientific methodology, the experiments have pre-determined conclusions, and they only care about what the Bible says.
 
but you don't. and no, scientists who believe evolution have no agenda other than science. i've not seen any proof that that the earth is 6000 years old. do you believe that all the science is wrong when dating cave-man type fossils? in fact, how do you EXPLAIN "cavemen"? how do you explain carbon dating?

A famous scientists makes up a theory and it becomes fact to the other lesser scientists. That's how the global warning threat started and flourished. Who knows how many other unprovable educated guesses are still out there?

ricksfolly
 
A famous scientists makes up a theory and it becomes fact to the other lesser scientists. That's how the global warning threat started and flourished. Who knows how many other unprovable educated guesses are still out there?

ricksfolly

none of which answers any of my questions.
 
In order for such a hypothesis to work, creationists would have to look at all of the pre-established scientific data on evolution, examinations of geology which prove the earth is more than 6,000 years old, etc. You cannot form a hypothesis without looking at the pre-established chain of recorded discoveries (which you are in turn making a contribution to). You cannot pretend that you are a scientist while ignoring the entire scientific field. Instead, they write the entire establishment off as being agenda-based.

Creationism is not science and it never will be. They have no real discourse with long-established scientific communities, they don't use scientific methodology, the experiments have pre-determined conclusions, and they only care about what the Bible says.

Sure, but you're mistake is conflating creationism with intelligent design theory. They are different things, at least purportedly. To any fair minded scientist, a falsifiable theory at least deserve to be tested a borne out.

Nothing in ID, so far as I understand it, suggests the earth is six thousand years old. That's creationism. ID (again as I understand it) says that the scientific account of evolution is accurate, but that evolution itself is not the product of chance, rather it had to be intelligently guided by some higher power (god, Gaia, perhaps an alien, something other than chance). That, to me, sounds like a falsifiable theory.

So really, Orion, you're not being fair to ID proponents (I am not one, just a devil's advocate).
 
Sure, but you're mistake is conflating creationism with intelligent design theory. They are different things, at least purportedly. To any fair minded scientist, a falsifiable theory at least deserve to be tested a borne out.

Nothing in ID, so far as I understand it, suggests the earth is six thousand years old. That's creationism. ID (again as I understand it) says that the scientific account of evolution is accurate, but that evolution itself is not the product of chance, rather it had to be intelligently guided by some higher power (god, Gaia, perhaps an alien, something other than chance). That, to me, sounds like a falsifiable theory.

So really, Orion, you're not being fair to ID proponents (I am not one, just a devil's advocate).

i kind of am an id proponent, but still don't think it should ever be taught in schools.
 
ID (again as I understand it) says that the scientific account of evolution is accurate, but that evolution itself is not the product of chance, rather it had to be intelligently guided by some higher power (god, Gaia, perhaps an alien, something other than chance). That, to me, sounds like a falsifiable theory.

How would you test it? How is it falsifiable? What observations is it based on? How is it "correctable and dynamic"? Those questions have to be answered in order to accept it as a scientific theory.
 
How would you test it? How is it falsifiable? What observations is it based on? How is it "correctable and dynamic"? Those questions have to be answered in order to accept it as a scientific theory.

If it's shown that evolution can be a product of chance, then ID is false.

As for the rest, that's for an ID proponent to work out isn't it?
 
Last edited:
A famous scientists makes up a theory and it becomes fact to the other lesser scientists.

That's not how it works, but if it makes you feel better to pretend that it does; well then more power to ya.
 
Back
Top Bottom