• 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
my apologies. i meant that as a teacher, you should know better than to teach religion in school. and i didn't miss anything, the point here is that some creationsists, you? believe the earth is only 6000 years old. human years. dig believes that, and yet we do have proof that it is far, far, older. science, you have to teach actual science in school, not bible created suppositions. you also have to realize that creationsists who are "scientists" have an agenda.

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.
 
Well what does creationism have going for it?

Nothing in this discussion that I have said. Would you PLEASE go back and read my thoughts on the subject. Stop assuming.
 
Yet the Big Bang theory is the only theory that I learned in high school about the creation of the universe. Why not share other theories with kids and let them think for themselves?

The Big Bang theory is the one with the most evidence. Yet there are others, most have been debunked by this point. However, these were introduced in science courses in High School. Maybe my high school was different, or it was the fact that I had taken 2 years of each science (Chemistry, Biology, and Physics) in high school. Furthermore, there are plenty of opprotunities to learn on your own (do a little research) and in University if you take science courses you are more apt to find the various explainations for the beginning of the Universe. But as I stated, the Big Bang Theory is the one thus far with the most amount of evidence for it.
 
Again, not true. Observing and drawing conclusions based on those observations, then testing those conclusions is not "guessing". Yes, as new evidence comes out, we adjust and reject theories and create new ones, but they are much more than guesses.

All we have in tracing the majority of species on this planet is fossils. Most fossils have no DNA and most modern animal types to the tune of 90% are missing huge swaths of even a single bone. In some cases an entire species is a few pieces of bone. So we have nothing to discuss here, you are indeed wrong in this instance.
 
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.

You keep claiming to have proof of creationism and how old the earth is, but you haven't provided anything more than links to sites that are indeed bias. In fact, you didn't even provide a direct link to where the proof (in form of research, studies, evidence) is exactly within those links. You haven't even given what that proof is.

Evolution has plenty of proof that can be pointed directly to and scientific research to back it up. The exact method of how evolution works certainly has flaws in the current theories, however, they still have a lot of supporting evidence.

So again, where is your scientific proof of a young earth or of creationism rather than evolution? What exactly does it entail?
 
You keep claiming to have proof of creationism and how old the earth is, but you haven't provided anything more than links to sites that are indeed bias. In fact, you didn't even provide a direct link to where the proof (in form of research, studies, evidence) is exactly within those links. You haven't even given what that proof is.

Evolution has plenty of proof that can be pointed directly to and scientific research to back it up. The exact method of how evolution works certainly has flaws in the current theories, however, they still have a lot of supporting evidence.

So again, where is your scientific proof of a young earth or of creationism rather than evolution? What exactly does it entail?

Did you read any of the links? Evolution has plausibility but no proof. There is no proof that any organism arose from any ancestor. There is no genome with a specific mutation(s) that gave rise to a new trait. You can claim my evidence is biased, but did you read any of their points? Here is a list of young age evidence ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A
 
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.

And for some reason the only scientists out there that find and understand these "proofs" just happen to be uber Christians and hell bound on proving their Religious views.

Isn't it amazing that science and scientists are amazing and awe inspiring to most people, and that scientific discoveries tend to be lauded as absolute monumental occasions attributed to the greatness of mankind... unless that discovery happens to not agree with your religion. Then it's pure hokum that has no proof and can easily be disproven, even if it does have enough peer reviewed articles written on it to fill a few libraries by itself...

If there were any real evidence against evolution you'd better believe that every biologist in the world would want their hands on it and want to take part in it's discovery, because it would mean instant fame and notoriety and put your name in the history books. That's why science works as well as it does.
 
Nothing in this discussion that I have said. Would you PLEASE go back and read my thoughts on the subject. Stop assuming.


I did read your thoughts. You said you are an old Earth Christian. Now what evidence is there for "God."?
 
Of course there could be a "creator" but what evidence is there for one?

Again what does this have to do with my reply? Oh let me fill you in nothing. :roll:

If you do not get back on the topic, we are done. :2wave:
 
And for some reason the only scientists out there that find and understand these "proofs" just happen to be uber Christians and hell bound on proving their Religious views.

Isn't it amazing that science and scientists are amazing and awe inspiring to most people, and that scientific discoveries tend to be lauded as absolute monumental occasions attributed to the greatness of mankind... unless that discovery happens to not agree with your religion. Then it's pure hokum that has no proof and can easily be disproven, even if it does have enough peer reviewed articles written on it to fill a few libraries by itself...

If there were any real evidence against evolution you'd better believe that every biologist in the world would want their hands on it and want to take part in it's discovery, because it would mean instant fame and notoriety and put your name in the history books. That's why science works as well as it does.

Are you kidding? Scientists vilify those against evolution and want to brand them as ideological morons. I have never seen rational or ethical treatment of a creation scientist. Science is very "partisan" if you will. We all glean from the same data, but come out with different answers based on interpretation and testing of the data.
 
I did read your thoughts. You said you are an old Earth Christian. Now what evidence is there for "God."?

So what? It has nothing to do with my points or anything I have said.
 
The problem I have with creationist "scientist" is that they have a solution, and try to find evidence to fit that solution. That's not how science works, plain and simple.
 
Did you read any of the links? Evolution has plausibility but no proof.

Digsbe, my friend. This is absolutely not true. The evidence is there even on a microbiological level. To deny this makes that web site even less credible than I thought.

There is no proof that any organism arose from any ancestor. There is no genome with a specific mutation(s) that gave rise to a new trait. You can claim my evidence is biased, but did you read any of their points? Here is a list of young age evidence ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A

This is only a very small part of a huge picture. To deny the proof we do have is a fools folly.

PS Keep strong in your faith, and don't let the nay sayers get you down.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, very few people actually believe in random natural evolution where all the matter in the universe appeared out of nowhere and then perfectly organized itself into the intensely complex world we see today. Basic simple scientific observation tells us this is impossible. Don't believe me? Find a perfect vacuum and then tell me how long you think it will take for a universe to appear there. But at any rate, we shouldn't be teaching the religion of atheism without balance. And if there is a god, then everything should be on the table.
 
Are you kidding? Scientists vilify those against evolution and want to brand them as ideological morons. I have never seen rational or ethical treatment of a creation scientist. Science is very "partisan" if you will. We all glean from the same data, but come out with different answers based on interpretation and testing of the data.

No we don't glean from the same data, lol. Scientists find that layers of rock towards the bottom have more simplistic forms of organisms and dates to be much older than the upper layer of rock and they draw the logical conclusions. Creationists then scream bias and the absurd idea that a gigantic flood created all of the fossils, of course layered from older strata to newer strata and with simpler organisms towards the bottom mean while saying that no dating system is accurate because none of it says 6000 years ago.
 
Evolution on a microbiological level does not prove slime to human evolution. 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.
 
Digsbe, my friend. This is absolutely not true. The evidence is there even on a microbiological level. To deny this makes that web site even less credible than I thought.
I am denying the proof that evolution occurred. I specifically stated that it is plausible but unproven and certainly not the only level. I study microbiology. My degree is in molecular biology which mainly focuses on DNA and proteins. I am not saying that evolution is flat out false and implausible, but that I don't believe it and recognize the holes within it. Scientists are all presented with the same data, they interpret the data to mean different things. I interpret the data to believe in Biblical creationism.
This is only a very small part of a huge picture. To deny the proof we do have is a fools folly.

Again, I am not denying evidence for evolution. I just don't believe it is proven or a complete theory with no flaws or unproven problems.


No we don't glean from the same data, lol. Scientists find that layers of rock towards the bottom have more simplistic forms of organisms and dates to be much older than the upper layer of rock and they draw the logical conclusions. Creationists then scream bias and the absurd idea that a gigantic flood created all of the fossils, of course layered from older strata to newer strata and with simpler organisms towards the bottom mean while saying that no dating system is accurate because none of it says 6000 years ago.

Yes we do glean from the same data... There isn't a creationist rock and an evolutionary rock. Creationists scream bias because we are treated with extreme disrespect and unfairly. Not only that, but the militant partisanship of defending evolution hints at it too.
 
Last edited:
I am denying the proof that evolution occurred. I specifically stated that it is plausible but unproven and certainly not the only level. I study microbiology. My degree is in molecular biology which mainly focuses on DNA and proteins. I am not saying that evolution is flat out false and implausible, but that I don't believe it and recognize the holes within it. Scientists are all presented with the same data, they interpret the data to mean different things. I interpret the data to believe in Biblical creationism.

OK I see.

Your interpretation is your own, but I see it as wrong.


Again, I am not denying evidence for evolution. I just don't believe it is proven or a complete theory with no flaws or unproven problems.

No one is saying it is, but this does not make creationism "science" it's not. The metaphysical cannot so far be measured or tested by the physical. Since it connot be observed or tested in any way, it is not science, period.
 
Did you read any of the links? Evolution has plausibility but no proof. There is no proof that any organism arose from any ancestor. There is no genome with a specific mutation(s) that gave rise to a new trait. You can claim my evidence is biased, but did you read any of their points? Here is a list of young age evidence ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A

This is specifically a site dedicated to trying to disprove evolution in order to prove a young earth theory. This is not how true science works. You have to do your own research and prove that your theory has more evidence to back it up.

Plus, I have seen evidence with my own eyes that there were several different periods of flooding, at least in Wyoming but most likely throughout that whole part of the US. They have fossils that you can see and actually do research on on your own. This area didn't just see one major flood, but several occurring about every 5000 years or so. And, they have fossils of both fresh water and salt water fish and other aquatic life within different levels of the sediment. This is believed to be caused by eras of the area being covered by a salt water lake, which then dries up for a time period, then the area floods again in fresh water, which dries up for a time and the cycle continues.

Fossil Butte National Monument (U.S. National Park Service)

I have been to this place when my mother lived in Kemmerer, WY. It's pretty cool.

You need scientific evidence that position can contend with evolution, not that evolution has too many holes which means what you believe is most likely correct.
 
Intelligent Design is a fraud
Regards from Rosie

So, Rosie, you don't believe in a god? You think that in the perfect vaccuum of nothingness the entire universe just appeared out of nowhere and then organized itself perfectly into the complex structures we see today without any sort of direction? Interesting. I'm afraid I don't have that much faith.
 
So, Rosie, you don't believe in a god? You think that in the perfect vaccuum of nothingness the entire universe just appeared out of nowhere and then organized itself perfectly into the complex structures we see today without any sort of direction? Interesting. I'm afraid I don't have that much faith.

Hey, I'm not a Federal Judge. I don't even live in Delaware. But a Federal Judge threw ID out of Delaware, calling it fraudulent. Watch the video...it shows the whole program about the trial in Federal Court.

Re-Regards from Rosie
 
Evolution is science and doesn't rule out intelligent design.
 
Evolution on a microbiological level does not prove slime to human evolution. 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.

On a side note. I never said microbiology "proved" anything. I said it does provide good evidence, which it has on a genetic level.
 
So, Rosie, you don't believe in a god? You think that in the perfect vaccuum of nothingness the entire universe just appeared out of nowhere and then organized itself perfectly into the complex structures we see today without any sort of direction? Interesting. I'm afraid I don't have that much faith.

You can believe in God and still realize that ID is fraudulent. It was specifically and deliberately created to get creationism taught in a science class, by restating creationism in pseudoscientific language.

It's entirely possible that ID is accurate, but there is currently no scientific evidence to back that up. Anyone who claims otherwise is perpetrating a fraud.
 
Back
Top Bottom