The origin of species today. (From another Chris thread)

[c-no]

I know we have at least one person who is likely to be a creationist, though.

...you may throw rocks at me for I'am too stupid.

Does that mean I get rocks thrown at me? Does it mean A-Log will say that what Kent Hovind has done is potatoes to what I have done?

 

[Picklepower]

But you probably are not a Young Earth, "Evolution is a Satanic Lie!" style creationist though right? if you are, that would actually be interesting. There is a huge difference between that type of creationist, and someone who accepts evolution, but says God had a hand in it. Whenever I hear the term, "intelligent design" it is used to describe the movement of "teach the controversy" people, trying to get creationism in schools, or at least cast doubt on the process of evolution. I think the phrase you guys mean to use is "Theistic Evolution"?

 

[Holdek]

But you probably are not a Young Earth, "Evolution is a Satanic Lie!" style creationist though right? if you are, that would actually be interesting. There is a huge difference between that type of creationist, and someone who accepts evolution, but says God had a hand in it. Whenever I hear the term, "intelligent design" it is used to describe the movement of "teach the controversy" people, trying to get creationism in schools, or at least cast doubt on the process of evolution. I think the phrase you guys mean to use is "Theistic Evolution"?

That version is just slightly less stupid.

 

[c-no]

But you probably are not a Young Earth, "Evolution is a Satanic Lie!" style creationist though right? if you are, that would actually be interesting. There is a huge difference between that type of creationist, and someone who accepts evolution, but says God had a hand in it. Whenever I hear the term, "intelligent design" it is used to describe the movement of "teach the controversy" people, trying to get creationism in schools, or at least cast doubt on the process of evolution. I think the phrase you guys mean to use is "Theistic Evolution"?

I used to believe in Young Earth until a Bible teacher of mine did mention that there were other types of creationism such as Old Earth. With that said I believe in Old Earth. Still, I don't find evolution to be a satanic lie, I just feel that creationism and evolution are the same thing: a debate that has spergs in it. I'll just leave it at that because I wouldn't want to be caught up in the raging sperging anger of crazed Creationist and crazed evolutionist. (I'm pretty sure that both sides have spergs, spergs are always in something.)

 

[Watcher]

I'm just going to leave this here

I just feel that creationism and evolution are the same thing: a debate that has spergs in it.

I generally dislike this line of thinking. That "both sides are equally at fault". It reminds me of when I've heard Creationists state that atheism is another religion.

People who are on the side of evolution (unless you're on the internet) don't usually care about a person's beliefs. They largely care about science and what is taught to people as science.

 

[exball]

Thank god for Turkey.

 

[c-no]

I just feel that creationism and evolution are the same thing: a debate that has spergs in it.

I generally dislike this line of thinking. That "both sides are equally at fault". It reminds me of when I've heard Creationists state that atheism is another religion.

People who are on the side of evolution (unless you're on the internet) don't usually care about a person's beliefs. They largely care about science and what is taught to people as science.

Well in regards to spergs being in both sides, I just feel they might be out there to rage when someone states their beliefs. Still I feel what I said would apply on the internet since that is where the spergs lurk.

 

[Surtur]

It seems Louisiana has gone full re-tard:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/01/28 ... uit-filed/

 

[c-no]

It seems Louisiana has gone full re-tard:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/01/28 ... uit-filed/

As a Christian who believes in Intelligent Design, is it okay for me to bash my head against the wall due to this bullying of a buddhist student? Even if it is from the Bible Belt.

 

[Holdek]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Views_on_Evolution.svg

I'm just going to leave this here

I just feel that creationism and evolution are the same thing: a debate that has spergs in it.

I generally dislike this line of thinking. That "both sides are equally at fault". It reminds me of when I've heard Creationists state that atheism is another religion.

People who are on the side of evolution (unless you're on the internet) don't usually care about a person's beliefs. They largely care about science and what is taught to people as science.

I'll just leave it at that because I wouldn't want to be caught up in the raging sperging anger of crazed Creationist and crazed evolutionist....

Also, there's no such thing as an "evolutionist." Just someone who accepts science.

 

[Surtur]

I was always amused by the term "evilutionist". Really shows how these people view the world.

 

[Arkangel]

I was always amused by the term "evilutionist". Really shows how these people view the world.

If you have to use child-like portmanteaus to "demonize" your opposition, it really doesn't speak to the strength of your arguments.

 

[Holdek]

Wyoming Says Teaching Climate Change Would Wreck The State's Economy

Earlier this year, the Wyoming legislature became the first in the U.S. to reject new science standards for schools....

Evolving Perspectives

In the aftermath of the legislature's vote, grassroots campaigns have sprung up across the state. Among the most vocal opponents of the new science standards is the group, Wyoming Citizens Opposing Common Core—which not only faults the NGSS for its failure to "objectively" address "controversial issues" such as climate change, but also takes issue that it "teaches evolution as a fact, starting in elementary grades (current WY standards teach evolution as a theory, and not until 8th grade)."
For instance, the Wyoming Citizens Opposing Common Core objects to the NGSS guideline that, by the end of second grade, students should understand that, "Some kinds of plants and animals that once lived on Earth (e.g., dinosaurs) are no longer found anywhere, although others now living (e.g., lizards) resemble them in some ways."
According to the group, this language is evidence that:

• The standards address ultimate religious questions and then use a doctrine or "Rule" that permits only materialistic or functionally atheistic answers.
• The standards require a materialistic explanation for any phenomenon addressed by science.
• The standards are neither educationally objective nor religiously neutral, because an atheistic or materialistic worldview is consistently affirmed throughout.
• The Standards fail to present legitimate scientific critiques of materialistic theories regarding the origins of the universe, of life and its diversity.

If you have to use child-like portmanteaus to "demonize" your opposition, it really doesn't speak to the strength of your arguments.

It speaks to their arguments being child-like in nature.

Thank god for Turkey.

Yes, praise be to Allah.

 

[Watcher]

The standards address ultimate religious questions and then use a doctrine or "Rule" that permits only materialistic or functionally atheistic answers.

That "rule" is called the scientific method. Which "everything poofed into existence 6000 years ago" has yet to meet it's burden of proof.

And yes in science you need "materialistic" answers. That's why you go to science class, not religious study.

The standards are neither educationally objective nor religiously neutral, because an atheistic or materialistic worldview is consistently affirmed throughout.

When the evidence heavily contradicts the "poof out of existence" theory, then yes it's not religiously neutral. In science you need actual evidence to support a hypothesis. Lying about it and saying "no you don't require evidence" in science class ill prepares students that want to become doctors or researchers. Where in the real world you actually need to publish papers and prove something is real instead of just telling people it is on face value.

The Standards fail to present legitimate scientific critiques of materialistic theories regarding the origins of the universe, of life and its diversity.

Yes because those are "theories" not "absolute truth" like is taught in seminary. Nobody knows conclusively how the universe came about, it's life or it's diversity. Until we do, we have numerous theories that suggest things. It is dishonest to claim you have an answer and then refuse to try and explain why, other than "read a book that came out 2000 years ago that claims the Sun revolves around the Earth."

There is more evidence to support evolution than there is to support gravity. Evolution is one of the most supported theories in science, partly because creationists plug their ears and yell "lalalalala" every time some is presented.

 

[Tragi-Chan]

If you have to use child-like portmanteaus to "demonize" your opposition, it really doesn't speak to the strength of your arguments.

A lot of the Young Earth Creationists tend to favour this kind of showboating over actual debate. The number of times I've seen a YEC say, "Well, maybe you're descrnded from a monkey..." or some equally hilarious variant. Usually it's an indication that they actually know sod-all about evolution.

For me, what bugs me about the supposed debate is the suggestion that creationism is some sort of default position - "You can't account for this particular gap in the fossil record, therefore WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS IS TRUE!" This is despite the fact that we have vast amounts of evidence for evolution and nothing for creationism beyond a few tortuous interpretations of Bible passages. If the YECs arrived at their conclusion as a result of seriously considering the evidence for and against, then I'd respect their views a bit more. As it stands, I have seen no argument in favour of creationism that doesn't ultimately boil down to just trying to disprove evolution, "because the Bible says so" or "because I really want it to be so."

 

[Uzumaki]

Does that mean I get rocks thrown at me? Does it mean A-Log will say that what Kent Hovind has done is potatoes to what I have done?

It's fine to be a Christian, but you might want to climb down off that cross.

 

[c-no]

It's fine to be a Christian, but you might want to climb down off that cross.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind my views being mocked since I do feel that in some way, it can help toughen me in knowing what I follow is wrong. Even then, outside it all I feel no one would really care until it is brought up in some way, especially in how one acts.

 

[ASoulMan]

Despite the controversy it faced since Darwin published The Origin of Species, the theory of evolution has been backed up by mountains of evidence, and is thus considered factual by the scientific community. It's about as factual as gravity and the theory of relativity. While belief in evolution is optional, participation is not. Every creature living on Earth today is the result of millions of years of evolutionary progress.

I myself have nothing against religion. I've been attending a church for almost a year and half now, and I get along with a group of people who attend there who I know have expressed creationist views. It only becomes an issue when somebody decides it's okay to come crashing into a school demanding that creationism/intelligent design should be taught. Creationism is merely a personal belief, not a true science, and therefore has no reason to be taught in school. You don't see science being taught in church, so why should creationism/intelligent design be taught in science classes? It only serves to confuse people in which subject is actually more legitimate.

 

[The Knife's Husbando]

People who believe in Creationism instead of evolution are actively participating in the process, like it or not. As they yank out their kids from schools to home-teach them, they insure that they're not going to have the advantage of a proper scientifically-based education, and thus they will not be able to succeed as well in life.

It's impossible to claim to have a scientific mind, and to be a devout Christian creationist as well. They are diametrically opposed concepts. It's like saying you work as a welder, but don't believe in Ferrothermic chemistry. Simply put, you're paying lip service to one or the other, an I personally hope it's to the religious end. While being a hypocrite is a personal problem, we all know bad science kills people.

 

[Thelostcup]

You don't "believe" in evolutionary theory. It is simply a process that occurs whether or not you want to admit it.

Interestingly enough, the creation myth does somewhat line up with the scientific history of the earth if you interpret it liberally enough.