Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8994 total)
63 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 61 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,234 Year: 10,982/23,288 Month: 234/1,763 Week: 201/390 Day: 21/69 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   This settles it.. Never moving down south..
The Arachnophile
Inactive Member

Message 14 of 116 (18692)
10-01-2002 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Tranquility Base
10-01-2002 2:38 AM

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

There are plenty of scientific reasons to suspect that 'God' was involved in the origin of life on Earth. If you don't believe that then the brainwashing sure worked on you.

The science of origins concerns how we got here, not how we got here only by natural means.

And over half of the US believes that God had something to do with creation. And over half believe that evolution may not be true.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-01-2002]

But it doesn't matter what people believe when it comes to what should be taught in science class! Only science should be taught there, and no matter how many times you claim ID or creationism is science, it will not make it so. Many people believe in ghosts too, should that be a part of religious teaching?

If you understand how the scientific community works you would realize that pseudoscience or bad science does not survive for long because of the very nature of the scientific method and the self-regulating properities of the system. Creationism, ID and other pseudoscienstific "disiplines" have never made it as scientific displines,despite claims to the contrary. Until someone can use scientific methods to back up their creationist claims, creationism should be kept out of science class.

The Arachnophile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-01-2002 2:38 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-01-2002 8:33 AM The Arachnophile has responded

The Arachnophile
Inactive Member

Message 109 of 116 (20707)
10-24-2002 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tranquility Base
10-01-2002 8:33 AM

Dear TB.

"Macroevolution has not been proven." How many times have I heard that?

Here we are at the core of the problem, I think; the failure or refusal of Creationists to acknowledge that macroevolution is real and has been proven. There are so many indications and chains of evidence that presenting macroevolution to young minds as a valid process is not at fault. I will not go into them here but would be interested in hearing what kind of evidence of macroevolution you'd accept.

The Arachnophile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-01-2002 8:33 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020