|
Post by jmejia1187 on May 27, 2010 15:46:22 GMT -5
Its true, the pople there believe in creationism because they don't really understand it. They were not given a proper education to understand it. The best example is the last guy that speaks out. What he said is that Black people couldn't evolve from white people, and he is right, they evolved from a common ancestor, but of course their theacher is not stepping in and telling him THAT. I remember learning that we were probably all black when we still lived on Pangaea, due to the sun. (Black people don't get sunburns ;]) And then when the earth split up we changed different colors accordingly. (Could be wrong, lemme know if it is) ... Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 195,000 years ago, Pangaea was the supercontinent that existed during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras about 250 million years ago FAIL
|
|
|
Post by jmejia1187 on May 27, 2010 15:46:47 GMT -5
And black people do get sunburns, just not as often...
|
|
|
Post by Joey on May 27, 2010 15:47:27 GMT -5
I'd like to add that we are related to EVERYTHING. We are 40% related to trees, 97% related to chimpanzees, and i think 2% related to viruses.(Not sure) And EVERY living creature's DNA has the same make-up which is A,T, G, and C. I would also like the add that the people in that video (I believe) are being brainwashed and deprived of education for the sake of belief, not science. But we are not CLOSELY related to everything. By the way, Nakor posted a great video about different modes and methods used to prove evolution. Not just one. Creationism is theology. Okay believe in it if you want. Fine. Science is statistics and fact. I will put my money on the numbers and p values holy SHIRT pee has value! I've been getting rid of money this whole time!
|
|
|
Post by jmejia1187 on May 27, 2010 15:51:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by telmac on May 27, 2010 15:53:03 GMT -5
While this video is ridiculous, i still do believe in god, but i have an odd standing on it. I believe that while all of evolution happened, god had a hand in it. God created the world, with physics, with all of science, and then manipulates it to make stuff happen. If god wants something to happen, then god will manipulate the world to accomplish it.
|
|
|
Post by jmejia1187 on May 27, 2010 15:54:06 GMT -5
But we are not CLOSELY related to everything. By the way, Nakor posted a great video about different modes and methods used to prove evolution. Not just one. Creationism is theology. Okay believe in it if you want. Fine. Science is statistics and fact. I will put my money on the numbers and p values holy SHIRT pee has value! I've been getting rid of money this whole time! The P value or calculated probability is the estimated probability of rejecting the null hypothesis (H0) of a study question when that hypothesis is true. Type I error is the false rejection of the null hypothesis and type II error is the false acceptance of the null hypothesis. Most authors refer to statistically significant as P < 0.05 and statistically highly significant as P < 0.001 p can also be thought of as the probability of commiting a type I error. WHY AM I TEACHING BASIC STATS? AYFKM?
|
|
|
Post by Joey on May 27, 2010 15:55:40 GMT -5
holy SHIRT pee has value! I've been getting rid of money this whole time! The P value or calculated probability is the estimated probability of rejecting the null hypothesis (H0) of a study question when that hypothesis is true. Type I error is the false rejection of the null hypothesis and type II error is the false acceptance of the null hypothesis. Most authors refer to statistically significant as P < 0.05 and statistically highly significant as P < 0.001 p can also be thought of as the probability of commiting a type II error. WHY AM I TEACHING BASIC STATS? AYFKM? it was a joke, I'm not retarded
|
|
|
Post by RandiKthxxx on May 27, 2010 16:38:43 GMT -5
holy SHIRT pee has value! I've been getting rid of money this whole time! The P value or calculated probability is the estimated probability of rejecting the null hypothesis (H0) of a study question when that hypothesis is true. Type I error is the false rejection of the null hypothesis and type II error is the false acceptance of the null hypothesis. Most authors refer to statistically significant as P < 0.05 and statistically highly significant as P < 0.001 p can also be thought of as the probability of commiting a type I error. WHY AM I TEACHING BASIC STATS?AYFKM? Because we're not as smart as you are -_- Nahhhhh, I'm just joshin' ya It's because school teaches us that the most math we need to learn is Algebra II or Trig. I'm not too fond of math, I wouldn't take Stat even if I had the chance.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 27, 2010 16:38:45 GMT -5
I said it was harmful, I didn't say it would kill anyone. Try not to take statements to their hyperbolic ends. And try not to be too surprised; I never accused you of being a creationist, but you were arguing in favour of respecting those beliefs, and so I am arguing why they should not be respected.
Why is it harmful? Well first off, it's just plain wrong, and one is better off knowing the truth than a lie. But that's not the real point. We're not talking "let them believe in Santa for a while then tell them the truth" wrong. We're talking "let them believe in Santa and then when they start to figure out it's not true try to brainwash them into thinking that faith is better than reason" wrong. Because far worse than any lack of knowledge about evolution -- something that I fully admit would only harm people in certain fields -- creationism encourages the belief that it's okay to ignore truths in favour of myths. And that is truly harmful. It's the seed from which other forms of absolute thinking are born. Faith should never trump solid reason.
Now:
This is common yet incorrect thinking. The odds of life occurring on any individual planet -- prior to knowing anything about the planet -- are admittedly quite tiny. However, you are forgetting the sheer quantity of planets in the universe. When you consider the incredible number, it's no surprise when a smattering of them do have the qualities necessary to sustain life. And when there are enough planets that can sustain life, it is really only a matter of time before life occurs on one of them. So life in the universe can seem incredibly unlikely, but in actual fact it was pretty much guaranteed to happen, and it was merely a matter of where and when. And of course, we can only be where and when it happened, so this does not require divine explanation. (Much like an individual winning the lottery has incredibly low odds, but the lottery being won by anyone at all has much better odds. The winner of course was the winner, and this does not need divine explanation.) It's been postulated by scientists that with the sheer number of planets in the universe it's incredibly likely that there are other planets with intelligent life out there, but that they are likely so spread out as to be beyond our reach (at least, any time soon -- and I mean soon in a very loose sense).
Moreover, as an aside, keep in mind that life evolved to suit the planet. The planet was not made to suit the life that would eventually be on it. Had our planet been different but still capable of life, life may have evolved differently to be suited to the planet it was on.
Anyway, it is therefore unnecessary to postulate a creator, and using the logic of Occam's Razor (that one should not multiply entities more than necessary), it is more rational not to believe in one. Now, if you want to go on thinking there is a god, that's fine. At least a belief in a god doesn't directly contradict anything we know in reality like creationism (though most of the major religions' gods do). It is a rather different topic than creationism vs evolution due to this.
I would argue that god shouldn't be taught about in science, because it is not science. It belongs in church, not school. I would argue that creationism should not be taught to children at all, because it is a lie that encourages disregard of reality in favour of myth. It does not belong anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Joey on May 27, 2010 16:45:04 GMT -5
This is common yet incorrect thinking. The odds of life occurring on any individual planet -- prior to knowing anything about the planet -- are admittedly quite tiny. However, you are forgetting the sheer quantity of planets in the universe. When you consider the incredible number, it's no surprise when a smattering of them do have the qualities necessary to sustain life. And when there are enough planets that can sustain life, it is really only a matter of time before life occurs on one of them. So life in the universe can seem incredibly unlikely, but in actual fact it was pretty much guaranteed to happen, and it was merely a matter of where and when. And of course, we can only be where and when it happened, so this does not require divine explanation. (Much like an individual winning the lottery has incredibly low odds, but the lottery being won by anyone at all has much better odds. The winner of course was the winner, and this does not need divine explanation.) It's been postulated by scientists that with the sheer number of planets in the universe it's incredibly likely that there are other planets with intelligent life out there, but that they are likely so spread out as to be beyond our reach (at least, any time soon -- and I mean soon in a very loose sense). Moreover, as an aside, keep in mind that life evolved to suit the planet. The planet was not made to suit the life that would eventually be on it. Had our planet been different but still capable of life, life may have evolved differently to be suited to the planet it was on. Anyway, it is therefore unnecessary to postulate a creator, and using the logic of Occam's Razor (that one should not multiply entities more than necessary), it is more rational not to believe in one. Now, if you want to go on thinking there is a god, that's fine. At least a belief in a god doesn't directly contradict anything we know in reality like creationism (though most of the major religions' gods do). It is a rather different topic than creationism vs evolution due to this. I would argue that god shouldn't be taught about in science, because it is not science. It belongs in church, not school. I would argue that creationism should not be taught to children at all, because it is a lie that encourages disregard of reality in favour of myth. It does not belong anywhere. I see your logic, and understand it. I also agree about not teaching about God in science, and not teaching creationism at all. I also want to thank you for not basing my beliefes, and seeing me eye to eye. I think we all have good understanding here, so I probably am done.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 27, 2010 16:49:41 GMT -5
Agreed then. And if I sounded angry, please know I wasn't angry at you, but rather at some of what I see happen in the world. I just think it's a really important issue.
|
|
|
Post by Joey on May 27, 2010 16:54:37 GMT -5
Agreed then. And if I sounded angry, please know I wasn't angry at you, but rather at some of what I see happen in the world. I just think it's a really important issue. No, you didnt seem angry, mostly because I know how you feel. I am glad that we can discuss and be civilized afterwards. I think its important too. So........some women need to make me a sammich.
|
|
jaw
Moon
Oh yeah!
Posts: 154
|
Post by jaw on May 27, 2010 18:22:49 GMT -5
I remember learning that we were probably all black when we still lived on Pangaea, due to the sun. (Black people don't get sunburns ;]) And then when the earth split up we changed different colors accordingly. (Could be wrong, lemme know if it is) ... Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 195,000 years ago, Pangaea was the supercontinent that existed during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras about 250 million years ago FAIL Haha, my bad :] some of these things are stuff I learned in middle-school (Catholic school) so, information could be incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on May 27, 2010 19:30:35 GMT -5
Seriously people are still debating this? This thread should have ended 2 pages ago, and Nakor has summed it up pretty well with reply #88. So let's move on, all things must come to an end.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on May 27, 2010 19:33:17 GMT -5
ok, so to sum this up, we all agree that creationism should be the only subject in all schools, and to teach anything different is a sin. Case closed!
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on May 27, 2010 19:42:05 GMT -5
ok, so to sum this up, we all agree that creationism should be the only subject in all schools, and to teach anything different is a sin. Case closed! uhhhhmmmmmm k... not quite.
|
|
|
Post by low on May 28, 2010 0:05:33 GMT -5
Facts have no morality. They are true whether or not they are liked to be true. Religious explanations don't have a place in science and no one religious explanation has any more value than another, nor has any business being funded publicly. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is pretty clear on that.
The business of public schools is not to teach religious values. What is in the interest of public schools is to give children known evidence and prepare them for future occupations. The evidence does not point to biblical creationism nor intelligent design: it points to evolution. If you're arguing with this, you're likely impervious to new information and should really stop reading. The theory of evolution was itself developed based on evidence, as opposed to religious explanations, which were based on no existing evidence (as little was known on the nature of things at the time of their formations) and offer no evidence to date. Science is not based on what a majority nor any number of people believe to be true, but rather it's based on what can be shown to be true. The same is true of any discipline, and we can't apply majority rule or "show both sides" to any argument. Anyone can make a claim with no facts to back it up (or use facts with no credibility and assert a conspiracy theory). It's important that we don't let this kind of alternative view be taught in the classroom. You should ask someone who wants evolution and creationism taught in the same classroom if they would also like their children to learn the alternative view that the holocaust never happened.
|
|
|
Post by Joey on May 28, 2010 11:36:56 GMT -5
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 28, 2010 13:39:33 GMT -5
Yeah, theistic evolution doesn't really conflict with anything we know about reality, so I don't really have a problem with it, although being an atheist I do think it's incorrect. That disagreement aside, I think it's a progressive move by the churches, and while it still falls under the "god of the gaps" problem (the belief that god did whatever we haven't figured out yet, like the cause of the big bang), it truly is best for the church to adapt to the world as we know it like that, so I would happily encourage that belief among believers who do not wish to deconvert.
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
Post by FranticProdigy on May 31, 2010 21:46:38 GMT -5
Evolution is a theory which leads to hypothesis which can be tested. Evolution itself is based on facts. Creationism is based on an idea with no factual backing and the hypotheses it generates can be falsified. If creationism is true then all animals should have very different DNA, because they were all made independently by the hand of god. However Bonobos are our closest cousins, next to the chimpanzees. If creationism was true we wouldn't be able to measure these DNA relationships. So creationism is false. You can do this with just about any hypothesis brought out by creationism. A theory needs to lead to testable hypotheses. BELIEVE ME I AM A BIOLOGIST. Assuming creationism is a theory, which it is not, it can easily be proven wrong by proving any of the hypotheses generated by creationism wrong. Here is another one: Creationism postulates that animals are all independent and no animals came from preexisting animals. Ergo god created them all. Then why are there no fossils of humans alongside fossils of dinosaurs. Or fossils of frogs in the permian? Or tigers in the Triassic? Because these animals haven't evolved yet!!!! Creationism failed twice in two thought experiments. It shouldn't be taught in school science classes because it is not science. It is nonsense perpetrated by people who believe their god is infallible. But I might ask you this. If creationism is true, why does god go through such great lengths to make it seem as if it isn't? You have that backwards. A hypothesis leads to a theory. A theory is a well tested framework for an idea.
|
|