> Black_Wing wrote:

Funny, only one side mocks the other though.

do they now ?
depends on when and where yr looking

i think the majority of the ppl on both sides will say their attitude was formed by ignorance on the other side

and DPS, you ll get ppl with scientific backup for their beliefs now

"So, to reverse the thought you presented, should not the questions in these tests be "In the Theory of Evolution".. or "Theory of Creationism"... to just assume that evolution, is in a pure classically educated mind.. as wrong as it is to mark such answers wrong if the answer was based on creationism."

I believe they should be taught as theories though it need not necessarily be written on the test.  I repeat though if the course content was on Evolution then the question refers to Evolution and the answer will also be related to Evolution.  If the course material is on Creationism then the question...yada yada yada.

Actually it has not been proven Agh.. I made a case above about the life around the thermal vents. This life basically just "appeared" in many places throughout the worlds oceans, which no chain, or fosils of their evolution.

Thus..

We, ie humanity/society, are nota t a point where we can teach this as an absolute truth, and I believe we all agree on this. It is a "Living" theory that is even today still evolving. It should be taught as such.

My proof in this matter is even Newton's Law's are a living theory.. and they have been around, and far more widely studied that the theory of evolution. The other example was specific to heat, which up until the 16th and 17th century had been considered a liquid.

Also, to quote DPS.. you said "Evolution is Science"... how wrong you are about that. It's ramifications are rooted in religion. Again.. with a classical education, it would be very apparent to you. The "science" of evolution is rooted in the religious school of "Who are we?".

It is not wrong to say evolution does not exist, just as it is not right to say that it does. Even the Catholic Church.. this so called harbinger of the "old ways" has come out with volumes and volumes of material specific to evolution. It indeed says that the ways and understand of how God created the world can be studied through science. It does reserve thoughout it's doctrine that life was willed into existence by God. That every single molecule and particle in the entire universe exists because God wills it. Thus, from that basic truth that that doctrine holds, one can study and make an effort to understand the world that he has provided to us.

This typically is the "dividing line" between atheists and the religious. Which is basically the belief systems, and bottom line.. we all understand, ie the instumental proof of evolution.. the big bang, can at this point, only be explained by faith. That.. is from the religious schools of thought. Interesting that it's also the foundation of the atheists.

Justian..

First off, your points are very well present.. kudos.

As I understand it, if you put a plant into a pot.. eventually, the root systems will take the shape of the pot. Working on a macroalge sort of petri dish, does not effectly prove anything. Gene's are simply code. Life, by it's pure simple nature, strives to live. Thus, by providing some measure of artificial stimulas into a gene pool, does not actually mean the dormant genes are gone. It means that you have created a breed.. just as how a toy poodle is related to a husky. In a much larger world, the less dormate genes are still in the genepool, and thru procreation with these other "hybrids" actually keep things from "advancing". At best, the only way you can get a diversion, is when one group is totally isolated and a extensive series of alterations happen where breeding is no longer possible.. and that takes massive amounts of time, and distances to achieve such a division.

Thus, it should be clear to you that you cannot sit back and point to a petri dish as proof, anymore than you can point at that toy poodle and the husky. It requires much more than that. I know you simplified the conditions in your statement, but that is essentially something that should be avoided.

Fokker,

Pardon the pun, but you need to look "deeper" into this than what's on wiki. Though the ecosystem one is pretty decent. There are species they continually encounter they have no clue where they came from, infact, they announced like 2-3 new species a week from down there.. and have 100's more on the books... many of which they dont even know what kingdom to put them in.

Nai, all of what you said simply says this: We do not understand our planet as well as we thought. Don't be hasty and give time for more research.

I believe it was the great Lily Allen that said 'American people are backward'. This is a perfect example.

"This is the effect of pushing Christians to far. If you wish to have some less of a huge repercussion you atheists must allow some freedoms, and stop the lawsuits from being able to be filed. The pendulum is swinging."
-Flint, please read the both entire articles. If I were a student in a school on OK, I could go on stage during an assembly, and declare that Stalin was the true son of God, and communists are the only people who ever got it right.

As for you atheist remark, go to this site: www.au.org. A large part of the movement to see religion separate from state (and schools) is by Christians who just don't want to see the Church grow too powerful. They don't want the modern US to become like Medieval Europe, where the word of the Church is law.

And s for your second post (post #11); why do you believe creationism or 'Intelligent' design are correct? Do you honestly think that if you had never read a bible, or talked to a priest, that you would think the same way? Most likely not. You believe in those theories because someone tells you to, because an invisible being told him that, through means of a book written 2000 years ago.

> Nai wrote:

> Fokker,

Pardon the pun, but you need to look "deeper" into this than what's on wiki. Though the ecosystem one is pretty decent. There are species they continually encounter they have no clue where they came from, infact, they announced like 2-3 new species a week from down there.. and have 100's more on the books... many of which they dont even know what kingdom to put them in<

I pointed you to Wiki as a starting point, as is quite clear in my post.
As for the insinuation discovering new species being proof that the theory of evolution is honk... Well I think the structure of my sentence insinuates what I think of that, and with good reason.
_________________________________

> Black_Wing wrote:

> ummm....sorry, a universe appearing out of nothing....I mean ABSOLUTE Nothing, has absolutly no fact to its existance or beginning.<

That is not the theory, the universe did not come from absolute nothing, if it did all matter would be evenly distributed. You want to be looking into 'branes, bubbles and strings if you want to bash and flame the theory properly.
________________________________

> CanadianTire wrote:

> Reading Nai's post about deep sea vents, lets come up with a compromise. God (/me gags ) created little singled cells organisms near deep sea vents. He created them in the fashion as to be able to change and evolve. And they did.

The End.<

Now that would be believable. Hey, it's only a matter of time before we do it: we're already trying to make a universe!

Nai, no it has not been proven, parts of it has been proven, and it is a science. From what you are saying any science we have today can be said to be a theory only, like gravity, it can't be totaly proven since it cannot be seen. Physics, psycology, math (cannot be proven as a science either then I guess). So it's rather silly to keep that up. Yes it's the theory of evolution. But it is concidered a science. Creationism is concidered only a faith and not even a real theory and absolutely not a science.

Theres obvious evidence for aliens and time travel too.