It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

One in Eight U.S. Biology Teachers Teaches Creationism

page: 10
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ValhallasValkyrie

Originally posted by wytworm
ID /Creationism is not testable therefore not a theory. Next?


Hmm... definitions please!!!

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
the·o·ry Audio Help /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries. 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.


Well now, with that definition I shall point out that, yes, Creationism is a theory .. as is evolution.

Your "theory" that it isnt.. is.. well... a theory. Odd how that works huh? Of course, based on what you say, your theory is not testable so.. not a theory.. which would then make it an.... dum dum dum... opinion. And we all know what they say about opinions right?????

Either way, Lightmare has it right.. neither should be taught in school. Period. End of discussion. Classes can be taught without either of those two subjects brought into the lessons - hello, my biology class in 10th grade never discussed Creationism or Evolution. So it is possible.

Next??


Nicely done. You found a source that fits your conclusion. Barn wall. The funny bit is you contradicted yourself? See where? Look up scientific theory if you will and post the whole text instead of a link. Run that through the finely greased engine of your intellect then sell me the crap that spews out. Thanks!

[edit on 28-5-2008 by wytworm]




posted on May, 28 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
 


Contradict myself? Moi? Naww

I pointed out that Creationism is a theory and that your theory/opinion is incorrect.

Just because Creationism is "not testable" does not rule it out as a theory.
Why shucks, neither is Evolution (unless you are going to let me keep a monkey/ape/chimp/gorilla in a cage and wait for it to evolve into a human).. so.. with your definition.. they should both be called opinions. Right?

Now, with the definition I gave, which is the correct definition as printed in the Websters Dictionary and on Dictionary.com, they are theories no matter what you believe about being testable. So that makes what you posted an... opinion.

See what I am getting at here? No contradiction. Just you trying to discredit what I said to make yourself seem right and me seem wrong.

VV



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ValhallasValkyrie
 


By claiming both are just opinions you undermine your own premise.

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

Shall I go on? Awaiting illy constructed sardonic reply...



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
 


Oh boy....

You've really done it now. Seriously....you can't win against VV. Just trust me on this one. I pretty much live with her and I've tried. And I've never won a debate with her yet.


*****Prepares to take shelter******



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Lightmare
 


*eyeballs the other half*

Ahem.. on with the discussion...

Ok.. point blank..

In your own words.. a theory has to be testable. Yes? You have to be able to test it to prove it fact or false.

Well, evolution is not testable. You cannot run a test/experiment to prove it. Period. I mean, seriously. I could try to keep an ape in a cage in my house (would lose my lease for such but beside the point) but it will not turn into a human. It will live and die as an ape. Simple fact. Look at fossils to prove it? I am not a big believer in that simply because one person can see one thing and another will see something different. Still not testable. So not a theory by YOUR definition.

Creationism. Not testable. It is faith. I cannot even begin to think of a way to try to test it.. so by YOUR definition, it is not a theory.

Great. They are... OPINIONS. Your links do not show me anything I did not already know. Neither subject is testable.. therefore, according to your post, they are not theories.

Of course, this is not the topic. We are somewhere out in left field here. The discussion is simply this: Should teachers teach Creationism in school?

On topic here:

Let me channel King Solomon to solve this debate.

*hums, chants, does a weird little dance naked around a fire before typing*

If two cannot agree, then neither should be taught.
If that answer is not good enough...
Then two schools should be run. One teaching Creationism and the other teaching non-theistic evolution.

*slumps as King Solomon leaves the building*

Problem solved. How hard was that????


VV



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lightmare
reply to post by wytworm
 


Oh boy....

You've really done it now. Seriously....you can't win against VV. Just trust me on this one. I pretty much live with her and I've tried. And I've never won a debate with her yet.


*****Prepares to take shelter******


I take it you have never been to a debate! This bears little resemblance.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
DOUBLE POST!


[edit on 28-5-2008 by wytworm]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I find in hard to believe that so high a percentage of Biology teachers would include creationism into their science curriculum. Private schools are of course reasonaly free to structure course as they wish, but it was my impression that government schools leaned precisely the other way.

Insofar as Evolution and Religion being however equivalent theories, this is incorrect. The first is indeed a theory, one of many in the world of scientific research and subject to questioning, testing and where proper, adjustment to new facts. The second is is a belief system, based largely on faith and not subject to the same rigorous testing processes It is not less nor more, just different.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ValhallasValkyrie
reply to post by Lightmare
 


*eyeballs the other half*

Ahem.. on with the discussion...

Ok.. point blank..

In your own words.. a theory has to be testable. Yes? You have to be able to test it to prove it fact or false.

...

Creationism. Not testable. It is faith. I cannot even begin to think of a way to try to test it.. so by YOUR definition, it is not a theory.

Great. They are... OPINIONS. Your links do not show me anything I did not already know. Neither subject is testable.. therefore, according to your post, they are not theories.

...

VV


VV ...

This debate is about the teaching of Creationism in school as an alternative to Evolution in science classes.

My argument is that for a subject to be taught is science classes it must have scientific merit.

Creationism has NO scientific merit. It is a philosophy.

This is a quote by you:


Creationism. Not testable. It is faith. I cannot even begin to think of a way to try to test it.. so by YOUR definition, it is not a theory.


By your own argument, Creationism should NOT be taught in science classes.

To teach it in science class as a science is a lie (as you point out your self) and directly goes against the message of Jesus and the message of the bible.

Creationism can only be taught in religious and philosophical classes.

Now to refute your argument that evolution cannot be tested.

I present these three examples of the scientific testing of evolution:

Recent human evolution

Or this:


Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.
These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow and genetic drift.
Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Ecological genetics concerns itself with observing microevolution in the wild. Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance.
Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of extended microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into the evolution process.

The term 'microevolution' has recently become popular among the anti-evolution movement, and in particular among young Earth creationists. The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other is seen to occur over thousands of years (ie. a quantitative difference). Essentially they describe the same process.
The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science


Or this:
I CHALLENGE YOU TO WATCH THIS AND THEN REFUTE

I have presented this case.

Simply saying "You are wrong, God created the animals the way they are because the bible says so. Period" does not help to prove that Creationism is a science and should be taught in a science class as an alternative to evolution.

Please present your evidence that Creationism should be taught in science class and not in a philosophical or religious class.

I say again:

Saying that Creationism is a science is a lie.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Horza
 


Hey sweetheart .. next time you want to quote me.... try reading my WHOLE post. You took what you wanted to argue with me about out of my post and completely ignored the last portion of my post where I stated that NEITHER should be taught in school.

Just a tip if you want to actually try to carry any conversation on with me.

VV



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ValhallasValkyrie
 


Ok darling.

I did not address that directly, tis true.

However:

My argument was directed at your statement that Evolution cannot be tested and, therefore like Creationism is a "opinion"

I have laid a case and have given evidence that Evolution can, indeed, be tested and is therefore a science and therefore should be taught in school science classes.

This, by default, addresses your argument that neither should be taught.

Evolution, because it is a science, should be taught in school science classes and Creationism or I.D. should not.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I found the 'walking whale'
Horza.

Somehow, everytime I used the ATS search window, I only got a narrow search field.


Anyway, it seems this is just another in a long line of mistakes, misnomers, frauds, and misrepresentations in 'science' falsely so called. A whale fantasy


Actual fossil;


National Geographic's spin;


A true approximation;



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pexx421
come now caorot....religion is all about brainwashing. Thats what it IS. Spirituality is one thing, but all large organized religions are diametrically opposed to doubt, question, and enlightenment. They are systems of control.


I completely agree! I am in NO way, in favor of Organized Religon. I also think that they are organizations looking for Control. However, I believe that the children should have a choice. But, its difficult for people to sit through a religious lecture and NOT feel the brainwashing begin, maybe there just hasn't been someone who can objectively tell the story without using an "Appeal to Fear" (If you don't believe this, you will go to Hell) approach.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
This is another.
Ambulocetus;



1.

Reconstruction of Ambulocetus, ‘at the end of the power stroke during swimming’, by Thewissen et al.
2.

The stippled bones were all that were found. And the bones coloured red were found 5 m above the rest.

Darwinism Refuted

The name Ambulocetus natans comes from the Latin words ambulare (to walk), cetus (whale) and natans (swimming), and means "a walking and swimming whale." It is obvious the animal used to walk because it had four legs, like all other mammals, and even wide claws on its feet and paws on its hind legs. Apart from evolutionists' prejudice, however, there is absolutely no basis for the claim that it swam in water, or that it lived on land and in water (like an amphibian)........
- The backbone of the quadrupedal mammal Ambulocetus ends at the pelvis, and powerful rear legs then extend from it. This is typical land-mammal anatomy. In whales, however, the backbone goes right down to the tail, and there is no pelvic bone at all. In fact, Basilosaurus, believed to have lived some 10 million years after Ambulocetus, possesses the latter anatomy. In other words, it is a typical whale. There is no transitional form between Ambulocetus, a typical land mammal, and Basilosaurus, a typical whale.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by CA_Orot
 


How do you think churches are controlling their flock?

What is there modus operandi? I am referring to most protestant churches.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horza
Evolution, because it is a science, should be taught in school science classes and Creationism or I.D. should not.


Before I make my post on this.. understand that I am in no way Christian. I do not hold any Judeo-Christian beliefs.

With that said...

NO

Neither should be taught. Creationism forces a religious belief down a child's throat - something the parents have a right to fuss about.

Evolution goes against some (if not all) religious beliefs. Something religious parents can fuss about.

Solution? Neither be taught. Period.

If people cannot understand this.. then literally build separate schools. One teaches Creationism in it's biology and science classes.. the other teaches Evolution in it's biology and science classes. Once both are up and running.. let the parents decide where to send their kids. Or ... *gasp* let the kids decide.

As a mother, I have no protest about either. Mainly because I want my children to understand both. Does this mean I tell my kids that we descended from apes? No.. because personally, I do not believe that. However, I am not going to fuss if my kids learn about evolution.

Both my children go to church. Something I encourage. So obviously, they are learning Creationism. Good. It gives them a basis to decide what they believe as they grow.

In the end.. if more adults would stf and stop being so adamant about things their way ... things would be easier. Seriously... stop whining and look at it as a way to have more intellectually rounded children.

Isn't this site about denying ignorance??? Seems to me learning both would do just that... deny ignorance.

VV



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ValhallasValkyrie
 



Well, evolution is not testable. You cannot run a test/experiment to prove it. Period.


Link 1

Link 2


So not a theory by YOUR definition.


I thank you for your estimation of my importance, but the definition is not mine so I will not take credit for it. That credit goes to Al-Biruni, Ibn Sina, and Ar-Razi in the 10t/11th centuries.


Creationism. Not testable. It is faith. I cannot even begin to think of a way to try to test it.. so by YOUR definition, it is not a theory.


Agreed. Not my definition though.


Great. They are... OPINIONS. Your links do not show me anything I did not already know. Neither subject is testable.. therefore, according to your post, they are not theories.


A closed mind is like a closed book; just a block of wood - Chinese Proverb


One teaching Creationism and the other teaching non-theistic evolution.


I agree completely -- public schools return to teaching instead of preaching. In my day we called it sunday school and no one fought about it. Then...enter FUNDAMENTALISM USA! Don't worry, we will get it back to where it belongs.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horza
reply to post by ValhallasValkyrie
 


Ok darling.


HAHAHAAHAHAH



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ValhallasValkyrie
 



Before I make my post on this.. understand that I am in no way Christian. I do not hold any Judeo-Christian beliefs.


Before I make my post on this.. understand that I am a Christian. I do hold Judeo-Christian beliefs.

With that said...

YES

The one that is real should be taught. The one that is not should not be. Not in a science class in a public school. Never ever ever. Period.

Infinity.

Infinity period.


Does this mean I tell my kids that we descended from apes?


I hope not, that isn't what evolution says....Humans and other primates split from a common ancestor during a speciation event. I guess that lets out Home Schooling eh?


Both my children go to church. Something I encourage. So obviously, they are learning Creationism. Good. It gives them a basis to decide what they believe as they grow.

In the end.. if more adults would stf and stop being so adamant about things their way ... things would be easier. Seriously... stop whining and look at it as a way to have more intellectually rounded children.


Then you agree - keep science in science class, and religion in church. Finally we agree!


Isn't this site about denying ignorance??? Seems to me learning both would do just that... deny ignorance.


There is certainly nothing wrong with learning world religions, these days it would seem mandatory. On the other hand, what the post is about is equating religion and science. To do this is to propagate ignorance.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ValhallasValkyrie


Isn't this site about denying ignorance??? Seems to me learning both would do just that... deny ignorance.

VV


Before I go a., I would like to point out that I believe 100% in a creator. I, too, hold no Christian beliefs. My parent and their parents never went to Church and are not Christian and yet I was encouraged to go to Sunday school if that was my choice.

I know this is a long thread with many posts, so I do not blame you for not reading them all but please read this one:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As you will see that I agree with you. I think that both should be taught in school. Balance, debate, controversy, passion and knowledge are some of the things that lead to children to make informed decisions that match their PERSONAL view of the world.

That is why I am so adamant that Creationism cannot be taught in school science classes as an alternative to Evolution. It is not a science.

I believe that Creationism should be taught as a philosophy, in philosophy classes, where the students fully understand that Creationism is part of a belief system and not a recognised science theory.

To that end, there can be no argument that Evolution is a science.

It is recognised by more than 95% of the scientific community, even those that do believe in the Christian God.

It has been tested, time and time again in many different ways.

There has been no recognised scientific evidence that proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Evolution is wrong.

People can question it, and people do, but they have the burden of proof squarely upon their shoulders. As yet, they have not been successful. I encourage them to keep trying.

Until there is a more valid, scientific alternative to Evolution, it must be taught in school science classes as it is the only viable scientific theory on the evolution of life.

Thanks VV

To the pro-creationists:

Please, watch this and then refute. Thank you



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join