I don't have the basis to make any claims about which has more evidence, evolution or creationism, but to be honest, none of you have that basis anyway, you haven't read the entire bible and studied creationism to every last bit of information, nor did you go to high school with darwin and talked for 3 hours a day through the telegraph, i'm going to say that you guys /shouldn't/ state facts, as those "facts" mean shit without /several/ sources of /reliable/ information.
Nien wrote:I don't have the basis to make any claims about which has more evidence, evolution or creationism, but to be honest, none of you have that basis anyway, you haven't read the entire bible and studied creationism to every last bit of information, nor did you go to high school with darwin and talked for 3 hours a day through the telegraph, i'm going to say that you guys /shouldn't/ state facts, as those "facts" mean shit without /several/ sources of /reliable/ information.
The internet provides that information. All you need is a google search.
Of course it does, that doesn't mean everyone who has made a claim has read every single page they found related to evolution.
Knux wrote:...You don't need to? What is your point here? That I have to be pedantic and read absolutely every last scrap of information before I can talk about evolution?
Ok, i phrased my original post in a wrong way now that i'm reading it again, but my point is that you shouldn't say the other is fake while yours is real.
Nien wrote:I don't have the basis to make any claims about which has more evidence, evolution or creationism, but to be honest, none of you have that basis anyway, you haven't read the entire bible and studied creationism to every last bit of information, nor did you go to high school with darwin and talked for 3 hours a day through the telegraph, i'm going to say that you guys /shouldn't/ state facts, as those "facts" mean shit without /several/ sources of /reliable/ information.
I have a religion school book where is written which of the two has more flaws.
Knux wrote:...You don't need to? What is your point here? That I have to be pedantic and read absolutely every last scrap of information before I can talk about evolution?
Ok, i phrased my original post in a wrong way now that i'm reading it again, but my point is that you shouldn't say the other is fake while yours is real.
Knux wrote:...You don't need to? What is your point here? That I have to be pedantic and read absolutely every last scrap of information before I can talk about evolution?
Ok, i phrased my original post in a wrong way now that i'm reading it again, but my point is that you shouldn't say the other is fake while yours is real.
Science IS fact though.
Basically this. Evolution, a scientific theory, is evidence-based fact, while creationism is basically a story that people have baselessly believed for a couple thousand years.
Wait, creationism is still a thing? Even in church/schools in here creationism is only taught as a fairy tale to the children. And I went to a religious school.
In some less educated parts of the US, yes, creationism is still taught unfortunately. It shouldn't be, but it is, thanks to the Christian right completely controlling those parts of the nation.
Pseudo-dino wrote:In some less educated parts of the US, yes, creationism is still taught unfortunately. It shouldn't be, but it is, thanks to the Christian right completely controlling those parts of the nation.
This post illustrates why both creationism and evolutionism should be taught in schools. People have the freedom to choose, and you can't just limit their choices and culture because "nuh-uh".
Pseudo-dino wrote:In some less educated parts of the US, yes, creationism is still taught unfortunately. It shouldn't be, but it is, thanks to the Christian right completely controlling those parts of the nation.
This post illustrates why both creationism and evolutionism should be taught in schools. People have the freedom to choose, and you can't just limit their choices and culture because "nuh-uh".
Reality isn't a democracy though. Evolution is a well supported scientific theory (different from the everyday use of the word "theory"), and creationism is a wide held belief. Teaching both would hold Christianity as a preference in schools which would violate the first amendment in "respecting an establishment of religion" since schools are a public institution. To prevent that and teach creation, the creation stories of every other religion would have to be taught which is neither reasonable nor practical.
I mean, unless creation stands up to the scientific method, science should be taught in science class and creation should be taught at church. If creation, whether it be old or young earth; however, does go through rigorous testing to reach the level of a theory then I would absolutely support it being taught, because it would then be an evidence based, and informed look on how the world and life works.
Pseudo-dino wrote:In some less educated parts of the US, yes, creationism is still taught unfortunately. It shouldn't be, but it is, thanks to the Christian right completely controlling those parts of the nation.
This post illustrates why both creationism and evolutionism should be taught in schools. People have the freedom to choose, and you can't just limit their choices and culture because "nuh-uh".
Within that concept, people should be allowed to choose between believing rain is the cause of clouds condensing, or it's the fury of God (a theory as old as the creationism). The only difference is that rain is a proven fact, evolution is just a highly supported claim.
Why do we consider evolution to be adversative to creationism though? Maybe they're related in the context of God shaping the world and modeling its fauna.
Last edited by Raster on Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pixy wrote:Why do we consider evolution to be adversative to creationism though? Maybe they're related in the contest of God shaping the world and modeling its fauna.
Welcome to the wonderful world of theistic evolution.
Pixy wrote:Why do we consider evolution to be adversative to creationism though? Maybe they're related in the context of God shaping the world and modeling its fauna.
Welcome to the wonderful world of theistic evolution.
I'm not saying they're definitely related. I'm just saying they don't have to be adversative.
God creating the world in seven days also is up for interpretation as well. "Seven days" very well might not've meant seven precisely-24-hour days. Maybe each day took 1 billion years!!!
Pixy wrote:Why do we consider evolution to be adversative to creationism though? Maybe they're related in the context of God shaping the world and modeling its fauna.
It generally is, though, unless you drift into theistic evolution as GhostHawk said. "Creationism" as the term is generally understood in the US uses the Genesis creation narrative as its basis, which is basically impossible to shoehorn evolution into. As the term is used in the US, they are actually fundamentally incompatible.
Also yes Garro what you said.
Also sleepy as I mentioned earlier in the topic Pokémon evolution isn't really based on real evolution. It's much more similar to metamorphosis or an animal's general life cycle than actual evolution.
Joey wrote:God creating the world in seven days also is up for interpretation as well. "Seven days" very well might not've meant seven precisely-24-hour days. Maybe each day took 1 billion years!!!
's partially related, I guess.
Considering the frequent use of metaphor in the Bible, I definitely agree.
