[_ Old Earth _] In schools

[Featherbop]

No

 

[Barbarian]

Since macroevolution has been directly observed, there's no doubt that it's a fact.

It's much better explained than gravity, for example.

 

[Featherbop]

real evolution hasn't been observed. Except for some natural changes adaptions, whatever.

But much of it remains unexplained, so I don't have a problem with it being taught as an idea, but to teach it as fact would be bad.

Not that I expect public schools to be good at doing anything, especially this.

Also, barbarian, what you consider Macro"evolution" and other kinds of ecvoution, may not be really evolution or considered evolution by everyone else.

What is actually found to be 100% true should be taught.

Putting a name on it that everyone must adhere to is unwise.

So please do not hide behind that. Thank you.

 

[Vic C.]

Since macroevolution has been directly observed, there's no doubt that it's a fact.

It's much better explained than gravity, for example.

LOL, Gravity can be directly observed too. Sit underneath an apple tree and wait for an apple to fall on your head. :

Maybe gravity can't be explained because it is a Divine mystery.

 

[Featherbop]

Its not a mystery to me. Its a force that an Intelligent Designer Created. I know why its there.

 

[Vic C.]

Mystery as in a lack of understanding how and why it works. I understand what you are saying though.

 

[Featherbop]

i know its scientifically mysterious, but come on, simple everyday concept though, right?

What goes up, must go down. :

 

[Vic C.]

Sort of like spitting into the wind, eh? 8)

 

[Featherbop]

eww, but yeah.

 

[Bryan]

Since macroevolution has been directly observed, there's no doubt that it's a fact.

That's the funniest thing I've read all week.

 

[Featherbop]

Careful Bryan! Hes going to use scientific Facts on you now! :

 

[Vic C.]

LOL@both of you. You funny!

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

real evolution hasn't been observed. Except for some natural changes adaptions, whatever.

But much of it remains unexplained, so I don't have a problem with it being taught as an idea, but to teach it as fact would be bad.

Not that I expect public schools to be good at doing anything, especially this.

Also, barbarian, what you consider Macro"evolution" and other kinds of ecvoution, may not be really evolution or considered evolution by everyone else.

No, Featherbop, I wouldn't expect you to just leave the goal post where it is when he's so close, make him run for it!
Microevolution has been observed, specization has been observed, assuming they've been going across all the time this planet has had life then the theory of evolution is the best fit to the data we have.

What is actually found to be 100% true should be taught.

So schools can only teach english and math now? History, all Science, Psychology, Gym and Health, all use evidence and projections from theories to explain things, even gym and health. None are 100% correct in their methods to reach their goals or their facts.

Putting a name on it that everyone must adhere to is unwise.

So please do not hide behind that. Thank you.

Wrong, it is necessary for clear communication. There have to be clear definitions to what we're talking about or you can just start changing the definition so that any evidence provided is still 'not enough.'

 

[Barbarian]

Even most scientific creationists now admit that new species evolve. They can hardly avoid doing so since we've directly observed it, the first case in about 1905, by de Vries (the man who re-discovered Mendel's work).

They just shoved the goal posts back a little. "Well yes, but that's not real evolution." After that, there's usually a demand to show a rabbit evolving from a bird or similar things, that are not predictions of evolutionary theory.

We know why evolution works in fundamental outline. We have no idea why gravity works. Evolution is much better documented and explained by evolutionary theory than gravity is by any theory at all.

 

[Featherbop]

barbarian: Its not evolution. Its natural proceesses that happen. Nothing evlutionary about it. Unless by name only.

The evolutionists stole what should have been the creationists.

They are using creationist evidence to dispute creation. leaves a bad taste.

_____

Sintax: 100% true may not have been the best statement.

But use your imagination to figure out what I mean.

Anyway, so far makiking something all fall under one name has produced wrong information, unnessesary arguements, and problems that aren't neccesary.

The schools, sciences, the world has a mess from this crap.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

barbarian: Its not evolution. Its natural proceesses that happen. Nothing evlutionary about it. Unless by name only.

The evolutionists stole what should have been the creationists.

They are using creationist evidence to dispute creation. leaves a bad taste.

Failure to compute, losing field strength, reactor failure imminent
Prepare for the Third Impact

_____

Sintax: 100% true may not have been the best statement.

But use your imagination to figure out what I mean.

I imagine that anything you think is scientifically wrong because of your highly advanced theological opinion ought to be stripped from the education of youth, without any regard for the cataclysmic results on modern biological science this would cause.

Anyway, so far makiking something all fall under one name has produced wrong information, unnessesary arguements, and problems that aren't neccesary.

The schools, sciences, the world has a mess from this crap.

You seem to be implying that ambigueity causes no problems in debates and that the teaching of evolution causes a more significant socioeconomic impact than the past thousand years of history, the products and finances of every country in the world, and the fact that we've been in a low part of cyclical world economics.
Care to clarify?

 

[Featherbop]

No sintax, I am simply saying that by using terms known to incite anger among relgions, its causing problems on purpose.

By classifying things under evolution which most non- evolutioners would probably think goes against their relgion, it incites ignorance which is not good.

When small, non-evolutionary changes happen, they are classified as evolution. no matter what it is, relgious people are quick to point out that it isn't true, when in fact, it probably supports their relgion, not proving it false.

Its a mess.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

So you have decided to call things that can be observed non evolutionary, despite the fact that they ARE evolution by the very definition of evolution.
This is a wall, where's my sledgehammer?

 

[Barbarian]

Its not evolution. Its natural proceesses that happen.

Evolution is "natural processes that happen." That's how it works.

Nothing evlutionary about it. Unless by name only.

If we gave it another name, it would still work. Darwin liked "descent with modification." I do to. If you like, we can call it that.

The evolutionists stole what should have been the creationists.

It it's any comfort, the creationists who do admit that new taxa evolve don't use "evolution" to describe it.

They are using creationist evidence to dispute creation.

The evolution of new taxa seems to me to be evidence for evolution. It doesn't say anything about creation, but it definitely refutes creationism.

Anyway, so far makiking something all fall under one name has produced wrong information, unnessesary arguements, and problems that aren't neccesary.

Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time. That takes in a lot of phenomena. Chemistry is the interactions of valence electrons. That takes in a lot of phenomena, too. If creationists have problems with certain aspects of evolution, then that's a reasonable basis for discussion.

But pretending that evolution is not what it is, is the problem.

The schools, sciences, the world has a mess from this crap.

I wonder if you were aware that our 8th grade students in the US average slightly above average in science, in the last International Math and Science Study, in which kids from 40 nations took the same math and science tests? If you remove the Southeastern U.S., we score a lot above average, and most states in the upper Midwest rival the best nations in the world.

Guess where evolution is most frequently taught. Guess where it's least frequently taught.

'Nuff said.

 

[Featherbop]

No. what I'm sayin is that what is happening is not evfolution continuing form a random big bang and then simple life emerged and came to be what is today.

What happens, happens. wildly simple.

what is observed happening, should be taught. The atheistic veiw: evilution is taught.

It should not be. Thats teaching relgion.

What is happening is happeining from the beginning of creation, not a random, godless, big bang, explsion, evolving life from oceans or whatever.

That has not been provne at all.

___

the bottom line is teach what is proven, but do not teach the atheistic veiw of it. nor the creationist veiw.

Thats it. Arguement over.