[Rutiene]

REGISTER TO REMOVE THIS AD

Originally Posted by Dr. Slick

I've taken those classes, Ruti, I've been into in-depth evolution discussions and theories. I know what it is, I've studied it. Snake eyes just said that 12th grade biology is as in-depth as can be.

I doubt that. There's an entire branch of science based on evolution. What you may perceive to be advanced and in-depth is only so because it is as far as you know. I have taken college courses based just on evolution, and my understanding of is only comprehensive of the fact that I don't know enough about it.

And so you were only forced to take 10th grade biology where evolution is only taught as a tool to teach you logical thinking? I fail to see why that is wrong. It is science, and most of science cannot be absolutely proven as you demand things to be. Most of what we're taught cannot be. Are you asking for us to not learn History, for what we learn is only what we're told and not absolute fact. In the end, the only things that we know as absolutes are the things that are human defined, such as English and Mathematics.

[Dr. Slick]

Originally Posted by Rutiene

I doubt that. There's an entire branch of science based on evolution. What you may perceive to be advanced and in-depth is only so because it is as far as you know. I have taken college courses based just on evolution, and my understanding of is only comprehensive of the fact that I don't know enough about it.

And so you were only forced to take 10th grade biology where evolution is only taught as a tool to teach you logical thinking? I fail to see why that is wrong. It is science, and most of science cannot be absolutely proven as you demand things to be. Most of what we're taught cannot be. Are you asking for us to not learn History, for what we learn is only what we're told and not absolute fact. In the end, the only things that we know as absolutes are the things that are human defined, such as English and Mathematics.

You can doubt it all you want, you can deny everything I've said so far. But I've experienced it, and I'm telling you. I don't care how many classes you've taken. Evolution might have happened. I'm not saying it's false I'm saying that there will never be solid proof, you understand? I'm saying why teach something that doesn't have proof? Math doesn't need proof of any existence. Because 2+2 does equal 4. THAT is fact. You can't say "No it isn't, look at this." It's absolutely insane to do that. But because science does that, they say something happened, but then none of us have no real proof, it is somewhat void.

By the way, I took 11th and 12th grade sciences. It wasn't 10th.

[Rutiene]

Originally Posted by Dr. Slick

You can doubt it all you want, you can deny everything I've said so far. But I've experienced it, and I'm telling you. I don't care how many classes you've taken. Evolution might have happened. I'm not saying it's false I'm saying that there will never be solid proof, you understand? I'm saying why teach something that doesn't have proof? Math doesn't need proof of any existence. Because 2+2 does equal 4. THAT is fact. You can't say "No it isn't, look at this." It's absolutely insane to do that. But because science does that, they say something happened, but then none of us have no real proof, it is somewhat void.

By the way, I took 11th and 12th grade sciences. It wasn't 10th.

I was only talking about the one you were forced to take. Unless there were no pre-reqs for 11 and 12 sciences? In which case, I'd like to reference back to one of my previous posts about the US system not being standardized.

Anyways, first of all, you're talking about macroevolution. And yes, that 'might' have happened. Despite all the evidence, there's always exceptions. I have never claimed otherwise, I said 'evolution' is fact. There is a difference.

But where's the difference between this and religion? Science asks you to question. Gives you the tools as to how. Religion is dependent on faith.

And yes, mathematics doesn't need proof because, like I said, it is human defined. And that is why it is an absolute we know. But here's the thing, nothing can be truly proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the way you ask for it to be proved. With no exception. And then I will have to reiterate what I have said previously, what would you have them teach us to function well in society? Just math and english?

The role of school is to teach us how to deal with this uncertainty and to function well in society. The pure faith of religion plays very little role in our current society in comparison to the logical processes as taught by science. Thus why science would be compulsory, but not religion. Should this be the case? Maybe this is why our world has become so greedy and corrupt. But that is an entirely different debate in itself.

[Dr. Slick]

Originally Posted by Rutiene

I was only talking about the one you were forced to take.

Anyways, first of all, you're talking about macroevolution. And yes, that 'might' have happened. Despite all the evidence, there's always exceptions. I have never claimed otherwise, I said 'evolution' is fact. There is a difference.

But where's the difference between this and religion? Science asks you to question. Gives you the tools as to how. Religion is dependent on faith.

And yes, mathematics doesn't need proof because, like I said, it is human defined. And that is why it is an absolute we know. But here's the thing, nothing can be truly proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the way you ask for it to be proved. With no exception. And then I will have to reiterate what I have said previously, what would you have them teach us to function well in society? Just math and english?

The role of school is to teach us how to deal with this uncertainty and to function well in society. The pure faith of religion plays very little role in our current society in comparison to the logical processes as taught by science. Thus why science would be compulsory, but not religion. Should this be the case? Maybe this is why our world has become so greedy and corrupt. But that is an entirely different debate in itself.

I'm saying don't teach evolution. And even then, you know evolution is a fact? Like you can prove it to me with solid proof? You can seriously go back and show me the evolution of a human being? I'm not talking about macro evolution, I'm talking evolution itself.

You're getting the wrong things from what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that there will never be complete for anything we don't know about. THATS what I'm getting at. You're just assuming that I'm saying it's false. Read everything I write, Ruti, because you've been debating a different subject for the past 20 or so posts.

I'm saying that information can be... subject to change if that is what a person wants.

[Rutiene]

Originally Posted by Dr. Slick

I'm saying don't teach evolution. And even then, you know evolution is a fact? Like you can prove it to me with solid proof? You can seriously go back and show me the evolution of a human being? I'm not talking about macro evolution, I'm talking evolution itself.

You're getting the wrong things from what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that there will never be complete for anything we don't know about. THATS what I'm getting at. You're just assuming that I'm saying it's false. Read everything I write, Ruti, because you've been debating a different subject for the past 20 or so posts.

I'm saying that information can be... subject to change if that is what a person wants.

Evolution is human defined. It is like how we say purple exists. We see something, we put it label on it. So yes, evolution is fact. You are talking about macroevolution.

And if you didn't notice, I have been agreeing with you over the past few posts. Actually, through all my posts. Only explaining why I don't think it's a valid argument to take it out of science.

[Kamui4356]

There are some nuts who insist on teaching ID in the US, but in general, this really isn't as big an issue as it's made out to be. Every now and then some school board will vote to teach intelligent design, but in 90% of the cases the very next election those people are kicked off the board and replaced with people who promise to stop teaching it.

As for people who don't accept evolution, personally I suspect it's because they don't really understand it. Every debate I've participated in on the subject, it was obvious that the people arguing creationism had a completely wrong idea of what evolution says. I'm sure if schools did a better job teaching it, more people would accept it. Most of the arguements creationists use against evolution such as "irreducable complexity" and a lack of "transitional fossils" can only convince people who just don't understand the issue.

[Dr. Slick]

The bible is human defined. Does that make the bible fact?

[Rutiene]

The Bible itself isn't human defined. It was a creation. The label we put on it is human defined, thus yes. The fact that the book is the Bible is fact since we have labeled it the Bible.

[Dr. Slick]

That is why science is biased.

We base the truth on what we believe is truth.

So think about it, Ruti. Seriously, if you think about it, science is useless. It does us no good to ponder something and then teach it to our offspring because we guessed that happened. That type of information handling is incorrect.

And for the last time, I was talking about evolution.

[Rutiene]

Originally Posted by Dr. Slick

That is why science is biased.

We base the truth on what we believe is truth.

So think about it, Ruti. Seriously, if you think about it, science is useless. It does us no good to ponder something and then teach it to our offspring because we guessed that happened. That type of information handling is incorrect.

And for the last time, I was talking about evolution.

Let's agree to disagree on that last point, cause right now I see us standing there just yelling "IS SO" "IS NOT". lol.

Science is not useless if we want to maintain our standard of living. The scientific process also makes sure that what you said does not happen. What you're talking about is philosophy. And of course, every thing's biased =p

[MStevens24]

You are taking my post the wrong way here let me break down what you said

Originally Posted by Moshineko

Not quite. We did that one a loooooong time ago. Creationism is based on religious fear of incorrectness in their dogma, and is thus impervious to all logic that isn't in line with that dogma.

Basically you are saying that people who are christians are just people that are stupid, that dont understand whats going on, and belive in GOD out of pure fear.

Originally Posted by Moshineko

By the same token, anyone waving the Creationism banner isn't going to get much attention from the evolution crowd.

But evolution is, to the rest of the world, fact. It's really only in America (out of the developed nations) that we still fight about this stuff. Even then, it wouldn't be as much of a problem if we weren't so frightened of hurting one anothers' feelings, and if textbook writers weren't such lazy asses. Textbooks are written en masse, so a decision in one area to kowtow to those who break the state/religion border means that EVERYONE gets a new chapter in their textbook, or, more likely, a missing chapter where Darwin and evolution used to be.

Please click on this
http://www.spiritualworld.org/christianity/how_many.htm

Their are over 1 billion chirstains in the world.

My post wasnt to say I disagree with creatinism, or evolution, nor the big bang theroy or whatever theroy you want to say. Nor was it saying that I belive in GOD and that all people that dont are going to hell.

You have your oppinion on how the world works and how it was created, and so do I.

The post was about how in the world you could have the idea that only in america, do people still believe GOD and only in america is not accpeted FACT that we were created 5 billion years ago by little single celled organizms.

Now as I said their are 1 billion christains in the world.

So dont you think it would be smart to say those same people disagree with you?

Once again this post nor my other post isnt arguing GOD vrs. science, but your hair brained Idea that the disagreement doesnt exsist outside of the U.S.A

[Rutiene]

wtf?

MStevens24, that's completely off-topic. He's talking about whether or not people believe ID should replace Evolution in schools. Not whether or not there are people outside the US who don't believe in evolution.

[MStevens24]

Originally Posted by Rutiene

In that case, please take it to PM's as it is actually irrelevant to this debate.

Ok let me break this one down for you as well
Taken from his orginal post Also he should have taken it to pms as well, otherwise he shouldnt have mentioned my name, I wonder, Why didnt you tell him to do the same?

Originally Posted by Moshineko

Okay, MSteven wanted me to reply to his issue in debates, so here it is.


Essentially, in another thread, we got onto the topic of Evolution vs. Creationism. I brought up the fact that this sort of fight is really only an issue (in First World countries) in America.

MSteven disagrees.

I'd love it if we had some non-Americans weigh in on this, as MSteven and I are both Americans.

It's been my experience that the debate as to whether evolution or creation is the proper thing to teach in schools is only an issue here in the States, possibly in Quebec, but not really in any of the other First-World countries. Most other countries don't have a public school system, and don't experience this issue, as it's a state/church boundary issue.

I've been mocked, in fact, by a Swiss cousin who asked me what the hell is wrong with Americans that they'd let that be taught in schools. She's a pretty frequent church-goer, and considers herself a good Catholic, but openly scoffs at the idea of Creationism getting equal play in public schools.

Muslims, as far as I'm aware, tend to be much more forward-thinking about scientific issues than Christians, having invented most of the math and a lot of the medicine and science that we use today. I don't ever recall this sort of debate being an issue in the more wealthy Muslim states, and I'm aware that they're often sent to Europe and the States for their post-secondary educations, and yet there's not a problem that I know of concerning these students and the subject of Creationism.

In most of the rest of the world, it appears that those who support Creationism are lumped together with the Flat Earth believers, and Geo-centrists, as ignorant people whose ideas are centuries out of date.
.

Bascially chirstains are stupid morons, who dont know anything on how the world works

Originally Posted by Moshineko

Really, I don't see what the basis for debate here is, but, as previously stated, MSteven wanted any reply here, so hopefully you folks can make something out of it without devolving into the usual "uh-huh", "nuh-uh" that these usually become.

America is pretty much alone in this one. Australia is really the only other country that has this issue, the rest of the developed world has pretty much accepted that Evolution is a fact, and that Creationism (or Intelligent Design), is a purely spiritual matter, and doesn't have a place in public education. This article (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...809619,00.html) in fact shows that European governments vehemently oppose the theory of Creationism being taught in their schools, and that, at least in Germany (and I suspect in most other states), Creationism is a subject only for Religion classes, not for science-based classes.

Really the only story I can find that seems to portray this as being an actual debate, with the same level of attention paid to it as in the states, is from Serbia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3635794.stm), and even there, Creationism is to be given equal time with Evolution, not to replace it. The U.S. and, apparently, Australia, are really the only countries with large groups of Creationists trying to usurp the teachings of Darwin with those of the Bible.

Bascially what he's saying here is that in america is the only country that still debates creatinism vs. Evolution

Where the basic thing I am saying, is the 1 billion christains throughout the world would disagree.

[Rutiene]

After cleaning up the spam, I will have PM'd you a response.

[Longknife]

Originally Posted by Rutiene

wtf?

MStevens24, that's completely off-topic. He's talking about whether or not people believe ID should replace Evolution in schools. Not whether or not there are people outside the US who don't believe in evolution.

LOL AT RUTI TELLING ONE OF THE GUYS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TOPIC THAT HE'S OFF-TOPIC!



Ruti go read the first post. xD Moshi is asking people from other countries to voice if they think Creationism should be taught in schools, and if that idea is laughable in their country. xD What do you think my post about "You asshole, I wanted to voice for Germany. Dx" was all about? xD