Is evolution vs creationism that important.

[painted wolf]

Or perhaps its because they have been taught poorly and simply don't understand what evolution really is.
Science education in the USA is abysmal in most places. Many people learn a very watered down and often charicaturized. Add to that the distorting lens of the creationist movement, and it's no wonder you have a significant portion of the population confused.

People parrot arguments they think they understand. Often on both sides.

wa:do

 

[logician]

If schools take the approach that evolution "may" have occurred, the battle is already lost.

 

[Autodidact]

Look at your replies I stated that chemistry and phyisics Have laws specifically after I said sciences have laws and you said only math has laws. You replied no they don't

Perhaps you misunderstood my reply and lie was to harsh but you stated an incorrect statement that wolf corrected for you

He states that physics and chemistry have laws because they are math based an interpetation but I'll accept it.

You're confusing me with painted wolf; I stated no such thing. Please retract your accusation against me. An apology would also be appreciated.

 

[Minor-Royal]

Get real people this is important for the simple reason that evolution has no scientific basis atall, no proof that we can see, touch or test.
There is no evidence.period.

Where as creationism has all these things.


(now am I being sarcastic)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Look at your replies I stated that chemistry and phyisics Have laws specifically after I said sciences have laws and you said only math has laws. You replied no they don't

Perhaps you misunderstood my reply and lie was to harsh but you stated an incorrect statement that wolf corrected for you

He states that physics and chemistry have laws because they are math based an interpetation but I'll accept it.

Even in physics and chemistry, "laws" only approximate reality.

The ideal gas law may be exactly true... but only for "ideal" (i.e. non-existent) gases.

Pascal's law may be exactly true... but only for perfectly incompressible (i.e. non-existent) fluids.

Newton's laws of motion may be exactly true... but only in cases where there are no relativistic effects whatsoever (i.e. only non-existent cases).

In science, the existence of a law doesn't necessarily imply better support than a theory. It just means that the subject matter lends itself to very close (but not perfect) approximation with mathematical equations or relationships. In fact, laws will often be elements of a larger theory.

 

[darkendless]

Even in physics and chemistry, "laws" only approximate reality.

The ideal gas law may be exactly true... but only for "ideal" (i.e. non-existent) gases.

Pascal's law may be exactly true... but only for perfectly incompressible (i.e. non-existent) fluids.

Newton's laws of motion may be exactly true... but only in cases where there are no relativistic effects whatsoever (i.e. only non-existent cases).

In science, the existence of a law doesn't necessarily imply better support than a theory. It just means that the subject matter lends itself to very close (but not perfect) approximation with mathematical equations or relationships. In fact, laws will often be elements of a larger theory.

Oh God im doing fluid mechanics as a subject right now. I hate the ideal gas law and SI units. Why the hell would pressure be in Pascals or Kilopascals when we're dealing with Newtons and Metres. Stupid university, always making us convert..... I guess at least we dont have to deal with millibars which are difficult to convert.

To add an example, we usually assume water has a density of 1kg/m^3 at room temperature. However it doesn't, its 997kg/m^3 so its only approximate. In soil mechanics we always assume water has a density of 1, and 9 times out of 10 we don't even recognise temperature.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Get real people this is important for the simple reason that evolution has no scientific basis atall, no proof that we can see, touch or test.
There is no evidence.period.

Where as creationism has all these things.


(now am I being sarcastic)

Get real people this is important for the simple reason that creationsim has no scientific basis at all, no proof that we can see, touch or test.
There is no evidence.period.

Where as evolution has all these things.

Teeee, heeeee, heeeee...

See what I have done? If fixed it for you......

 

[bobhikes]

Previously in the debated I confused the debaters and misunderstood one reply. In doing so I implied Autodidact lied.

I apologise.

 

[Jose Fly]

Bobhikes,

You realize what you've done, don't you? Previously you asked for examples of how evolution affects your life. Several people posted responses, complete with specific examples of exactly what you asked for. You received so many examples, I even prefaced my post with a comment about "piling on".

You disappeared for a few weeks, came back, ignored all the examples everyone worked to provide you, and started off on some tangent about "evolution is trying to be a religion".

At the very least, you should recognize the rudeness of such behavior.

 

[Magic Man]

I understand evolution very well in fact I have written about it.

This statement by you severely contradicts the rest of your post. If you mean you've written about it in the sense that you've written in threads or written how you don't understand it, then I would not doubt it. If you mean you've written about it for class or as some kind of science project, you lost any credibility with the rest of this post.

It is already the prevaling theory taught in schools. Creationism is not taught as a standard. What more do you want science still calls it a theory, why is that.

This is what I mean. If you did actually know anything about it, you'd understand why it's a theory. It's a scientific theory, meaning it's as much fact as the law of gravity is. It being a theory says nothing about it's veracity or validity. You should maybe look up what a scientific theory is, so that you'll realize that the phrase "just a theory" doesn't apply.

Its another science that wants to be a religion. The search for the missing link. Proof that dinosaurs are birds. Different groups of evolutions some believe in the metorite some believe in a super virus. The have there own temples, the museums. They have rules about the names of dinosaurs, I liked brotosaurus, fight over hunters or savengers. They try to capture kids at the youngest ages possible with toys, movies, cartoons. They challenge anyone who disagrees.

What the hell are you talking about here? In essence, what I'm getting now is that you're no better than a creationist who doesn't understand evolution, but bashes it anyway. There are two ways to deal with this. You could either do the research on your own to realize your own mistakes here, or some of us here could help you understand the misconceptions you have. That part's up to you.

 

[Magic Man]

Actually demanding someone follow what you believe is always wrong even if you are proven right. Evolution is still a belief and a theory because all of the biologists still have healthy debates about it.

It's not really demanding anything. It's expecting people to be reasonable. I expect people to follow the belief that the sun comes up every day and goes down every night, too. Is that wrong?

Yes, evolution is a theory, a scientific theory. Learn what that means before proceeding please. You're only making yourself look worse. It, however, is not a belief.

Anything execpted without allowing disent is a religion or a proof.

Huh? That's your definition of religion? Even if we go with that, evolution is still not religion. Anyone and everyone is allowed to challenge it. If anyone can come up with evidence that it's not true, they're welcome to. The fact is that there's no such thing.

Evolution is not a proof so has to be a religion. Just like religions look at the quotes I got originally.

What do you mean by "proof"? Evolution is a fact.

"Evolution does not use species preferences to evolve."

"Evolution does not make bad choices only good."

These people believe because they were told not because they know. I prefer when you allow others find the truth for themselves because then they actually understand. I have a problem when people make false claims because they think they are right.

I also have a problem when people make false claims because they think they're right. That's why I'm trying to get you to learn about evolution before doing just that.

 

[Sententia]

Creationism is bad religion | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

 

[MindHunter]

Even in physics and chemistry, "laws" only approximate reality.

The ideal gas law may be exactly true... but only for "ideal" (i.e. non-existent) gases.

Pascal's law may be exactly true... but only for perfectly incompressible (i.e. non-existent) fluids.

Newton's laws of motion may be exactly true... but only in cases where there are no relativistic effects whatsoever (i.e. only non-existent cases).

In science, the existence of a law doesn't necessarily imply better support than a theory. It just means that the subject matter lends itself to very close (but not perfect) approximation with mathematical equations or relationships. In fact, laws will often be elements of a larger theory.

Unfortunately, there are things such as van der Waals equation (non-ideal gas law), Laplace's Equation (and some others), and I think theoretical / partial physics can be used to explain the non-ideal states, so they can model reality better than the "ideal laws".

Evolution is still a belief and a theory because all of the biologists still have healthy debates about it.

Calling it a belief and a theory is contradictory because a belief implies little knowledge and just accepting something, whereas a theory implies knowledge and testing. A belief is subjective, a theory is objective. Explain to me how something can be both of these at the same time.

So, if it's a theory because scientists have healthy debates, then wouldn't that make religion a theory, after all, scientists have healthy debates over it? If you say no, then bravo, you've contradicted yourself. If you agree, then you must alter the definition of either a theory, a religion or both. So, explain this and explain to me how something can be both a theory and a belief.

 

[logician]

For me, creationism is of no importance, merely a backgroud noise that makes no sense that one must shut out.

 

[darkendless]

For me, creationism is of no importance, merely a backgroud noise that makes no sense that one must shut out.

Its for the scientifically sensitive.

Its like what you tell kids when they ask what sex is at 10 years old. Obviously you give them a silly answer so they shut up and leave you alone.

 

[jrbogie]

In another thread someone said that I would be suprised how much evolution effect my life today. I would like to be suprised. I believe in evolution however I don't see whether evolving or being created affect mylife today except from a religious stand point. I know evolution has helped Doctors and scientists with how the human body works. But what does it do for me today vs if we were created. I would like to be enlightened.

i don't think one can "believe in evolution". the theory of evolution is a subscience of biology. you can study the theory of evolution, you can test it, etc. but believe in it??????

 

[Father Heathen]

Calling evolution a religion makes as much sense as calling gravity a religion.

 

[darkendless]

Calling evolution a religion makes as much sense as calling gravity a religion.

Oh but heathen sir we cant prove gravity therefore it doesnt exist. We logical people have to have faith that gravity is there. Therefore gravity is a religion Then again though, gravity actually makes 100% sense in almost every application of force. Other religions.... well, i guess that depends how much hypocrisy you want to ignore on the way to your conclusion.

 

[themadhair]

I think the problem with the question of “what impact does evolution have in my life?” is that it misses a very important point. This point is also missed by the misnomer title “ Is evolution vs creationism that important” of this forum.

This isn’t ”creationism vs evolution”, this is ”creationism vs science”. One of the real success stories of the creationist movement in the US is to have hoodwinked people into missing this very crucial and relevant point.

 

[MindHunter]

I think the problem with the question of “what impact does evolution have in my life?” is that it misses a very important point. This point is also missed by the misnomer title “ Is evolution vs creationism that important” of this forum.

This isn’t ”creationism vs evolution”, this is ”creationism vs science”. One of the real success stories of the creationist movement in the US is to have hoodwinked people into missing this very crucial and relevant point.

What exactly is this point that you keep referring to? Evolution integrates various fields of science, so says it's creationism vs science rather than creationism vs evolution is simply semantics that don't address the issue of this thread at all.