Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools

2008-02-19T20:56:27Z

L0tics: /* No, not in public schools */

No.

who left this stub here like this?

== Yes ==

I believe science is objective, and therefore we should have as many different view points in the scientific community as there are scientists. Obviously not every view point can be taught in schools but they ought to be theaching the main ones.
So I think the main point of this question is: Is creationism a main point of view?
I'll get to that, but first as to Intelligent design.
ID, as its called, is just creationisim in disguise. The liberals say ID is being used as a way to sneak God into the schools. I think that, for once, they're right. Intelligent design is not explicitly religious and it has all the proof creationisim has, except for the Bible. But its not really any different scientifically and a science class should display a variety of scientist's views.

[[Creationisim]] says there is indirect scientific proof for a Biblical begining to the universe. I think it is a main point of view because there are scientists who believe it and they observe, experiment; they have even better evidence than the evolutionists.
Of course, no science: Creation, Evolution, or otherwise, can ''prove ''%100, anything about the origin of the universe. Scientific infallability only comes with direct observation. -[[User:StevenM]]

== No, not in public schools ==
*I think it's fine to teach that C/ID are views some people hold. However, they should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution because they are not science. Science is falsifiable. Evolution would be thrown out the window if a dog gave birth to a cat, or if a dog turned into a cat. As far as I know (and, I admit, I'm not an expert) C/ID aren't falsifiable. I would gladly accept that they are scientific if some hypothetical result or occurrence that would prove them wrong were suggested and agreed upon by most of the major people in the fields of ID and evolution (Proving the nonexistence of God doesn't count). [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 18:57, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

No, a thousand times no. Science has a place in school, religion has a place in church/the home. This is not science. Chris

== No, but it should be taught as a religious alternative to evolution ==

[[category:conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools

2008-02-19T20:55:53Z

L0tics:

No.

who left this stub here like this?

== Yes ==

I believe science is objective, and therefore we should have as many different view points in the scientific community as there are scientists. Obviously not every view point can be taught in schools but they ought to be theaching the main ones.
So I think the main point of this question is: Is creationism a main point of view?
I'll get to that, but first as to Intelligent design.
ID, as its called, is just creationisim in disguise. The liberals say ID is being used as a way to sneak God into the schools. I think that, for once, they're right. Intelligent design is not explicitly religious and it has all the proof creationisim has, except for the Bible. But its not really any different scientifically and a science class should display a variety of scientist's views.

[[Creationisim]] says there is indirect scientific proof for a Biblical begining to the universe. I think it is a main point of view because there are scientists who believe it and they observe, experiment; they have even better evidence than the evolutionists.
Of course, no science: Creation, Evolution, or otherwise, can ''prove ''%100, anything about the origin of the universe. Scientific infallability only comes with direct observation. -[[User:StevenM]]

== No, not in public schools ==
*I think it's fine to teach that C/ID are views some people hold. However, they should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution because they are not science. Science is falsifiable. Evolution would be thrown out the window if a dog gave birth to a cat, or if a dog turned into a cat. As far as I know (and, I admit, I'm not an expert) C/ID aren't falsifiable. I would gladly accept that they are scientific if some hypothetical result or occurrence that would prove them wrong were suggested and agreed upon by most of the major people in the fields of ID and evolution (Proving the nonexistence of God doesn't count). [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 18:57, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

No, a thousand times no. Science has a place in school, religion only has a place in church/the home. This is not science. Chris

== No, but it should be taught as a religious alternative to evolution ==

[[category:conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools

2008-02-19T20:55:37Z

L0tics:

No.

who left this stub here like this?

== Yes ==

I believe science is objective, and therefore we should have as many different view points in the scientific community as there are scientists. Obviously not every view point can be taught in schools but they ought to be theaching the main ones.
So I think the main point of this question is: Is creationism a main point of view?
I'll get to that, but first as to Intelligent design.
ID, as its called, is just creationisim in disguise. The liberals say ID is being used as a way to sneak God into the schools. I think that, for once, they're right. Intelligent design is not explicitly religious and it has all the proof creationisim has, except for the Bible. But its not really any different scientifically and a science class should display a variety of scientist's views.

[[Creationisim]] says there is indirect scientific proof for a Biblical begining to the universe. I think it is a main point of view because there are scientists who believe it and they observe, experiment; they have even better evidence than the evolutionists.
Of course, no science: Creation, Evolution, or otherwise, can ''prove ''%100, anything about the origin of the universe. Scientific infallability only comes with direct observation. -[[User:StevenM]]

== No, not in public schools ==
*I think it's fine to teach that C/ID are views some people hold. However, they should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution because they are not science. Science is falsifiable. Evolution would be thrown out the window if a dog gave birth to a cat, or if a dog turned into a cat. As far as I know (and, I admit, I'm not an expert) C/ID aren't falsifiable. I would gladly accept that they are scientific if some hypothetical result or occurrence that would prove them wrong were suggested and agreed upon by most of the major people in the fields of ID and evolution (Proving the nonexistence of God doesn't count). [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 18:57, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

== No, but it should be taught as a religious alternative to evolution ==

No, a thousand times no. Science has a place in school, religion only has a place in church/the home. This is not science. Chris

[[category:conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Why the Bible

2008-02-19T20:53:38Z

L0tics:

==Nothing==
There is no evidence that the Bible is more trustworthy than any other piece of literature. The Bible is merely a fictional novel which has traditionally been believed and baselessly seen as the infallible word of God for hundreds of generations.
-Helios

What idiot puts page-long geniologies in a novel??!! Whether the bible is true or not (as I know it is) the ''authors'' seemed to think it's true. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 07:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. I think it was made by some men wanting to show people morals and values, like Aesop fables.

While some Biblical events may be confirmable by more scientific-based types of knowledge, belief in most of the Bible is contingent on faith. Nothing more, nothing less. Take that for what it's worth. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 19:44, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

"Take that for what it's worth."-Ooooo... I get a free Bible. -Helios

I will watch this discussion and see when it gets deleted. There seems to be a concerted effort at policing even these debate areas. [[User:Seekcommon|Seekcommon]] 19:34 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm... if we consider the New Testament as Bible 2.0, then would the Koran be Bible 3.0 or Bible 2.1? And where does this leave the Book of Mormon? 4.0? 3.1? 2.2? 3.1.1? --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 07:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Well since Christianity actually branched off of Judaism the '''Old''' Testament would be v2.0 -Helios

The bible has been put together by hundreds of authors, over the course of around 900 years, and has subsequently been translated (several times), re-written and "improved" by many other hundreds of contributers and writers since. To put any kind of significance upon it at all is at best misguided and at worst plain idiotic. That is not to say that there are some good messages in there, however the majority is just plain weird. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:02, 19 April 2007

If a book was made today and was said to be the work of god, would you believe it? The world isn't as small as it used to be. Chris

You guys are right, the bible is total garbage.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:01, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==2Nihilism==
I know the Bible to be the true Word of God because I have studied it for decades. They are the reasons why I am, as well as others, are driven to study it. There are no grave errors or inconsistencies within the Bible. This is only professed by those who hate Christians and Jews that keep repeating it in the vain hope someone will believe them. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it errant. It just betrays their ignorance and illiteracy. It is readily apparent that some of the ridiculous statements being made here are thinly disguised examples of religious bigotry. Every one of the statements denouncing the Bible as being the Word of God are false, out of context, and total garbage. I see no serious discussion here but only an adolescently motivated hatefest against Judeo-Christianity.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 14:31, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::Roopilots6, you mind as well just give this up. The people you are debating with are nothing more than hard-core Christ haters.[[User:Bohdan|Sysop-Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 15:01, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm not writing it for them. It's for everyone else that reads it. Just so people can see the difference between nihilists and everyone else.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:12, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
This is a typical comment by a brainwashed Christian zealot. They always say how accepting they are of other people. Until any discussion comes into play questioning the bible or their faith. Its a silly book written by some desert nomads and has no basis guiding todays societies and norms. If Jesus could cure blind people...why are people blind? And to say the earth life was created 5K years ago has not facts to support it. Face it we all are a byproduct of algae

I would agree that this arguement is somewhat one sided. I personaly believe that the bible was written by the gretest scolars ever or by beggers, if it provides some sense moral and comfort for people then its worth a read. Even if your not a christian it still has some good morals and is probably worth a read. .[[User:Concretemuncher|Concretemuncher]]

:I personally hold to the idea of limited Biblical Inerrancy, however most of the stories in it are based on '''History''' (although frequently changed by author bias, or changes during the oral tradition). The Authors did not intend on writing a simple novel. The wrote what they believed as Truth. Even though modern science calls the historic, geographic, and scientific statements into question, it still provides what should be common sense morals and ideas. It shows a loving God who cares for us, desires us to be good, not a people hating "Volcano" god. I have gotten something out of it, ideas about life, and thanks to my Jewish friends, humor (Apparently the OT is riddled with Yiddish humor). That's my rant. I dare you to counter it. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:37, 7 February 2008 (EST)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Is atheism morally wrong?

2008-02-19T20:49:29Z

L0tics: /* No */

==Yes==

Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 23:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
...well of course the bible would say so. If atheists such as myself regard the bible as a very long and boring novel the most useful purpose of which is a very painful (trust me on this one) game of dodgeball, how will you show us that we are morally wrong? What makes us think it isn't religion that is morally wrong. Helios-for those who answer to God, for those who are so horribly decieved-Helios

I don't see how Thomas Jefferson quotes can compare to Bible quotes on this matter. Clearly atheism is completely immoral. Notice how the world (at least outside the United States) has gone downhill? Notice how religion is also losing its grip outside the United States? There has to be something in that.
...to quote you "I don't see how Thomas Jefferson quotes can compare to Bible quotes on this matter." I think you may need your proverbial vision checked. On this matter the bible is the most bias source possible. Helios-for those who answer to God, for those who are so horribly decieved-Helios
:Uh... the world isn't going horribly wrong outside of the US. Denmark and Switzerland are the happiest nations on the planet, and they have very very large atheist populations in each. I can see you feel the need to defend your religion, but don't lie. [[User:Blackjuice|Blackjuice]]

:Discuss in the context of Islam. Could you provide some statistics on some indicators of morality (say, violent crime and rape), against the religiousity of an area please? Not picking a fight, just curious about data rather than argument. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The world isn't going downhill due to atheism, I think you're thinking if Islam extremists, heh. Flat out lie in my opinion. Chris.

==No==

To throw another quote out:

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. -[[Thomas Jefferson]]

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 23:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I wonder how Thomas Jefferson is feeling about his eternal damnation in hell for that little pearl of wisdom.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 14:40, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

... what eternal damnation? What hell? That pearl of wisdom, sadly, was not taken by you to mean anything. That pearl of wisdom displays one of the clear and numerous pieces of evidence that there is no god, no heaven. Heaven is merely wishful thinking that stems from the wishes of our ancestors for eternal life, god is merely a way to explain the universe which is no longer necessary. Religion is no longer needed in this world. Helios-for those who answer to God, for those who are so horribly decieved-Helios

It is an unforgivable sin to deny the holy spirit even for a nanosecond. He who dies without being forgiven will be eternaly damned.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 11:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Those who cannot question their faith probably have very little. To '''NOT''' question is morally wrong. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:28, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh, of course it's not morally wrong. One can't exactly help not believing, can one? It would seem a bit unfair if poor old Marie Curie was burning in hell for her athiesm, soon to be joined by Lance Armstrong, Woody Allen and neo-con pin-up boy Christopher Hitchens... --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 12:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:To be fair, that is what the text of the Bible says should happen. I don't believe non-belief is actually called "immoral", however. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Atheism has nothing to do with morals in my life. My morals are chosen by laws of man, my personal interests, and human nature. I don't need religion to tell me what to think since they never want to change or modify their ideas with the times, while laws can be changed to reflect the times. Chris.

Debate:Is atheism morally wrong?

2008-02-19T20:45:19Z

L0tics: /* Yes */

Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?

2008-02-19T20:40:56Z

L0tics: /* Many Authoritative Sounding Assertions Does Not Make For A Conclusive Debate */

{{debate}}

Because it has almost been completely proven. i say almost because science is not used to prove a theory, but disprove others, and it has disproved all other theories in contradiction to evolution.-Marowit

I try and try to hold on to the truth I was taught by my family and the church, but the more I read and learn, the more strongly I become convinced - as if involuntarily - that Darwin, Dawkins and the rest of them are right. Is this Satan tempting me? What should I do to rid myself of the growing conviction that creationism is nonsense spun up by bigots to justify their social status?

creationism is used to promote the idea that " god' created everything, that is why there is a 6,000 year timeline generally cited. By as the proof of creationism is debunked, new ideas to try and cover the flaws in the creationism are floated, enter intelligent design. I'm sure that will be proved false too.

Science works best when theories are attacked - since it brings change, improves old theories or replaces them. "Falsifiability" remains the hallmark. Nothing is immune and so is subject to change because of new information and potentially new interpretation. The more vigorously evolution is attacked, the better it's position gets as the years go by - the attacks are so transparently terrible that it only serves to advance the very cause of science and the scientific process. It is not possible to continue to build a case against evolution using arguments that cannot be sustained except in those minds that will refuse to accept anything that contradicts what they fervently believe. The debate continues. That it is not necessary to attack evolution as a way to justify the presence of God is amply demonstrated by Francis Collins in his latest book "Language of God" or Kenneth R. Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" (and his articles). Perhaps many who were never aware of what evolution really is, may now make themselves aware - in trying to understand why there is so much venom against it. I mean, if something is being attacked so vigorously, it will pique more interest. So, bring it on.

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It has not been proved and it never will be. There is no need to investigate this topic using "science" when it is clearly answered in Genesis. Furthermore, science is a manifestation of the devil fabricated to undermine God and his beautiful gift to all mankind. My advice to you my Christian brother is: Love your god and your country in that order and never doubt the decisions of either.

:Evolution is a theory. I have a book at home and it says that evolution is true. You have a book that says god created the world. The differnce is that my book wasn;t written in a time where people were very uneducated and needed explanations for things when they had no means of backing them up. genisis is the same book that says we all came from two people: Adam and Eve. It then says that they had 3 sons, one of which wa bad and left to go live with other people. How is this possible when theyr are only 5 people on Earth? You may say that this is just an exageration of what really happend, but who are you to say what parts of Genisis are true and which parts just fill in the gaps? You are right though when you say the theory of Evoulotion is full of holes, and that their are many things on Earth and the universe that are no understood. But in time they will be understood by science. We are learning new things everday about our world, in fact, for the longest time we didnt even know what gravity and now we do. Are you saying that we should give this up ad exceot that god created us and that science is bad? You sound an awfull like those who put Capernicus to death after he said that the sun did not revolve around the Earth. by the way, it may not have even had been Capernicus that said that i'm wrong, but it doesn't matter. You religous freaks are to single minded to realize that Bible may not be true. You can believe this if you want, that is your own right, but stop forceing it upon other people.

: It's true, evolution is a theory. There are some other theories that you may have heard about. Theory of electromagnetic radiation and Maxwell's equation, theories that describe how electrons move and behave and ofcourse Einstein's Special and General Theory of Relativity. The internet and browsers and tcp/ip and dhcp and cable modems and phones and dsl are all completely unrelated to science and engineering advancements. Even these words are only a figment of your imagination.

:I think you may want to see [[Theistic Evolution]], the belief that Evolution took place, but God intervened to give humans souls, etc. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, so is gravity. You are right the theory will never be proven, theories are never proven, just tested until they are rendered false. What I do not understand is your statement about science being a manifestation of the devil, are people in the US that uneducated? Science is about finding logical reasons to what is observed. If someone were to tell you that the sun is blue, and you looked up to see the color then checked what you knew to be shades of yellow, just to make sure you were not confused about color, you would be using science. Perhaps you should think on this, also please post your name, Bart2461, it is rude to not do so.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Actually, as this is a sort of Essay, it is not customary to sign your name. In fact, discussion should be taking place on the discussion page, rather than on the actual page. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 16:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: If God is benevolent, then He is not trying to trick you with what you see in the world around you. What you read in the Old Testament and Genesis is written by people with the same basic mindset as those who wrote about Egyptian gods and their creation stories, or Greek gods and their creation stories, or Hindu gods and their creation stories. They were trying to describe the world as best they can. Is it necessary that any of these be ''literally'' true? Or is it more of a way that each ancient culture justifies their connection to their gods? Think about what is necessary for salvation - is it a literal reading of Genesis? or belief in Jesus? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: The urge to believe in somethings are so strong that no matter how many contradictions may exist, there is reluctance to accept that. Peter McWilliams in his book "It's No ones Business if you do" argues persuasively as to how, when examined the context of the time when it was written (like so many books in the history of man) the Bible does contain time immemorial words of wisdom and help. It is scary for many to imagine that such words of wisdom are in fact found in many different parts of the world in different ways and published in many ways. The refusal to see anything other than what one believes is what has led to the many horrors of man's inhumanity to man. -- [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 21:50 (CDT) 22 March 2007

:: Evolution is so darn convincing because it is happening today. Life evolves to fit changing conditions of weather as science has shown us by carefully monitoring the life cycle of certain insects in northern Canada who are breeding a few weeks differently because of global warming. BUT, the question is not, "Does evolution happen" because it does. Instead, the question is: "Did man evolve from a batch of chemicals". The first point is not completely understood because we view a tiny slice of time. Our lack of complete understanding does not let us predict with certainty whether man evolved from a batch of hot chemicals within Earth's history. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
'''Because it is a Fact'''

Evolution is the most verified, validated, proven, observed and observable scientific theories. Only those with an obvious agenda and willful ignorance in the face of clear concise proof still attempt to deny it.

Science and scientists understand what "theory" means. Even though scientists can write ad-nauseam about evidence pointing out to why evolution is supported by evidence, there will always be someone, somewhere pointing out some obscure item/fact that does not seem to agree with existing theories - and instead of asking for a revision of parts of the theory, want to throw the entire thing over ... Oh, yes, the alternatives offered cannot be challenged since the proof of the alternatives (whatever that may be) is axiomatic and consequently do not need anything resembling proof in the way science/scientists understand. Fear pervades a segment of the population that holds on to concepts/ideas that they will simply not let go no matter what the evidence is. And so it goes. Evolution versus Intelligent Design [http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Read a Judgement by a Conservative Judge in the Dover Case from Pennsylvania]

:The little evidence that actually exists in support of evolution is really not all that convincing, (at least to me) and often raises more questions than it does answers. The overwhelming complexity of life and natural systems means that it is entirely unlikely that things developed this way by chance. (This viewpoint, of course, does exclude such concepts as Deistic and Theistic Evolution). In addition, there are literally thousands of "missing links". Science has not been able to conclusively bridge the numerous gaps between species that appear in the fossil record, often concluding, "well, it just happened that way" without any evidence to support such an assertion.

:The available evidence really doesn't support a 6,000 year timeline, to be fair, hence I cannot accept most young earth viewpoints of Creation, but one can still accept a literal creation and be in line with what science has actually discovered. One must realize, however, that the evolution-creation debate lies outside of the scope of science. Neither is repeatable, and neither can truly be tested via the scientific method. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::With respect, your perspective that evolution = chance is false. The following link is a good introduction to explaining why this is so [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html]. It's a bit complicated in places, however. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::Aardvark, one point to make, Creation is not a testable situation but evolution is. Just observation over time of species can support evolution. Viral and bacterial genetic adaptations supports evolution as well as breeding of dogs and corn. If you could not mate two different breeds of dogs and get a new breed over time then evolution would be rendered false. Two different pieces of evidence supporting both micro and macro evolution.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not convincing at all. There's no evidence at all. I spent 3 hours yesterday talking via [[Internet Relay Chat]] with two of the smartest people at Wikipedia, and they were unable to show any evidence of a new species coming into being via natural forces; any evidence supporting the [[Theory of evolution through natural selection]]; or even the appearance of a new species of [[microbe]]. Among other things, "Andre" kept confusing [[strain]] with [[species]]. I'd love to show a transcript but we had all agreed not to log the chat session. Darn. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:As for the origin of a new species, no it would not be clear since speciation usually involves relatively small changes, be they physiological, morphological, behavioral, or, as often the case, simply genetic. The only way for us to determine if a new species had evolved would be through a series of comparisons of the organism to the parent species. This can be a problem due to horizontal gene transfer which can make it even more difficult to define a new species. All definitions of species assume that an organism gets all its genes from one or two parents which are very like that organism, but horizontal gene transfer makes that assumption false. So in regards to finding a new species, it will not be evident. All that can be shown to provide evidence for evolution in organisms in a controlled environment would be the small mutations that cause physiological change in the offspring such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Would this be considered a new species of bacteria, no it would be a new strain. However what would define a new species of bacteria? A change of shape, say from rod to sphere? This might be possible if the bacteria were subjected to gradual environmental stresses. Perhaps I should try this in the lab (could make a very interesting observation).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:19, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing is, evolution is shoved down out throats as a fact. The truth of the matter is, theres evidence to support multipul theories of existance. The problem is that evolution is the one that is being taught simply because its the most "scientific". i don't think man will ever know the absolute truth. Never. But what can you do? [[User: DfairlyXED13|DfairlyXED13]]
: No one is forcing anything down your throat. You are free to believe that the earth and everything was created 4000 years ago (or 6000 or whatever your Bible tells you). I am glad you know the absolute truth. You may be perturbed to learn that much of modern medicine depends on a knowledge of evolution and the role it plays today - particularly with respect to those nasties we call bacteria that can kill. But then, I am sure you have alternate explanations that work for you, good. I am sure it may also perturb you that millions and billions of others seem to be ignorant of what you believe or do not want to believe whatever you believe. So, what can you do? Believe what you believe, spread your word loudly so everyone can hear. Preach the words you know to everyone and defend yourself against attacks as coming from ignorant people who do not know the absolute truth. I would also recommend you simply stop taking science and math classes, they will distress you.[[User:Seekcommon]]

I'd have to say that the very reason the Evolution - Creation debate is such a hotbed of activity is because those that interpret scripture literally are threatened by it. If the theory of evolution were as blatantly false as its opponents dictate, then it would be little threat to Creationist thinking, and therefore not worth the time and energy debating. However, because popular opinion overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution, it comes as a threat to its opponents, one that they spend enormous amounts of energy trying to refute, often with belittling attacks that point out flaws or missing details (ironically only strengthening the scientific method in practice). And I don't really care about anybody who says that the majority does NOT support evolution. That is just false. It doesn't matter if all of America denied evolution; the majority would still rest squarely on the shoulders of Evolution. That's right, there is, in fact, a world outside of the United States' public opinion.
Also, it's interesting to note that there are very few (if any) people opposed to the theory of evolution without religios overtones. It seems like the problem arises only when a perceived contradiction with Scripture is observed. In fact, all opponents of the theory of evolution have had a religious agenda replacing it. If the scientific evidence against Evolution were truly as vast as Creationists explain, then the Evolution theory would be eclipsed by another scientific theory. But, since that hasn't happened yet, it looks like most of the available evidence points towards evolution.
p.s. if anyone can direct me to published works from non-religious alternatives to Evolution, please let me know!
[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

Probably because it makes more sense than the notion of creation.

==Because your religion demands it==
The Humanist religion demands that you adopt the faith of evolution. I see everyone of that faith has chimed in together on that issue. That's good for you then. For the rest of us non-believers are yet to see any, and I mean any convincing evidence. Still only a theory, and always will be. Except for those of you with greater faith then me of course. Non-theistic religions need alot of that too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:09, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Roopilots6, why so cold? :-)

It seems as if your response to everything regarding evolution and related is "Bah, humanists!" However, there's never any warranted argument there, or perhaps I am missing it. All you say is "I'm not convinced!" Could that be because ''your'' religion demands that you believe in Creationism? Sounds like a personal problem. ;-) Seriously, though, the point of Evolution is that it seeks proof. This is at odds with your claim that evolution is part of the "Humanist Religion" [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 20:17, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:Humanism is a type of religion, even if it does not have churches. In order to be a humanist, or a secular progressive, one has to accept all there beliefs. You obviously do. --[[User:Todd16|Todd]] 20:20, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::Maybe if people would attempt to read any of the Humanist Manifestos floating around they could possibly understand the direct correlation between Humanism and evolutionary theory. Perhaps it is because they are too cold to care and just say bah, Judeo-Christians! Easier just to accuse others of having a personal problem with an idea then to use any critical thinking on the subject. Here's a clue to it: Humanism rejects the spiritual realm as denoted by their manifesto and so does the 150+ year old theory of evolution.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:47, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
::FOOTNOTES- Humanist Manifestos I,II,2000,Amsterdam Declaration. All are available for reading through any search engine.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:52, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

==Many Authoritative Sounding Assertions Does Not Make For A Conclusive Debate==

These debates are silly as there are very few footnotes backing up assertions. I suggest creating some noteworthy articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:40, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

They are only silly if you adamantly oppose one view point in favor of the other. It will not matter how many foot notes one provides, you will not look them up for your mind is made up in the matter.

Let's face it, there are many "authoritative" voices coming from the scientific community that makes evolution convincing. On the flip side, there are many "charasmatic" voices coming from the creation/intelligent design camp which counter those voices. The evidence ends up being interpreted according to one's world view.

{{unsigned|Jbw224}} (November 2007)

Evolution is far from being proven. What is this convincing evidence? Some peppered moths changing colour. That sounds like reproduction according to its own kind to me. And fossils of extinct animals / dinosaurs? These 'scientists' will consider any mass extinction theory, except the one written about in the Bible. The evolution fantasy is clearly a theory, which is unbelievable, flawed and unprovable. Adam

Evolution is a fantasy? I'm sorry, but at least it is something we can observe in some way or another with our own eyes, unlike your god. Chris

: (paraphrasing Jbs224): Let's face it, there are many "authoritative" voices coming from the scientific community that makes creation convincing. On the flip side, there are many "charasmatic" voices coming from the evolution camp which counter those voices. The evidence ends up being interpreted according to one's world view. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:25, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?

2008-02-19T20:40:24Z

L0tics: /* Many Authoritative Sounding Assertions Does Not Make For A Conclusive Debate */

{{debate}}

Because it has almost been completely proven. i say almost because science is not used to prove a theory, but disprove others, and it has disproved all other theories in contradiction to evolution.-Marowit

I try and try to hold on to the truth I was taught by my family and the church, but the more I read and learn, the more strongly I become convinced - as if involuntarily - that Darwin, Dawkins and the rest of them are right. Is this Satan tempting me? What should I do to rid myself of the growing conviction that creationism is nonsense spun up by bigots to justify their social status?

creationism is used to promote the idea that " god' created everything, that is why there is a 6,000 year timeline generally cited. By as the proof of creationism is debunked, new ideas to try and cover the flaws in the creationism are floated, enter intelligent design. I'm sure that will be proved false too.

Science works best when theories are attacked - since it brings change, improves old theories or replaces them. "Falsifiability" remains the hallmark. Nothing is immune and so is subject to change because of new information and potentially new interpretation. The more vigorously evolution is attacked, the better it's position gets as the years go by - the attacks are so transparently terrible that it only serves to advance the very cause of science and the scientific process. It is not possible to continue to build a case against evolution using arguments that cannot be sustained except in those minds that will refuse to accept anything that contradicts what they fervently believe. The debate continues. That it is not necessary to attack evolution as a way to justify the presence of God is amply demonstrated by Francis Collins in his latest book "Language of God" or Kenneth R. Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" (and his articles). Perhaps many who were never aware of what evolution really is, may now make themselves aware - in trying to understand why there is so much venom against it. I mean, if something is being attacked so vigorously, it will pique more interest. So, bring it on.

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It has not been proved and it never will be. There is no need to investigate this topic using "science" when it is clearly answered in Genesis. Furthermore, science is a manifestation of the devil fabricated to undermine God and his beautiful gift to all mankind. My advice to you my Christian brother is: Love your god and your country in that order and never doubt the decisions of either.

:Evolution is a theory. I have a book at home and it says that evolution is true. You have a book that says god created the world. The differnce is that my book wasn;t written in a time where people were very uneducated and needed explanations for things when they had no means of backing them up. genisis is the same book that says we all came from two people: Adam and Eve. It then says that they had 3 sons, one of which wa bad and left to go live with other people. How is this possible when theyr are only 5 people on Earth? You may say that this is just an exageration of what really happend, but who are you to say what parts of Genisis are true and which parts just fill in the gaps? You are right though when you say the theory of Evoulotion is full of holes, and that their are many things on Earth and the universe that are no understood. But in time they will be understood by science. We are learning new things everday about our world, in fact, for the longest time we didnt even know what gravity and now we do. Are you saying that we should give this up ad exceot that god created us and that science is bad? You sound an awfull like those who put Capernicus to death after he said that the sun did not revolve around the Earth. by the way, it may not have even had been Capernicus that said that i'm wrong, but it doesn't matter. You religous freaks are to single minded to realize that Bible may not be true. You can believe this if you want, that is your own right, but stop forceing it upon other people.

: It's true, evolution is a theory. There are some other theories that you may have heard about. Theory of electromagnetic radiation and Maxwell's equation, theories that describe how electrons move and behave and ofcourse Einstein's Special and General Theory of Relativity. The internet and browsers and tcp/ip and dhcp and cable modems and phones and dsl are all completely unrelated to science and engineering advancements. Even these words are only a figment of your imagination.

:I think you may want to see [[Theistic Evolution]], the belief that Evolution took place, but God intervened to give humans souls, etc. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, so is gravity. You are right the theory will never be proven, theories are never proven, just tested until they are rendered false. What I do not understand is your statement about science being a manifestation of the devil, are people in the US that uneducated? Science is about finding logical reasons to what is observed. If someone were to tell you that the sun is blue, and you looked up to see the color then checked what you knew to be shades of yellow, just to make sure you were not confused about color, you would be using science. Perhaps you should think on this, also please post your name, Bart2461, it is rude to not do so.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Actually, as this is a sort of Essay, it is not customary to sign your name. In fact, discussion should be taking place on the discussion page, rather than on the actual page. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 16:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: If God is benevolent, then He is not trying to trick you with what you see in the world around you. What you read in the Old Testament and Genesis is written by people with the same basic mindset as those who wrote about Egyptian gods and their creation stories, or Greek gods and their creation stories, or Hindu gods and their creation stories. They were trying to describe the world as best they can. Is it necessary that any of these be ''literally'' true? Or is it more of a way that each ancient culture justifies their connection to their gods? Think about what is necessary for salvation - is it a literal reading of Genesis? or belief in Jesus? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: The urge to believe in somethings are so strong that no matter how many contradictions may exist, there is reluctance to accept that. Peter McWilliams in his book "It's No ones Business if you do" argues persuasively as to how, when examined the context of the time when it was written (like so many books in the history of man) the Bible does contain time immemorial words of wisdom and help. It is scary for many to imagine that such words of wisdom are in fact found in many different parts of the world in different ways and published in many ways. The refusal to see anything other than what one believes is what has led to the many horrors of man's inhumanity to man. -- [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 21:50 (CDT) 22 March 2007

:: Evolution is so darn convincing because it is happening today. Life evolves to fit changing conditions of weather as science has shown us by carefully monitoring the life cycle of certain insects in northern Canada who are breeding a few weeks differently because of global warming. BUT, the question is not, "Does evolution happen" because it does. Instead, the question is: "Did man evolve from a batch of chemicals". The first point is not completely understood because we view a tiny slice of time. Our lack of complete understanding does not let us predict with certainty whether man evolved from a batch of hot chemicals within Earth's history. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
'''Because it is a Fact'''

Evolution is the most verified, validated, proven, observed and observable scientific theories. Only those with an obvious agenda and willful ignorance in the face of clear concise proof still attempt to deny it.

Science and scientists understand what "theory" means. Even though scientists can write ad-nauseam about evidence pointing out to why evolution is supported by evidence, there will always be someone, somewhere pointing out some obscure item/fact that does not seem to agree with existing theories - and instead of asking for a revision of parts of the theory, want to throw the entire thing over ... Oh, yes, the alternatives offered cannot be challenged since the proof of the alternatives (whatever that may be) is axiomatic and consequently do not need anything resembling proof in the way science/scientists understand. Fear pervades a segment of the population that holds on to concepts/ideas that they will simply not let go no matter what the evidence is. And so it goes. Evolution versus Intelligent Design [http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Read a Judgement by a Conservative Judge in the Dover Case from Pennsylvania]

:The little evidence that actually exists in support of evolution is really not all that convincing, (at least to me) and often raises more questions than it does answers. The overwhelming complexity of life and natural systems means that it is entirely unlikely that things developed this way by chance. (This viewpoint, of course, does exclude such concepts as Deistic and Theistic Evolution). In addition, there are literally thousands of "missing links". Science has not been able to conclusively bridge the numerous gaps between species that appear in the fossil record, often concluding, "well, it just happened that way" without any evidence to support such an assertion.

:The available evidence really doesn't support a 6,000 year timeline, to be fair, hence I cannot accept most young earth viewpoints of Creation, but one can still accept a literal creation and be in line with what science has actually discovered. One must realize, however, that the evolution-creation debate lies outside of the scope of science. Neither is repeatable, and neither can truly be tested via the scientific method. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::With respect, your perspective that evolution = chance is false. The following link is a good introduction to explaining why this is so [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html]. It's a bit complicated in places, however. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::Aardvark, one point to make, Creation is not a testable situation but evolution is. Just observation over time of species can support evolution. Viral and bacterial genetic adaptations supports evolution as well as breeding of dogs and corn. If you could not mate two different breeds of dogs and get a new breed over time then evolution would be rendered false. Two different pieces of evidence supporting both micro and macro evolution.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not convincing at all. There's no evidence at all. I spent 3 hours yesterday talking via [[Internet Relay Chat]] with two of the smartest people at Wikipedia, and they were unable to show any evidence of a new species coming into being via natural forces; any evidence supporting the [[Theory of evolution through natural selection]]; or even the appearance of a new species of [[microbe]]. Among other things, "Andre" kept confusing [[strain]] with [[species]]. I'd love to show a transcript but we had all agreed not to log the chat session. Darn. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:As for the origin of a new species, no it would not be clear since speciation usually involves relatively small changes, be they physiological, morphological, behavioral, or, as often the case, simply genetic. The only way for us to determine if a new species had evolved would be through a series of comparisons of the organism to the parent species. This can be a problem due to horizontal gene transfer which can make it even more difficult to define a new species. All definitions of species assume that an organism gets all its genes from one or two parents which are very like that organism, but horizontal gene transfer makes that assumption false. So in regards to finding a new species, it will not be evident. All that can be shown to provide evidence for evolution in organisms in a controlled environment would be the small mutations that cause physiological change in the offspring such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Would this be considered a new species of bacteria, no it would be a new strain. However what would define a new species of bacteria? A change of shape, say from rod to sphere? This might be possible if the bacteria were subjected to gradual environmental stresses. Perhaps I should try this in the lab (could make a very interesting observation).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:19, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing is, evolution is shoved down out throats as a fact. The truth of the matter is, theres evidence to support multipul theories of existance. The problem is that evolution is the one that is being taught simply because its the most "scientific". i don't think man will ever know the absolute truth. Never. But what can you do? [[User: DfairlyXED13|DfairlyXED13]]
: No one is forcing anything down your throat. You are free to believe that the earth and everything was created 4000 years ago (or 6000 or whatever your Bible tells you). I am glad you know the absolute truth. You may be perturbed to learn that much of modern medicine depends on a knowledge of evolution and the role it plays today - particularly with respect to those nasties we call bacteria that can kill. But then, I am sure you have alternate explanations that work for you, good. I am sure it may also perturb you that millions and billions of others seem to be ignorant of what you believe or do not want to believe whatever you believe. So, what can you do? Believe what you believe, spread your word loudly so everyone can hear. Preach the words you know to everyone and defend yourself against attacks as coming from ignorant people who do not know the absolute truth. I would also recommend you simply stop taking science and math classes, they will distress you.[[User:Seekcommon]]

I'd have to say that the very reason the Evolution - Creation debate is such a hotbed of activity is because those that interpret scripture literally are threatened by it. If the theory of evolution were as blatantly false as its opponents dictate, then it would be little threat to Creationist thinking, and therefore not worth the time and energy debating. However, because popular opinion overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution, it comes as a threat to its opponents, one that they spend enormous amounts of energy trying to refute, often with belittling attacks that point out flaws or missing details (ironically only strengthening the scientific method in practice). And I don't really care about anybody who says that the majority does NOT support evolution. That is just false. It doesn't matter if all of America denied evolution; the majority would still rest squarely on the shoulders of Evolution. That's right, there is, in fact, a world outside of the United States' public opinion.
Also, it's interesting to note that there are very few (if any) people opposed to the theory of evolution without religios overtones. It seems like the problem arises only when a perceived contradiction with Scripture is observed. In fact, all opponents of the theory of evolution have had a religious agenda replacing it. If the scientific evidence against Evolution were truly as vast as Creationists explain, then the Evolution theory would be eclipsed by another scientific theory. But, since that hasn't happened yet, it looks like most of the available evidence points towards evolution.
p.s. if anyone can direct me to published works from non-religious alternatives to Evolution, please let me know!
[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

Probably because it makes more sense than the notion of creation.

==Because your religion demands it==
The Humanist religion demands that you adopt the faith of evolution. I see everyone of that faith has chimed in together on that issue. That's good for you then. For the rest of us non-believers are yet to see any, and I mean any convincing evidence. Still only a theory, and always will be. Except for those of you with greater faith then me of course. Non-theistic religions need alot of that too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:09, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Roopilots6, why so cold? :-)

It seems as if your response to everything regarding evolution and related is "Bah, humanists!" However, there's never any warranted argument there, or perhaps I am missing it. All you say is "I'm not convinced!" Could that be because ''your'' religion demands that you believe in Creationism? Sounds like a personal problem. ;-) Seriously, though, the point of Evolution is that it seeks proof. This is at odds with your claim that evolution is part of the "Humanist Religion" [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 20:17, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:Humanism is a type of religion, even if it does not have churches. In order to be a humanist, or a secular progressive, one has to accept all there beliefs. You obviously do. --[[User:Todd16|Todd]] 20:20, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::Maybe if people would attempt to read any of the Humanist Manifestos floating around they could possibly understand the direct correlation between Humanism and evolutionary theory. Perhaps it is because they are too cold to care and just say bah, Judeo-Christians! Easier just to accuse others of having a personal problem with an idea then to use any critical thinking on the subject. Here's a clue to it: Humanism rejects the spiritual realm as denoted by their manifesto and so does the 150+ year old theory of evolution.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:47, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
::FOOTNOTES- Humanist Manifestos I,II,2000,Amsterdam Declaration. All are available for reading through any search engine.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:52, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

==Many Authoritative Sounding Assertions Does Not Make For A Conclusive Debate==

These debates are silly as there are very few footnotes backing up assertions. I suggest creating some noteworthy articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:40, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

They are only silly if you adamantly oppose one view point in favor of the other. It will not matter how many foot notes one provides, you will not look them up for your mind is made up in the matter.

Let's face it, there are many "authoritative" voices coming from the scientific community that makes evolution convincing. On the flip side, there are many "charasmatic" voices coming from the creation/intelligent design camp which counter those voices. The evidence ends up being interpreted according to one's world view.

{{unsigned|Jbw224}} (November 2007)

Evolution is far from being proven. What is this convincing evidence? Some peppered moths changing colour. That sounds like reproduction according to its own kind to me. And fossils of extinct animals / dinosaurs? These 'scientists' will consider any mass extinction theory, except the one written about in the Bible. The evolution fantasy is clearly a theory, which is unbelievable, flawed and unprovable. Adam

Evolution is a fantasy? I'm sorry, but at least it is something we can observe in some way or another with our own eyes, unlike your god.

: (paraphrasing Jbs224): Let's face it, there are many "authoritative" voices coming from the scientific community that makes creation convincing. On the flip side, there are many "charasmatic" voices coming from the evolution camp which counter those voices. The evidence ends up being interpreted according to one's world view. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:25, 30 January 2008 (EST)