Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Objectivity

2011-11-11T20:58:20Z

Valuables:

I think that empirical data is not the issue. You can be subjective, simply by selecting which empirical data you choose to consult or present. To me objectivity is the attempt (albeit flawed) to examine an event or an object from all those different perspectives which appear to represent a coherent and conventionally accepted standpoint, and are relevant to the topic under consideration. We might view this as 'triangulation', to ensure that our viewpoint is not biased, one-sided etc.
--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 08:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

The best way to be objective is to proportion different subjective viewpoints based on their validity after critical examination that disregards human constructs such as emotion. For example, this Wiki isn't objective in the slightest, because it proportions almost no opinion to anyone who is: Not a fundamental Christian; not a republican; not against Pro-Choice; etc.

Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?

2011-11-11T20:51:26Z

Valuables:

And how would it do this again? [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 10:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I was thinking the same thing. Honestly, bigotry and racism are pretty much the antithesis of Darwinian evolution, for many reasons. Requirement of genetic diversity, adaption to environments, etc. People who actually state this haven't an idea of Darwinism.
::Actully, xenophobes are much more likely to survive in nature.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 08:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

'''excuse me?''' We are sentient enough to be racist, it does'nt depend on evolution

Umm. People were racist well before Darwin's Theories came about. Frankly I don't see where there can be a debate about this. Rellik

: I love it when people start up a debate just to prove a point. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

! Tribalism creates cooperation and social bonding within a group and so is a positive attribute as far as evolution goes. Evolution doesn't care about genetic diversity - as long as a new trait helps the owner of the DNA, that trait will flourish. It is entirely consistent with evolutionary theory that a trait can evolve and become dominant because it is sucessful in the short term, only to nearly wipe the species out because it is so damaging in the long term. As for adaptation to environment - any new trait that helps the owners of a gene increase their reproductive success IS adaptation to environment. In this sense, bigotry, at the time of its emergence, was a positive adaptation to the social environment.

So, bigotry is a trait that was succesfull in the short-term and so became widespread, but now it is becoming an increasing hazard to humanity and may eventually wipe us out! Curlyhead2000.

:::What??? That makes no sense! Evolution is strictly put to DNA and physical attributes/parts controlled by DNA such as instincts, habituation etc. Bigotry is taught by others to others, its not a natural thing. There is no proof to show that Bigotry is genetic, and it is by far not a safe assumption. The only exception could be imprinting, but because someone is a bigot does not mean that they can physically reproduce better than someone who isn't, or that they can create more offspring. Being a bigot is simply a state of mind, not an [[inherited trait]].

-Bigotry is another word for "mischanneled human agression", and agression is a trait we all share.- Anonymous

I thought that this statement was true, that for social species, you want to stamp out people who are different, because, not necessarily at a logical level, but at some instinctual level you'd want people with genes like yours, or close to yours, to survive more. Examples of this being when a new alpha male lion takes over a pride of females, he will commonly kill the cubs of the preceding alpha male, ensuring that only his genes are passed on.[[User:Vikten|Vikten]] 17:07, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

Xenophobia is a much more accurate term. Bigotry has to do with when people are unwillingly cohesing with those people that they are xenophobic to.

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2011-11-11T20:50:13Z

Valuables:

{{debate-religion}}

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Does [[omnipotence]] include the power to create an even greater power than itself? That's what that rock is: a greater power than omnipotence. Only agents of limited power can "create" things which are, in some ways, more powerful than them, by the means of contriving complex objects which already exist which are in some ways more powerful than them. Unfortunately, the ultimate complex object which we limited agents can contrive is a conflation of real logic and semantics.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:33, 5 July 2011 (EDT)

The answer is NO He cannot "do" that. Note that there is no limit however to the size of a rock that He can create, and there is no limit to the size of a rock that He can lift. Thus the question - answered in the negative - involves no limitation on God's prerogatives; if answered in the positive however does. The whole thing is a play on words as is explained more or less in various ways below. It's negation does not mean God is not omnipotent - it means that omnipotence is not properly tested as implied by this question. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 14:54, 28 December 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No! No matter how heavy the rock would be, God would still be able to lift it because he is the Almighty.
:::"He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved." (Psalm 62:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Traditional Paradox of God==
God is omnipotent Therefore he can But since he is omnipotent He can lift the rock he cannot lift Therefore God is a paradox and cannot exist

[[User:Helios|Helios]] loves the creator of this page and will worship him as though he were a paradoxical God.

The part that people miss is assuming that God is picking the rock up with a pair of arms like a human. God isn't a human. God doesn't have a physical body. God can't lift rocks. God makes the rock lift itself.
:Doesn't "lifting" assume an "up"? What is an omnipresent being standing on when lifting a rock? I think this question is broken. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:55, 16 May 2007
(EDT)

Alright, then can he make a rock so large he cannot make it move? And another thing disproving that he exists; it says in Genesis it took him six days to create the universe. A perfect, all-powerful god would have created it instantly. And some say that maybe he took his time, etc. That doesn't work either, because if he was perfect, everything he did would be as efficient as possible, and that would mean instantly. And, on top of that, he had to rest from the effort. Now, granted, creating a universe in only six days, and only resting for one is still pretty impressive, but that doesn't mean omnipotence.- Bob Sanchez

::Did it ever occur to anyone that it might take time to create imperfection from perfection? JM ([[user:Meyje|Meyje]])
:::What "imperfection from perfection"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

:As far as the rock is concerned, that has been answered below, I believe. God can do anything ''that can be done''. Creating a rock too big for Him to move is not something that can be done.
:You are incorrect in claiming that a "perfect, all-powerful god would have created [the universe] instantly". The correct statement would be that He ''could'' create it instantly, not that He ''would''.
:By claiming that He would not have taken longer because that would be less efficient is (a) not obviously true (sometimes it is more efficient to take longer), and (b) presumes that efficiency is the prime goal. Rather, it would appear from Exodus 20:11 that God chose to take six days in order to set the pattern for the week.
:Similarly, you misunderstand the reference to resting. The Bible doesn't say that God was tired and needed to recuperate. The Hebrew word translated "rest" simply means to take a break, to stop from working. Again, this would have been in order to set the pattern for the week: work six days and take the seventh day off.
:In summary, then, you have basically tried picking holes with the account by saying that if God was truly omnipotent, He would have done things the way that you think He would have done them, which overlooks that perhaps there are reasons that He ''chose'' to do them the way He did that you hadn't considered.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
God is almighty, it'll be dumb if He created a rock to the point where He Himself can not lift it. God created the Heavens and the Earth, God can lift any rock. Now if HE did created such a rock, He do have the powers to make it easier fro Him to lift it. Didn't anyone think of that? I like what Philip J. Rayment said there, it is true, He did make the patterns of the week. That's why every time God created something, the BIBLE said that it was the 1st or 2nd or 3rd day.

if god is perfect, then what reason would he have to bother with existence? Surely he would do anything he would ever need or want to do in an infinitely small time, and then simply pop out of existence. If he was all-knowing, he would know it was all he could ever want to do, and if he was capable of anything, he could stop existing.
(Rowan)
: That argument presupposes that God exists in time, which He doesn't, as "time" is part of His creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's apply this argument by logical constraint to a few other Christian doctrines, then, shall we?

Example 1:
## For a woman to beome pregnant, she must be inseminated.
## Virgins have not been inseminated
## Mary was a virgin
## Therefore, Mary was not pregnant.

Example 2:
## Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. (Premise)
## The universe exists. (Premise)
## Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
## We call that cause God (cosmological argument).
## God exits (Premise)
## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.

So - God is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is [[foolhardy]]. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney

:I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Maximally powerful" doesn't mean "all-powerful". Your arguement implies that the Bible was incorrect in naming God as omnipotent, which completely destroys the foundation for faith in Christianity: The belief that the Bible is without error. - Bob Sanchez

Where does the Bible say that God is omnipotent? That word appears once in the KJV, and once in the NKJV, and nowhere else. When it appears, it describes the shouts of a crowd, and so may not be accurate. The Bible clearly gives the impression that God is more powerful than all the other beings in the universe combined, but nowhere says he is omnipotent, insofar as omnipotent is defined as "able to do anything, regardless of whether it is logically possible or not." As far as Mary is concerned, it is not logically impossible for God to create a baby inside her womb, but it would be logically impossible for God to create a baby that was not a baby. See the difference? God must conform to first-order logic, but he is not limited beyond that.[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 00:42, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

God can make the rock, but every time He tries to lift it the planet he's standing on crumbles under His feet. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Well then, that is basically saying that god can't create a strong enough planet to stand on. or just some infinite unbreakable plain with really strong gravity that exists solely for him to stand on so he can try to lift this unliftable rock.[[User:Revengeancer|Revengeancer]] 17:34, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

If we assume that God does exist, I'm gonna have to go with Thomas Aquinas on this one. In his ''Summa Theologica'', he wrote:
<blockquote>Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is
numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is
called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not
come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have
the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things
cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.</blockquote>
That is, if God exists, he can do all that is logically possible, and nothing that is not. So, because there is a contradiction whether God can or cannot create the rock, it cannot be done. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 19:43, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:God is powerful, I like that square circle example. He can creat anything he want to created. Now why would God creat such a rock that even Himself can't lift. If the rock was heavy than God can just use His powers to make it easier to lift duhh. God is too strong to creat a rock too heavy for Him to lift. [[User:Amphibious|Amphibious]] 02:14, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

[added~]

haha. its kind of funny arguing about this kind of thing...because personally, i dont believe in higher beings like god. its only a figment of your mind; god holds only as much power as you give him. there is the concept of god for those who want a pillar of support around and them and i realize that there are those who truly would like to believe. and im fine with that. however, for someone like me who believes it is impractical, impossible, and downright strange to have an "omnipotent" being watching over us in such a way, i say heck sure he could. if he existed. but if we're going to put this in the context of fiction, anything is possible. but to me, if the root of this argumnet, god, does not exist, then i consider the possiblity of him creating a rock that he cant lift as invalid. {{unsigned|KuR0K4R4}}

:So what reason do you provide for God's non-existence? None! You don't believe He does—but that doesn't mean He doesn't—yet you provide absolutely no reason whatsoever for your subjective opinion. Many people have provided very good arguments supporting the view that God does exist, but you are obviously unaware of them or simply choose to ignore them, because you've made no attempt whatsoever to answer them. Instead, you simply type some throwaway lines about your personal views and expect that to count as some sort of argument (this ''is'' a ''debate'' page). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:50, 4 December 2007 (EST)

=== "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." ===
Not sure who, they didn't sign their post properly, but they made this statement. There is a problem here... that is not the premise that Christians make. The statement should go like this...
:'''Everything that ''begins to'' exist has a cause.'''
* Notice that I added "begins to". For example, when a baby is born, it has a beginning, therefore it has a cause. God is the exception to the rule. Since He is the highest/most supreme Being in existence, out of necessity He always exists.
*# Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
*# God does not have a beginning.
*# Therefore God does not have a cause.
* How do we know God doesn't have a beginning or ending? Psalm 90:2 "...Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." (NASB)
* A side note... "outside of itself" is not necessary in the statement. It's obvious that something cannot be the cause of itself, if it does not exist. That would be illogical. So it can be safely assumed in the statement without saying it. At least I am assuming it.
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:Oh, I don't know. When you've got people believing that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason, perhaps some of these obvious things need to be spelt out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:37, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::I don't think Big Bang cosmology implies that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason. The theory states that we can trace the expansion of space back to a singularity, that is to say a point beyond which we cannot probe. The theory doesn't state that nothing existed prior to the singularity (indeed the singularity itself must have existed for an indeterminate time prior to its expansion into the universe we know and love). [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:27, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::: Discover magazine in 2002 described the views of Alan Guth, one of the originators of the inflation theory of the Big Bang thus: {{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507/]}} I think that supports what I said quite nicely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:08, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:::Then he created a terrible strawman for the Big Bang theory, it has since been refined by Hawking among others. Whilst paradoxes remain as they always will, they seem as equally paradoxical as God; although the implications of such a being in turn create yet more paradoxes. -Barnes
:::: I assume that you are referring to Alan Guth creating a strawman. A strawman argument is an argument that claims that ''someone else'' proposes something, which you then proceed to demolish. But Guth was not claiming that ''someone else'' proposed this: he is one of the Big Bang experts, and ''he'' was proposing this. So no, it's not a strawman argument at all. Further, this dates from six years ago; I'm not sure that you are correct that Hawking has "since" refined it. And what paradoxes are implied by the existence of God? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Perhaps not a strawman, but regardless of his standing this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable. General relativity shows time not to be a passive background to events but a dynamic entity which is warped my matter and energy inside it. At a point of infinite energy density time does not progress, and thus whilst we are left with the paradox of why there was a bang we do not need to answer where the energy came from.

:::The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world. It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe (if this is even possible). Then of course there is the good old problem of evil, though of course his attributes are subjective interpretations derived from 'experience'. -Barnes
::::I see lots of pins and dancing angels. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:39, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable''": True, but then the whole idea of the Big Bang is laughable. Regardless of Guth's particular description, the Big Bang is basically "nothing exploded and became everything".
:::: Why don't we need to answer where the energy came from? I don't follow your explanation of that.
:::: "''The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world.''": Sorry, but that's not explaining the alleged paradox.
:::: "''It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe...''": No, your argument is a loaded one, presuming something that is not claimed, and not true. Part of God's creation (the space/time/matter universe) is ''time''. That means that God ''created time''. That means that God ''does not exist IN time''. Therefore, it is not true to argue that God "waited an infinite time", because "time" didn't exist.
:::: "''... (if this is even possible).''": Why would it not be possible for an all-powerful Creator to create the universe?
:::: "''Then of course there is the good old problem of evil...''": The "good old problem of evil" is the good old bibliosceptic argument that's been long answered over and over. It's old, but it's not good.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

The Big Bang does not say anything about nothing. That is a misconception not because of what carefully selected scientists have to say about the theory but because you are taking a Newtonian approach to time. 'Nothing' never existed, as i explained before because time is not merely a background to events but it is shaped by the density of matter and energy inside of it. If you have a point of infinite density then time will not progress, it will stay still. So whilst you can leave God to fill the paradox of what caused the expansion itself and therefore the progression of time, it would be wrong to think of something appearing out of nothing. Therefore, if the energy had always existed then it need not have come from anywhere.

The realm of God's existence is of course paradoxical, because the word supernatural is an oxymoron. Here is a little paste from an article about this paradox:

"Now that we have the definition of Nature and Supernatural we see a very conflicting view: One is the entirety of all the laws which govern existence as we know it, and the other is a term for those activities that can happen outside the laws of nature. That is an impossibility. If Nature is Everything, then Something cannot exist outside of Everything unless Everything is only a Something; in which case Nature therefore is incorrect in it's definition and cannot be called the laws which govern all of life, only a portion of laws that govern life. So either Nature is incorrect, or Supernatural is incorrect, they cannot be existing together logically."

Time is a paradox for God because it is only through time that anything progresses. If time were stationary for God then nothing would progress for him or us; it is through chronological progression that causality can exist. If God is infinite in time, then how could he not have been waiting around for an infinite amount of time before the Big Bang? And if He is finite in time, then how was he created? If He is neither finite nor infinite, then He is exempt from time and therefore causality itself.

As for the problem of evil, it is only problematic if you assume the attribute of benevolence and the degree to which you hold him responsible for our situation and therefore the situation of others. I deny free will both on empirical, metaphysical and even divine grounds, therefore we cannot be held responsible for our actions or the suffering of others. -Barnes

:Which article? I would like to read the whole thing at some point. o_0 [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 19:00, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&groupID=100096596&page=0&EntryID=30321825

:That nothing existed before the Big Bang is not just based on a quote from one Big Bang expert. Paul Davies, for example, said "According to modern physics, the big bang represented the origin of space and time, as well as of matter and energy."
: If your scenario is correct, and time stood still because of infinite density, and assuming God didn't trigger the Big Bang, then why isn't time still standing still? What caused the Big Bang? Any change that triggered the Big Bang would require something to be happening in time.
: The quote from the article only works because it switches meanings. From the section (in your link) just before your quote, "Nature" is defined as referring the "the material world" and "the physical world", yet the writer then bases his argument on "nature" meaning "everything". No, according to the definitions he himself supplied, it does ''not'' mean "everything". And without that, the argument collapses: there is no paradox.
: You say that time is a paradox for God because it is only through time that anything progresses, but this is something that you cannot know. What would be more accurate to say is that it is only through time that anything ''natural'' progresses, but as God is ''supernatural'', that doesn’t necessarily hold (and ''doesn't'' hold if God is the creator of time)
: If you have no free will, then even your thoughts are the unavoidable outcomes of chemical processes in your brain, which means that everything you said above you were in effect forced to say, rather than it having any basis in evidence, logic, or reason. So if you have no free will, I'm free (assuming I do have free will) to ignore everything you say. Of course, to be consistent, I have no free will either, which means that my cranial mental processes are nothing more than chemical reactions, which means that my unavoidable chemical reactions are arguing for something different than your unavoidable chemical reactions, which means that those chemical reactions do not produce consistent results, which means they are not to be trusted. Which again means that I've got no reason to take any notice of you or your arguments.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Im not arguing that the Big Bang theory is not prone to paradoxes, for the progression of time is undoubtedly a paradox. Though whether such a theory requires the untestable and highly complex hypothesis of a God to cause it who is himself paradoxical, im not so sure. Transcending time is a logical impossibility, or rather a copout. If something is beyond our realm of comprehension to the extent that it isnt even a speculative concept, then it is a dissatisfying 'cause' to the universe. It is just as paradoxical as the progression of time, although infinitely more complex and therefore not preferable.

The definitions lead me to believe that nature is everything we see around us. "The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature". Thus if God does interact with the world, it is only through the laws of nature that he could, and being only a something external to the empirical universe he would be not be everything but merely a something and thus limited. -[http://www.myspace.com/barnes_ Barnes]
: Most of your post was argument by incredulity and personal opinion. God is supposed to be all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. but one characteristic ''not'' used of him is "everything". So He is not "everything", but that doesn't mean that He is therefore limited. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

==Logical fallacy==
It is illogical to apply physical attributes to a non-physical being. Also, it is illogical to question whether something can be created to be mightier than He who is Almighty. That God cannot create something more powerful than Himself does not mean God is not all-powerful. The definition of all-powerful is that there is nothing more powerful! Furthermore, this is pitting God against Himself; His abilities against His own abilities. That makes no sense! Look at it this way: can you defeat yourself at wrestling? Of course not.

Additionally, God cannot create square circles because squares are squares and circles are circles. It's like asking God to make 1 equal 0 or to make bthe color blue the color red. Of course, I suppose God could do some M.C. Escher thing and make square circles.

Anyway, the only thing questions like these prove is how intellectually bankrupt neo-atheists are. They so want God to not exist that they will ignore their own illogic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)

: A good response to this type of question has just been posted on the Creation Ministries International website[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5566]. It is consistent with other comments above, including Jinxmchue's comment (complete with an M. C. Escher picture!), but is explained very clearly, in my opinion.
: There are actually several answers:
:* 'A rock too heavy for a being who can lift anything' is a self-contradictory statement, and a self-contradictory statement is a ''nothing'', so "Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?" really amounts to "Can God create a nothing?", which is clearly absurd.
:* Can God create a square circle? An all-powerful being can do anything that takes ''power'' to do. How much power does it take to create a square circle? It's not ''power'' that is required (again, because it's an illogical impossibility), so that's no argument against God's omnipotence either.
:* Yes, God ''can'' create a rock too heavy for God to lift! That is, God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift—because God the Son (Jesus) voluntarily gave up some of His divine powers!
: The article also relates [[C. S. Lewis]]' thoughts on the matter.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:32, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::"God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift" lol! I like that one. I'll have to remember to use it next time I see this argument presented by someone who thinks they're the first person to ever present it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 09:40, 26 January 2008 (EST)

In addition, the Bible states that God is by nature good; as He cannot do anything contrary to His nature and because creating such an object would render logic illogic, one is inclined to conclude that this argument has no bearing on His undeniable existence. {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==I'VE SOLVED IT!==
Yes, God ''can'' make a rock so big that He can't lift it. But He can also shrink it again to a size small enough that he can lift it too again. Crisis averted, argument over. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 20:35, 7 January 2008 (EST)
:That's not an aversion, that's ignoring the problem. If you simply add "and cannot be changed by him", the "crisis" remains, because it's a contradiction to his existence (with the quality of omnipotence).
: <grin> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:The heaviest thing in the universe may only be one cubic millimetre. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 08:35, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::Hooray for incredibly dense objects. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:52, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::Your ''mom's'' an incredibly dense object. :D Seriously though, this is a linguistic paradox more than a philosophical one. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:43, 11 February 2008 (EST)
learn english, the key word is "heavy" not "big."

==Oh my==

God creates a rock he can't lift himself, but then the rock becomes liftable if he so wishes. He is so powerful he gets to chose his limitations. {{unsigned|Reallyforeign}}

==Yes==
of course he could, if he is able to create the known universe then he would be able to make a rock to heavy to lift even by himself[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 15:39, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

==Here's why the question is wrong==
Weight isn't a factor in whether God can lift the rock or not - it's just as easy for Him to lift a small rock as a big one (like, er, Yoda). This question is like asking 'Could He make a rock so blue He couldn't lift it?' - it's a nonsense.

==No==
*For the purpose of this argument, assume God exists and is omnipotent (subject to the restrictions of logic).
:*If God is omnipotent, surely he can lift any rock.
:*A rock which God cannot lift, therefore, cannot possibly exist. Its existence would contradict God's omnipotence.
:*Because, in this argument, God is constrained by logic, God cannot create something that cannot exist.
:*Because a rock God cannot create cannot exist, God cannot create one.
:Note that, by "subject to the restrictions of logic," I mean that God would be unable to do anything that is logically impossible.
:For example, a square circle cannot logically exist; a square has four sides, while a circle has only one, and clearly
:nothing can have four sides and one side. Therefore, a God subject to the restrictions of logic would be unable to create one.
:-[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 17:54, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

==Wrong assumptions give the question its curious attraction.==
Omnipotence does not mean infinite irrational, magical, meaningless, purposeless, nonsensical ability. Gravity, one of the most powerful forces in the universe, exists precisely because of the self-limiting nature of the power itself. You can say that the effect of gravity is infinite, but its powers and properties are actually determined by natural laws. Gravity obeys its own laws. God obeys his own laws. According to multi-verse theory, the answer would have to be "Yes, there must be a universe somewhere in which something as irrational as this actually happens." But in this universe, the answer must be that the Creator is not expected to contradict himself, and that this does not limit him in any meaningful way. The juxtaposition of an immovable object with an irrestible force is a hypothetical abstraction with no meaningful resolution and makes no contribution to knowledge in any context. What we should be looking for is a useful concept of omnipotence. That would be a much more interesting discussion. If you have to have a definition of omnipotence that includes infinity, then the multi-verse is for you. But in a fine-tuned, well designed universe, with clearly defined laws, properties and purpose, all of the power that exists would be that of the Creator. "Omnipotence", to me at least, means "all of the power that is" not all of the power I can imagine. It did not take infinite power to make this universe. And yet who can conceive of the difference between the abstract concept of infinite power and the forces that appear to exist? In this case Plato is wrong. You cannot determine all truth from abstractions. But science cannot save us either, because the original question is non-falsifiable, and therefore cannot tell us anything about God. For those who think the existence of such a question is evidence against God, the ability of mankind to ask such a question is a miracle in itself. RCW

==No==

God cannot limit His own power. However, He could create a rock of whatever size He wanted. He could even create a rock of infinite size if He liked, but He would still be capable of lifting it. Just because God canot limit His own power does not mean He is not all powerful. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:45, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?

2011-11-11T20:48:12Z

Valuables:

{{debate-philosophy}} 
There is no _objective_ truth; this is a _subjective_ truth I choose to believe. [[User:Lw2007|Luke]] 01:19, 17 December 2007

So there must exist some objective truth? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think anyone really claims that there ''is'' no objective truth, just that there is no access to it; i.e., that there is no objective ''knowledge''. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:51, 17 November 2007 (EST)

or it could be that "there is no objective truth" is a fact and not a truth. there is a difference between the two.

:That is the ultimate failing point of postmodernist thinking. In philosophical terms, they say that each person has their own narrative (story), but any push of a meta narrative (overarching life story... eg. The Biblical God created the world and hs a plan for each of us) is viewed as oppressive. Of course then they become the oppressors because their meta narrative is that there should be no meta narrative :-). --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

This is the problem with all absolutes. They contradict themselves. We conservatives have the God given privilege to apply different standards to out own arguments than we apply to the arguments we oppose. How else could conservapedia be so incredible conflicted.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 10:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::If all absolutes contradict themselves, then is the claim "all absolutes contradict themselves" also a contradiction? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:54, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure what Rebiu meant, but I think it is important to realize (at least from my current understanding of it) 1) a meta narrative is required (without meta narrative, we have no purpose other than what we happen to scramble together ourselves), and 2) there can be only one meta narrative. In other words, saying there are multiple absolutes is a contradiction because there can only be one absolutely absolute. In terms of belief systems, it could be said that either Islam or the teachings of Jesus Christ are correct, or neither of them are. They cannot both be correct. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::As I said God has given me, as a conservative, the privilege to apply different standards to my arguments[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 16:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I sense some facetiousness in the tone of your writing. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I am very interested in where you got this message from God. Can you cite a bible passage? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 23:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That is facetious to me as I sense some facetiousness in all remarks that invoke divine inspiration in others, they usually do not agree. One does not need to validate their faith to other mortals. My relationship to god is between He and I.[[unsigned|Rebiu]]

::::God gives you the privilege because you are a sentient '''human being'''. Your privilege to "adjust" your reality to your political views is between you and your intellectual honesty (or lack thereof). [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Your facetiously toned attack on my faith amounts to a violation of the spirit of conservapedia. Your obviously facetious attitude towards faith base understanding is an attack on the foundations of the conservative movement. "The Devil hides behind a facetious tone."[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 11:27, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Not only that, but he also hides behind liberalism, homosexuality, evolutionism, Islam, and The Omen. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Step on me and get stung]] 23:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That is very interesting Scorpion, however it is completely irrelevant to the debate topic of anything said in this article.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 12:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, there is objective truth within structures based on postulates, eg, mathematics. Regarding the natural world, one could say: "There is no objective truth, but I am not certain of this." This statement is an opinion rather than an objective truth, & may be true without being contradictory. This approach mimics the scientific method in that useful relationships may be theorized, but they aren't absolutely true & may later be replaced by better theories.[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 21:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Object Lesson in Logic'''

The title of this debate reads:

If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?

Logically this is equivalent to:
If there is no objective truth, then the claim "there is no objective truth" is an objective truth, and therefore invalidates itself.

If not X then ( if not X then X ) therefore X

We can subject this to Logical analysis.
X false means that (if notX then X) is false, and the whole of the first section is also false, which means that the entire structure is false.
X true means that (if notX then X) is true, and the whole of the first section is also true, which means that the entire structure is true.

So, if it is true that there is no objective truth then the answer to the question posed in the title is 'No'. On the other hand, if there is an objective truth, then the naswer to the question posed in the title is 'Yes'. I conclude that this entire debate is a complete waste of time, as it boils down to whether you think there is an objective truth or not.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::So is what you are saying true? Objectively speaking I mean. While I agree the debate is a waste of time it is made necessary by the legions of people who find it necessary to state as objective truth that there is no objective truth.

This has been considered already and often. Please see Godel's 1st Incompleteness Theory, or Alan Turing's Halting Problem. All formal axiomatic systems are incomplete, although each instance within the system may be provable.

For example ....

"For any consistent formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true but not provable in the theory can be constructed. That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete."

Perhaps an easier way to think about it ....

"Roughly speaking, the Gödel statement, G, asserts: "G cannot be proven true". If G were able to be proven true under the theory's axioms, then the theory would have a theorem, G, which contradicts itself, and thus the theory would be inconsistent. But if G were not provable, then it would be true (for G expresses this very fact) and thus the theory would be incomplete."

All of this, at least in my mind, is not necessarily a waste of time -- self reference brings these formal logical systems (unfortunately or not) to their knees. The consequences of the debated question is where I think that we can find a more sublime and perhaps telling Truth. Reason has it's limits although I offer no evidence or explanation for what it cannot explain or those things of which it cannot make "sense". I do however, have my own ideas :) bumble70

:This is an abuse of Godel's theorem, which certainly does not prove that ''all'' consistent formal axiomatic systems are incomplete. It proves that all consistent axiomatic systems of arithmetic that include the traditional operations of addition and multiplication are incomplete, but plenty of axiomatic systems ''are'' complete--for example, systems with only addition. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:51, 17 November 2007 (EST)

While I believe in objective truth (I'm a social constructivist), the attack on post modernity/post-structuralism presented in the title is decidely weak. First, to claim that any descriptive statement (i.e. 'there is no objective truth') need be an objective truth to be meaningfull is to misunderstand what is ment by objectivity (in the context of post modern theory). The Post Modernist claim that there can be no objective truth is only referencing normative claims. (claims about how things should be.) They are not saying that there cannot be objectively true descriptive claims (i.e. claims that have no prescriptive content, i.e. 'you are 6 feet tall.') They would say that yes, you might be 6 feet tall, but whether that is good, bad, or otherwise is purely subjective.

therefore a postmodernist can coherently say "the statement there is no objective [normative] truth is objectively true," precisely because that statement is descriptive and not normative.

(It should be noted that post modernists might very well have an epistemological objection to knowing any descriptive truth- NOT because those truths don't exist, but because we are incapable of knowing them, for a variety of reasons. However this is an epistemological objection, and not relevant to the ontological question of whether or not objective [normative] truth exists as such.) ~Essariel 5-28-07

If objective truth did not exist than immediately following the most recent campus murdering spree in VA Tech, there would have been myriad pundits asking the question "Was this a bad thing to have occurred?" The fact that no one even considered that a question implicitly proves that there is in fact an objective truth and consequently an objective moral order. If you can't see that, you're really not trying to look.

Be careful with claims like that - I can think of at least one person who felt that massacre wasn't a bad thing, and although the vast majority of humanity may disagree with him, Cho clearly felt his actions were "good" enough under his own system of beliefs to carry them out. Objective truth is not a popularity contest.--[[User:Guybrush|Guybrush]] 1:25, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

"'We know that we know nothing,' they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge -- 'There are no absolutes,' they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute -- 'You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious,' they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, or a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved."
:Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
[[User:Cthx]]

:Rand is just mischaracterizing. She uses quote marks, but who is she quoting? A straw man... --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:55, 17 November 2007 (EST)

-Humans affect logic, so the struggle to attain a state of purer logic is as natural and as connected as the human reaction for recognizing ones own limitations. Namely that you wish to surpass them. Of course the claim is not an objective truth becuase everyone has different views, opinions, and beliefs. Although some scientific breakthroughs can be made at the same time and by different, unconnected people, the advancement can only point to a greater mystery to be solved. When a human makes a claim, it is never objective because the statements comes from a biased mind limited by perception and belief. There is no such thing as an un-biased mind. If there were, would it recognize itself as thus?- Christos

:The question is asked; Is the phrase, "there is no objective truth", an objective truth?
* No because understanding is subjective. You understand or I understand or Joe Smith understands and that is called "subjective". When we read, we understand. "Objective" means something exists above and beyond individual understanding. Indeed, "Objective" means something exists even if no one at all, ever, understands at all. Since it is a written statement, when it is read, it is read by an individual who (probably) understands it. Therefore the statement is not an objective truth because it requires the statement be subjectively understood before it can be answered. [[User:TerryO|TerryO]] 01:08, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I think this is a stupid debate topic! -Racecarlock

If I think I exist would'nt I have to in fact exist because to think must imply existance. How can you think if you dont exist? So the fact that I think I exist leads to actual existance means that my existance is an objective truth. I in fact do exist. Not to infer that you must think to exist, but thinking must imply existance. So existance is an objective truth. So the statment is inherently wrong. There are objective truths. The problem is that humans are 100% objective. The thought of existing is an subjective truth in itself but has to lead to the objective truth that existance exists. -Lurkspotter

------------ On Absolutes
This is the same thing as stating - "There is NO such thing as absolutism." Which is an absolute statement. This is called a self-refuting argument. You can say it but it is irrational, illogical, and childish. Then the only statement that holds up is to say that "There are absolutes." -- Because that is an absolute statement and it is in agreement with itself. Then the argument become where are they? Who writes them? This leads to the fact there must be universal absolutes because without them nothing can be viewed as right and nothing can be viewed as wrong. We all have inscribed into us an absolute law, so when we break it, we know. We hid the fact we broke this absolute and flee when none pursue. When others break it we get angry for them having done so, because we know - that THEY KNEW, they were breaking it when they harmed us or our property.

You see when others harm us we are angry because we know there is an absolute univeral code - that states they should not. If you do not believe in that code - then I would call you a liar - because if I stole all your stuff and cut off your arms and you were upset at all about it - you do believe that I should not have done it. Atheists especially have a hard time with this behavioral inconsistency. They CLAIM that there is no universal code - but are wounded when someone breaks that non-existent code of universal ethics. Therefore they should not be wounded or hurt when a fellow primate takes their stuff or their mate or BOTH. They ARE upset - that is the behavioral inconsistency. They do not believe as they profess. They are a contradiction.

To answer the initial debate question. You cannot state (without being an illogical person) there is NO objective truth. If you TRIED to do it you would be entering into a contradictory position that would be illogical. Therefore there IS objective truth. Game-set-match. -- Ted Griffith

I've heard it stated that the only objective moral is that there are no objective morals, which is not actually unsubstantial, given that there are an infinite number of possible perspectives, and there is no coherence in their agreement in the slightest.

--------- There is objective truth.
Yes, but notice something - it is singular, so another way of doing it could be asking this: Are all kinds of different kinds of truths all objective? Well, one way of answering that could be looking at the word objective. If it is taken to mean having reality independently of the mind, then the mind/soul/brain has to be considered subjectively as having reality dependently on the mind/soul/brain.

There is objective truth.

There is subjective truth.

It follows from this definition of objective that there must subjective truth. With regards - Mikael Birket Brilner

Conservapedia:Does History Matter?

2011-11-11T20:46:57Z

Valuables:

'''NO'''

Just ask the average teen! --[[User:Peterporcaro|Peterporcaro]] 16:29, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Henry Ford said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." George Santayana said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Who was closer to being right?

Contents [hide]
1 Henry Ford: "history is bunk"
2 George Santayana: "condemned to repeat"
3 Napoleon Bonaparte: "a lie agreed upon"
4 Other Perspectives
5 Nobody cares about history
6 Everything matters
7 Yes
8 History *does* matter.
9 Yes!
10 Geography
11 Abysmal
12 We Are History

[edit] Henry Ford: "history is bunk"
If "...the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today", than who's to say the history we make today will be cared about by our children? ;-). If we don't care about history now, than none of our descendants will care about us. Of course even if we do care about history, there's still a huge chance they still won't care about their past. --Ymmotrojam 18:22, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I say let the govrnment take the history books and make their own history, then preach it to us Albobsman 13:03, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

I feel it is relevant to note that Henry Ford was a Nazi.

Actually, Henry Ford was a Nazi sympathizer but not an actual Nazi. Also, the quote is "history is more or less bunk." Just FYI. Pecant 20:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] George Santayana: "condemned to repeat"
The perfect example of this is the nation of Israel. Fortunately though, we've got a good God. Even when Israel was disobeying God and repenting again... over and over again, God was still faithful to His promises. And if we repent and put our trust in Him alone, we can avoid repeating those bad things in history. --Ymmotrojam 18:35, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Napoleon Bonaparte: "a lie agreed upon"
While this is the classic Wikipedia model, I hope Conservapedia can avoid being condemned to repeat this bunk. RobS 16:36, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

"Vulgas vult decepi" -Phaedrus 15BC-50AD. Translated as "The people wish to be deceived."--Roopilots6 10:40, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
[edit] Other Perspectives
If history doesn't matter, why don't we just make it so this wiki no longer stores the history of the pages that are created and edited ;-). --Ymmotrojam 18:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Who is this guy above?...what a joker :) my point is this: History is a thing of the past hahahahahaha...seriously though, history is important and I think that if history is discarded then we not only remove the career option of archeologists etc, but also, people who have done great and brave things will be discarded also and things like the Holocaust should certainly not be forgotten as we must recognise this as a very terrible time. What about things like the 'Tower of Freedom' and its purpose of marking the dreadful day of the terror attack on the Twin Towers...are we really going to discard that...are we going to discard the Somme, D-Day, Napoleon, Stalin, The Beatles, yes The Beatles were a rock group but they have had a massive impact on the world...think about it, Liverpool firmly on the map, Strawberry Fields...Penny Lane...yes, an impact they have made. Also, to prevent disasters from happening such as the Mnt St Helens eruption, many lives could have been saved if only someone had looked at historical records of this volcanoe's previous eruptions and how they have occured and what happpened during the eruption. History is important in court cases and such if something has just been uncovered even though it may have happened decades ago. Are we able to discard history should be the question and the only answer to that is simple...NO!!! [User: bealecr] 16:09, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Nobody cares about history
Hell, look at Afghanistan. You can go back to the 1700s or 1980s to see that nobody can win there. Or, re Iraq, you can go back to the 1970s and Vietnam and see that you can't "liberate" a country that (with substantial justification in both cases) sees you simply as a self-interested neo-colonial oppressor.

Or you can just go to the local library, fire up the microfiche machine and look at the past 50 years of gun crime in the US. At least Australian Prime Minister John Howard outlawed assault rifles after Martin Bryant massacred all those people in Port Arthur in 1996.

What's the next blast from the past we can look forward to from the US? Witch burnings, perhaps, or simply some good, old-fashioned lynchings (though they'd be Mexican illegal immigrants this time, no doubt). Perhaps California, Oregon and New York should secede. --AppalledBystander 06:29, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

What does it mean to "win" in Afghanistan? RobS 11:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I think he means essentially "conquer". Obviously, if no outside country can "win", the Afghanis must be "winning" the wars of invasion/colonization/conquest etc. Human 13:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
If that's the meaning, then the basic premise is flawed. The US and NATO are not trying ot "conquer" Afghanistan. RobS 15:15, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Afghan history shows that any try from outside to conquer the country by military finally failed completely. Some success can definitely be reported regarding humanitarian support and building up basic infra structure, which surely needs protection through police forces and sometimes even military forces. Surely no perfect story and still much left to be done. The economy, i.e. farming is still mainly based on opium poppy. But even when slow, some progress has definitely been achieved. The number of children going to school sky rocketed, the number of girls in particular. So, history can teach you a lesson, but it cannot replace your own thinking. --schifra 07:40, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
[edit] Everything matters
How will you know where your going unless you know where you've been. Archaeological history, the history of the sun, moon, earth, ...etc. How else could people plan for the future unless they knew the history of the past. Which is why any historian worth their salt will get their information from multiple sources, archaeological artifacts and/or sites, and anthropological studies. History most definitely doesn't mean anything to those who try to rewrite it for selfish reasons. Such as political or assorted ideological purposes and used as propaganda to further their own agendas. Of which you will no doubt denote many examples of on this debate subject.--Roopilots6 20:10, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Yes
We can learn from it.

Only from America could this question arise.

- of course context matters
- and of course we can learn from those who have gone before us

Mate...I totally agree!! In America, history is important too. Example: If someone had bothered to look at the history of Mnt. St. Helens' eruption, they would've realised that it will blow sideways. If they had but checked this, then many more lives would've been saved. I can't believe that apparently nobody cares about their history, about the sacrifices people made so that we could be alive today. Just less than 100 years ago and again in 1939, thousands of brave men risked it all, laid down their lives so that we may speak English that we would retain our cultures, our pride, even so that we may live today and I'm sure they didn't do all this so that some idiot could say that they didn't care about history. Whoever that was is an ignorant pig and no I don't think that this view about the person is without evidence. I truly can not believe that someone thinks it appropriate to not recognise the importance of history, as history has shaped us, shaped whole cultures, whole countries, shaped the entire world.

[edit] History *does* matter.
There are things in history that should NEVER EVER be forgotten. If "history does not matter", this technically would encompass things such as the second world war, or the reasons that lead to it; also forgotten would be the sacrifices millions of people made during that war, and all the inhumane atrocities carried out by people of those times: Nazi Germany´s horrifying human experiments, the Japanese-carried out atrocities in China, Soviet Russia and all the "good" their communist ideals did to the world, or the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Actually, "history" would technically encompass even the events of the Bible.

Still some of you dare say "History does not matter?" FreakyM 07:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Coming in contact with other cultures one will notice a lot of differences. Which way is right is often a moot discussion, in particular when neglecting the historical background of these differences.History matters because we can learn from the mistakes that the world has made and use it to our benefit.

[edit] Yes!
As Winston Churchill said, "If we do not study history we are doomed to repeat it". Also from a Christian's perspective, we can learn about God's grace, sovereignty, etc. from history, and it helps us understand other cultures and religions. Mschel 11:25, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

NEVAR FORGET. Seriously though, history is crucial to morality and civilisation - but only so long as it is accurate. So many conflicts in the world today could be resolved if only people had access to unfiltered accounts of their people's histories, as both victims and aggressors. When it becomes warped and distorted to suit an ideology, revisionist history can be every bit as poisonous as organised religion. Underscoreb 22:01, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Yes history matters. Knowledge of one's own nation is very important. It is very important to realize though that history took place in a different place, and often times the tale from history that is widely disseminated is only a superficial recounting that leaves out many things that the historian does not agree with. For instance many people know that during Washington's farewell address he warned the nation to stay away from entangling foreign relations. In fact political parties have been created around this principal. But what is less well known is that he also warned about the dangers of political parties. So history is important, but so is actually researching the information yourself and not taking another person's word for it. Rellik 20:02, 13 March 2008

Short answer, yes - see future(EDT)

[edit] Geography
If history matters its only because geography made it so. History and Geography/Geology invariably linked. Look at any historical event or any current event.

The city of Venice, founded in a swampy marsh because Milanese (descendent's of Romans) were being attacked by barbarians. Found the marsh easily defensible.
Discover of America, Columbus searching for a quick way to Asia
Liberation of Kuwait 1991, Iraq invaded Kuwait seizing (then)25% of the worlds oil reserves.
California, population quickly surged because of the Gold Rush, spawning statehood, more general westward expansion and a Trans-Atlantic railroad.
The state of Utah, Mormons chased out of Missouri, settled at an 'oasis in the desert', would have likely been chased out of California.
People who don't know history don't know geography either, both are important even though their effects are so large they are not entirely self evident with regard to the daily lives of individuals.--Mitrebox 19:11, 26 January 2008 (EST)

[edit] Abysmal
There are almost no historical articles on conservpedia. Sections regarding historical events or topics barely have a single paragraph. Users should focus on that more. The problem I see here is various religious fanatics focusing on defacing science and blaming everything on commies and liberals. Intranetusa 14:10, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

[edit] We Are History
History is everything, and everything will become history. Without history, you know nothing. Those who control the past control the present. Those who control the present, control the future. It is for prcisely these resons that US power is waning, for there is no in depth understanding of world history, not in terms of facts, but in terms of applying the lessons of history to the present situation. --Krysg 19:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Does_History_Matter%3F"ViewsPage talk page Edit History Delete move Protect Watch Personal toolsAddisonDM My talk My preferences My watchlist My contributions Log out Popular Links
Main Page
Educational Index
Debate Topics
Recent changes
All pages
All images
All logs
Random page
Help
Help Index
Statistics
Conservapedia Commandments
American History
American History Lectures
American History Homework
Search

Even if you aren't living right now in the past, what happened then still happens now. If you're ignorant of that you might as well lack language, technology, and rebuild civilization every year.
History is what gives us foresight. It lets us know why and how we are in whatever situation we are in, and how to get out.

Creation vs. evolution news

2011-11-11T20:42:10Z

Valuables:

Below are some resources which offer [[creation]] vs. [[evolution]] news (all being pro-creationism):

*[http://creationrevolution.com/ Creation Revolution]
*[http://crev.info/ Creation-evolution headlines]
*[http://www.evolutionnews.org/ Evolution News and Views]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki - recent headlines]

[[Category: Evolution]]
[[Category: Creationism]]
[[Category: Creation]]

Moral

2011-11-11T20:39:58Z

Valuables: added citation needed, considering a society of psychopaths (those lacking emotion/moral) could sustain off of fear/risk, without morals...

'''Morals''' are the [[principle]]s of right [[conduct]]. In general, they are used by people toward living amongst other people. When everyone agrees to what is right, life goes along more smoothly. Governments use [[law]] to enforce morals, but civilization couldn't stand if individuals had no morals at all{{citation needed}}.

== Sources of Moral Guidance ==
There are many sources of moral guidance used by many different groups of people; each groups sees their sets of morals as supreme. Western civilization in general is largely based off of the [[Ten Commandments]] (and to a wider extent the [[Bible]]), the set of morals for [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]]. [[Islam|Muslims]] derive their morals from the [[Koran]], another widely used source of moral guidance.

==See Also==
*[[Morality]]
*[[Moral Zeitgeist]]

[[Category:philosophy]]
[[Category:Morality]]

Abstinence education

2011-11-10T00:02:41Z

Valuables:

'''Abstinence education''' encourages unmarried teens to refrain from premarital sex for reasons of emotional, spiritual and physical health.
{{cquote|"Abstinence Programs Show Promise in Reducing Sexual Activity and Pregnancy Among Teens," an article printed by Family Research Council, states that an abstinence program for girls in the Washington D.C. area called [[Best Friends]] reported only one out of 400 girls become pregnant since the program began (1). Between 20 and 70 pregnancies are common for the same sized group of fifth to ninth grade girls in the District of Columbia" (1). Upon adopting an abstinence-only curriculum by Teen-Aid, Inc. entitled "Sexuality, Commitment, and Family", at San Marcos Junior High in San Marcos, California, only 20 girls became pregnant in two years compared to 147 girls the year before (1). Nathan Hale Middle School in a Chicago suburb had a number of already pregnant girls at which time they adopted an abstinence program. Many parents were skeptical until the school graduated three pregnancy-free classes in a row (2). <ref>[http://www.unm.edu/~abqteach/hdm/00-02-08.htm "Cost and Benefits of Life-Style Choices", Phyllis Sandoval] </ref>}}
Conversely,
{{cquote|"Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.
The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a "virginity pledge," but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers. <ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/01/another_study_shows_failure_of.php</ref>}}

== Criticism ==
Abstinence education is often criticized by [[liberal]] groups such as the American Psychological Association,<ref>[http://www.apa.org/releases/sexeducation.html Comprehensive Sex Education is More Effective at Stopping the Spread of HIV Infection]</ref> the American Medical Association,<ref name="ama">[http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/15/ph_sexual_health_ed.pdf American Medical Association – Issue Brief: Adolescent Sexual Health Education]</ref> the National Association of School Psychologists,<ref>[http://nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_sexed.aspx NASP Position Statement on Sexuality Education]</ref> the Society for Adolescent Medicine,<ref name="Adolescent Health">{{cite web | url = http://www.adolescenthealth.org/PositionPaper_Abstinence_only_edu_policies_and_programs.pdf | title = Abstinence only education policies and programs}}</ref> the American College Health Association,<ref name="Adolescent Health"/> the American Academy of Pediatrics,<ref name="aap">[http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/108/2/498 Sexuality Education for Children and Adolescents - Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health and Committee on Adolescence 108 (2): 498 - Pediatrics]</ref> and the American Public Health Association.<ref>[http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1334 APHA: Policy Statement Database]</ref> This is done primarily to advance the [[liberal agenda]] by promoting teen [[promiscuity]]{{citation needed}}.

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Education]]

Scientist

2011-11-09T21:48:50Z

Valuables: irrelevant, uncited fact, most likely added as vandalism.

A '''scientist''' is someone who practices [[science]].

== Scope of term ==

Depending on the context, the term "scientist" might refer to anyone using the [[scientific method]] or anyone with a qualification in a field of science.
In most cases, both will be true, but in other cases only one or the other may be true.

== Origin of term ==

The invention of the word ''scientist'' is often credited to [[William Whewell]] (1794-1866), who was himself a scientist as well as a moral [[philosopher]] and [[Anglican]] priest. In 1858, he wrote:

:As we cannot use ''physician'' for a cultivator of physics, I have referred to him as a ''Physicist.''
:We need very much[sic] a name to describe a cultivator of science in general. I should incline to call him a ''Scientist.'' Thus we might say that as an Artist is a Musician, Painter, or Poet, a Scientist is a Mathematician, Physicist, or Naturalist.<ref>Whewell, William (1858), ''Novum Organon Renovatum: Being the second part of the philosophy of the inductive sciences,'' J. W. Parker and Son, [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC22881657&id=xYMKAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA14-PA338&lpg=RA14-PA338&dq=%22william+whewell%22+scientist p. 338]</ref>

Prior to this, scientists were usually called "natural philosophers" or "natural historians." (The oldest scientific journal in the world, established in 1665, is entitled ''Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.'' Among its early numbers are letters from Leeuwenhoek describing his discovery of [[microorganism]]s).

== Science and Christianity ==

Many scientists have been devout Christians or held a belief in God ([[Isaac Newton]]<ref> http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/newtlife.html</ref> or monk Gregor Mendel<ref>http://www.adherents.com/people/pm/Gregor_Mendel.html</ref>). Modern science has become increasingly [[atheism|atheistic]],<ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref> rejecting God and his works in explanations of the world and all of human experience. Instead readily embracing [[liberal logic]] and pseudo or [[junk science]] such as [[Counterexamples to Evolution|evolution]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity|relativity]], [[global warming]] and much of [[cosmology]] and [[geology]] based on a [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|time frame]] which predates [[creation]]. Consequently the rigid [[logic]] of [[creation science]] is gaining in importance, enabling intelligent people to distinguish real science from atheistic secular junk science. A 1998 study indicates that among U. S. scientists belief in God has declined between 1914 and 1998, with 7% believing, 72.2% disbelieving, and 20.8% professing doubt or agnosticism.<ref>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Professions]]

Radiometric dating

2011-11-09T21:47:17Z

Valuables: Removed references to "Atheistic", as this is irrelevant to the point and uncalled for in that Atheism is a minority in science, even in non-religious groups in science; with this totally accepted.

'''Radiometric dating''' is a method of determining the age of an artifact by implausibly assuming that decay rates have been constant (see below for the flaws in that assumption) and measuring the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred.<ref>[http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html Radiometric Time Scale] USGS</ref> Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks, though a particular form of radiometric dating—called [[Radiocarbon dating]]—can date wood, cloth, skeletons, and other organic material.

Because radiometric dating fails to satisfy standards of testability and [[falsifiability]], claims based on radiometric dating may fail to qualify under the ''[[Daubert]]'' standard for court-admissible scientific evidence. It is more accurate for shorter time periods (e.g., hundreds of years) during which control variables are less likely to change.

== Key implausible assumptions ==

There are a number of implausible assumptions involved in radiometric dating with respect to long time periods.

=== Initial quantities ===

One key assumption is that the initial quantity of the parent element can be determined. With uranium-lead dating, for example, you must be able to determine how much uranium was in the sample to start with. One assumption that can be made is that all the lead in the sample was once uranium, but if there was lead there to start with, this assumption is not valid, and any date based on that assumption will be incorrect (too old).

In the case of carbon dating, it is not the initial quantity that is important, but the initial ratio of C14 to C12, but the same principle otherwise applies.

=== Rate of decay ===

Another assumption is that the rate of decay is constant.
There is no reason to expect that the rate of decay of a radioactive material is largely constant,<ref>At least one example of a change in the rate has been observed in laboratory experiments. See Walker, 2000.</ref> and it was almost certainly not constant near the creation or beginning of the universe.
The process of decay is as follows. Atoms consist of a heavy central core called the [[nucleus]] surrounded by clouds of lightweight particles (electrons), called [[electron shell]]s. The energy locked in the nucleus is enormous, but cannot be released easily. The phenomenon we know as heat is simply the jiggling around of atoms and their components, so in principle a high enough temperature could cause the components of the core to break out. However, the temperature required to do this is in in the millions of degrees, so this cannot be achieved by any natural process that we know about. The second way that a nucleus could be disrupted is by particles striking it. However, the nucleus has a strong positive charge and the electron shells have a strong negative charge. Any incoming negative charge would be deflected by the electron shell and any positive charge that penetrated the electron shells would be deflected by the positive charge of the nucleus itself.

=== Outside influences ===

It is important that the sample not have had any outside influences. One example of this can be found in metamorphic rocks.<ref>[http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm Radiometric Dating] Course notes for EENS 211 at Tulane University</ref> This does not mean that all rock samples are unreliable, but it is possible to account for a process which throws off the data for metamorphic rocks.

For example, with [[Uranium-lead dating]] with the crystallization of magma, this remains a closed system until the uranium decays. As it decays, it disrupts the crystal and allows the lead atom to move. Likewise, heating the rock such as [[granite]] forms [[gneiss]] or [[basalt]] forms [[schist]]. This can also disrupt the ratios of lead and uranium in the sample.

== Calibration ==
In order to calibrate radiometric dating methods, the methods need to be checked for accuracy against items with independently-known dates.

Carbon dating, with its much lower maximum theoretical range, is often used for dating items only hundreds and thousands of years old, so can be calibrated in its lower ranges by comparing results with artifacts who's ages are known from historical records.

Scientists have also attempted to extend the calibration range by comparing results to timber which has its age calculated by [[dendrochronology]], but this has also been questioned because carbon dating is used to assist with working out dendrochronological ages.

Otherwise, calibration consists of comparing results with ages determined by other radiometric dating methods.

However, tests of radiometric dating methods have often shown that they do ''not'' agree with known ages of rocks that have been seen to form from volcanic eruptions in recent and historic times, and there are also examples of radiometric dating methods not agreeing with each other.

[[Young earth creationists]] therefore claim that radiometric dating methods are not reliable and can therefore not be used to disprove Biblical chronology.

== Acceptance and reliability ==
Although radiometric dating methods are widely quoted by [[scientists]], they are inappropriate for aging the entire universe due to likely variations in decay rates. Scientists insist that Earth is 4.6 billion years old<ref>hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/MollyMoran.shtml></ref> while the Bible (the infallible word of God<ref>www.believers.org/believe/bel191.htm</ref>) suggests that the world to be around 6-10 thousand years old.<ref>www.independencebaptist.org/6,000%20year%20old%20earth/6,000_year_old_earth.htm</ref>
{{QuoteBox|C14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: "If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method...<ref>T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson, ‘C14 dating and Egyptian chronology’, in ''Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology'', Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, Ingrid U. Olsson (editor), Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, and John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p. 35, 1970. Quoted in Lamb, 2007.</ref>}}

A geological guidebook published by the [[Queensland]] government acknowledges that the dates are not absolute, but must be interpreted:
{{QuoteBox|Also, the relative ages [of the radiometric dating results] must always be consistent with the geological evidence. ... if a contradiction occurs, then the cause of the error needs to be established or the radiometric results are unacceptable<ref>Walker, 2002</ref>}}

One example of scientists not accepting radiometric dates is that of [[Mungo Man]], a human fossil from [[New South Wales]].
When originally found, it was dated by [[radiocarbon dating]] at around 30,000 years old.
This was later revised to 40,000 years.
Another scientist later used other methods to derive a date of 62,000 years.
The original discoverer, unconvinced by this result, used a different method again, and again came up with a date of 40,000 years.

The fallibility of dating methods is also illustrated by the fact that dating laboratories are known to improve the likelihood of getting a "correct" date by asking for the expected date of the item. For example, the Sample Record Sheet for the University of Waikato Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory asks for the estimated age, the basis for the estimate, and the maximum and minimum acceptable ages.<ref>[http://www.radiocarbondating.com/submission%20form%202003.pdf University of Waikato Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Sample Record Sheet]</ref>

==Some major methods of radiometric dating==

There are several major types of radiometric dating in use:<ref>Walker, 2005</ref><ref>Faure and Mensing, 2005</ref>
#[[Radiocarbon dating]], also called carbon dating
#[[Potassium-argon dating]]
#[[Uranium-lead dating]]
#[[Uranium-thorium]]
#[[Rubidium-strontium dating]]

== Explanation by Analogy ==

No method exists for ''measuring'' [[time]], except by measuring it as it is passing. Therefore, the age of an artifact must be ''calculated''.

The basic principle in any dating method is to find a process that is occurring at a measurable rate and which is causing a change, measure the rate of that process, work out what state the artifact was in at the beginning of the process, observe what state it is in now, and to calculate how long the process at the measured rate would need to occur to effect that change.

For example, to work out how long a [[candle]] has been burning, the following steps would be needed:
# Measure how long it takes the candle to burn down a given amount.
# Find out how long the candle was when it started burning.
# Measure how long the candle is now.
# Calculate the difference between the two lengths.
# Calculate how long it would need to burn in order to burn that length.

For most radiometric dating methods, one radioactive element changes by a process of nuclear decay into another element (often through a number of intermediate steps). For example, [[uranium]] will eventually decay into [[lead]]. So to measure how old a specimen containing some uranium and some lead is, the following steps are required:
# Measure the decay rate of uranium.
# Find out how much uranium was in the specimen to start with (this might be done by assuming that all the lead was originally uranium).
# Find out how much uranium is in the specimen now.
# Calculate how much uranium has turned into lead.
# Calculate how long it would take that much uranium to turn into lead, given the measured rate. Calculations involve the well-established function for exponential decay: <math>F</math><math>t</math><math>=e</math><math>-kt</math>.

== Bibliography ==
* Lamb, Andrew, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026 Carbon dating into the future] 24th March, 2007 (Creation Ministries International).
* Faure, G. and Mensing, T., Isotopes: Principles and Applications, Wiley & Sons, 2005.
* Walker, M., Quarternary Dating Methods, Wiley & Sons, 2005.
* Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1608/ Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment], ''Journal of Creation'' 14(1):4–5, April 2000.
* Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/470 The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating], ''Creation'' 24(4):20–23, September 2002.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]

User talk:Valuables

2011-11-09T21:41:56Z

Valuables: Blanked the page

Faith healing

2011-11-08T17:07:38Z

Valuables:

'''Faith healing''' is the practice of some [[religion|religious]] and [[spirituality|spiritual]] groups of choosing to [[prayer|pray]] for the recovery of the ill or injured. The term is most commonly associated with the practice of calling upon [[God]] to enact a [[miracle|miraculous]] cure when conventional [[medicine]] has no answer. An example would be a man in a wheelchair asked to rise who normally would have no ability to do so. Within Christianity, this practice is most common within the Charismatic movements.

Other groups have a more controversial doctrine. For instance [[Christian Scientist]]s don't believe in illness, seeing it as a manifestation of a spiritual battle. There have been cases of deaths that have resulted where it is believed that modern medical care could have cured the condition. Christian Scientists report that their methods actually result in higher rates of positive results on average, although there are no formal studies that have been done that would be acceptable within the scientific community.

Occasionally religious practitioners will take it upon themselves to set their own standards and forego medical care while relying on prayer. This is frowned upon by most organized religious institutions, which cite the doctrine of [[cessationism]] against such practice. In at least one case this has led to criminal charges when a couple who had not gone to church in years chose this path. Their child died and it was determined that the death could have been prevented by modern medicine.<ref>''[http://wausaudailyherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080428/WDH0101/80428118/1981 Update: DA: Parents were aware girl could die]''. Wausau Daily Herald. April 28, 2008 </ref>
==Faith healing and the Bible==
Believers in faith healing believe that the following [[Bible]] passages support it:
{{Bible quote|And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease [was] exceeding [great]: yet in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians. And Asa slept with his fathers, and died in the one and fortieth year of his reign.|book=2Chronicles|chap=16|verses=12-13|version=KJV}}
{{Bible quote|Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.|book=James|chap=5|verses=14-16|version=KJV}}

==Damages==
There have been many deaths caused by rejecting medicine and turning to faith-healing without a professional opinion every year; for instance, the death of Dale and Shannon Hickman's newborn who suffered from an easily curable illness.

==References==
<references />
http://whatstheharm.net/christianscience.html
[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:Evolution

2011-11-08T17:04:39Z

Valuables: Challenge of innacuracy in article

Circular reasoning

2011-11-08T16:55:20Z

Valuables: correcting a mistake in the article; Carbon Dating isn't used for more than 100,000 years of history, the correct term being "radiometric dating"

{{merge from|Beg the question}}
'''Circular reasoning''' is a form of [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|proof by assertion]], often used by [[Atheist|Atheists]] and [[evolutionist]]s in which one uses a conclusion of an argument as a [[premise]] to that same argument, that is, ending where it began. This is also known as ''petitio principii'' or ''begging the question.''

It is considered invalid and therefore is not permitted by the rules of [[formal logic]].

== An analysis ==
The simplest argument is a single inference, as per the Law of Detachment:

*If P, then Q.
*P.
*Therefore, Q.

The Law of the Syllogism uses Detachment to establish an ''intermediate'' conclusion between the original premise and the eventual conclusion. Thus:

*If P, then Q.
*If Q, then R.
*Therefore, if P, then R.
*P.
*Therefore, Q and R.

''Contraposition'' uses Detachment in reverse to show that a thing is ''not'' true:

*If P, then Q.
*Not Q.
*Therefore, not P.

All these proofs start with a proposition already verified or denied.

This is the classic structure of circular reasoning, that is an abuse of the Law of the Syllogism:

*If P, then Q.
*If Q, then R.
*If R, then P.
*P.
*Therefore, Q.
*Therefore, R.
*Therefore, P.

Each of these three conditional statements would be valid by itself. Together, they create a flawed argument, because P now depends on itself to be true. The line of reasoning ends where it began, and is thus a circle. The only difference between this and ''proof by assertion'' is that the latter attempts to use a single conditional statement--"if P, then P"--while circular reasoning uses at least two, and typically three or more, syllogisms.

Circular arguments can be very difficult to detect. Circular arguments found in the professional literature, or in [[propaganda]], typically use five or six (or more) syllogisms.

Every logical system ''must'' begin with a set of generally accepted assumptions called ''postulates'' or ''axioms'' (from the [[Greek]] '''αξιος''' or ''axios'' worthy or deserving). Similarly, any set of definitions must start with a set of fundamental terms that need no definition. An axiom is usually a fundamental property of nature upon which all agree. Persons attempting to show that something is a fundamental property of nature when it is not, or a value of that property that is contrary to fact, typically use circular reasoning to make such an attempt.
==Examples==
*Atheists use circular logic to "disprove" the existence of [[God]]. That is, they presuppose that God does not exist and then argue that all proofs for the existence of God must be flawed because He does not exist. Christians can use [[presuppositional apologetics]] to break the circle of the atheists' circular reasoning.
*[[Muslim]]s also use circular logic to defend the [[Qur'an]]. They argue that the Qur'an is true because it is the Word of [[Allah]], that it is the Word of Allah because it says so, and that we can rely on it because it is true. This is '''completely''' [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge |different]] from why the [[Bible]] is true.
*[[Evolutionist]]s will claim that a fossil is millions of years old because that is the date given by [[radiometric dating]]; then state that it is reliable because they "know" that the fossil is millions of years old due to the [[strata]] in which it was found; additionally because the radiometric dating methods agree with each other, and date correctly materials which were historically dated by humans.

== Reference ==

* [http://creationwiki.org/Circular_reasoning Circular reasoning] by [[CreationWiki]]

[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Talk:Evolution

2011-08-11T21:42:25Z

Valuables:

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}

__TOC__

== Student Panel ==
I have been bold and removed the Student Panel Decision. Now, before everybody is rushing to the Rollback and Ban buttons, allow me to explain why the text was utterly outdated and pretty much useless:
*"the article will remain protected indefinitely" - Yes, just like tons and tons of other articles. Big whoop. (This is a problem by itself, but one I won't tackle right here, right now.)
*"to protect it from inevitable vandalism" - .................right.
*"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way." - Aaaaand this is the main reason why I removed the decision:
**The Panel made the decision in April 2007. Right now, the earliest revision of the Evolution article is dated February 9, 2011. Without knowing what the April 2007 version looked like, what counts as a major change?
**Between the first and last visible revisions alone, the article gained ~10k - not a major change? To put the number into perspective, [[Date of the Exodus]] is smaller than the amount this article has grown.
**Those who have been around since back then know exactly that the article ''has'' changed in major ways since then.
*"Those who wish to assist in improving this article should submit proposed changes to the panel for review." - Too many issues to list here. I honestly don't think this applies (or ''should'' apply) anymore.
I hope there can be some discussion before I'm just bluntly reverted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. ==

Since the Student Panel decreed this in April 2007, [[User:Conservative]] has edited this article over 1000 times ([http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=500&type=patrol&user=Conservative&page=Evolution&month=&year= see here]). The original version as approved by the panel can't be seen here at Conservapedia, as the article was deleted & recreated without edit-history a couple of times afterwards ([http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Conservative&page=Evolution&year=&month=-1 see here]). This is quite surprising, as the article is protected: why should authorized personal edit the article in a way that these edits have to be hidden?

Fortunately, the version from Mai 1, 2007 can be seen [http://web.archive.org/web/20070514234722/http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution here] - courtesy to the wayback machine.

The differences are stunning: Not only is this approved version much shorter (roughly a third of the current article), all the parts linking evolution with Atheism, liberalism, etc., are missing!

These parts seem to change the article ''in a major way''. And they are definitely not helpful when formulating ''an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution.''

So it seems that the Student Panel should review this article again!

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:18, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article still reflects that macroevolution is pseudoscience so no real sweeping changes were made - just enhancements. Given that Andy's first homeschooler group liked my work, I think we all know that all I have to do is make a call to Andy explaining things and Andy and his Christian homeschoolers will endorse my efforts. In short, this is an evolutionist Pickett's charge. I have talked to Bible believing Christians and they like this article. I hope this clears things up for the evolutionists and atheists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:21, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thank you. Then let's not do anymore reversions of these polite editors comments on this discussion page, please. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:23, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Conservative, the disclaimer indicates that the ''student panel'' decides about the editing of this article, not Aschlafly. You position seems to be that you follow their ''wishes'' while ignoring what they are ''saying''.
:::We other don't have this luxury: we have to follow what is written. For the sake of clarity something has to be changed:
:::*either your way of editing
:::*or the disclaimer.
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:58, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
::::RonLar, why are you so interested in this disclaimer? I doubt most CP editors - and virtually no readers - knew it existed before you started talking about it. Why does it matter so much? If it were me, I'd just leave it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:04, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Anyone who reads the article and tries to change something will find the disclaimer: it's often the only thing which is there on the talk-page.
:::::And then you see that despite this disclaimer the article is edited over and over again...
:::::These are things which irk me: I ask myself - how can it be? How many changes were there?
:::::And then I get miffed, as it gets difficult to answer these question, as the article was deleted over and over again.
:::::And so, I look deeper into, just to see that the dichotomy can't be explained.
:::::So, there is an objective contradiction between the disclaimer and the edit history. Ignoring such a thing is just not my way.
:::::Hope that helps.
:::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:13, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::These are valid questions and justifiable points. I can't guarantee you'll get an answer to your questions, but nonetheless, it is very appropriate that this talk page is where they should be raised, and an accurate record of the user comments be maintained here. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:27, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Two Conservapedia creation vs. evolution battle scenarios - Conservapedia evolution article: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99n-F1QP7E Conservapedia Evolution article battle: RonLar vs. Andy and his Christian homeschoolers part 1] and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lces8YVhI4 CP Conservapedia Evolution article battle: RonLar vs. Andy and his Christian homeschoolers part 2] :) If RonLar persists, it should provide some humorous entertainment. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:36, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I'm not sure how that answer follows the question or comment. Where did such terms as "battle" enter into this user's question? No one has been confrontational here. They're asking simple, legitimate questions, which warrant a simple, respectful response. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Another example of what you think as being debating skills? ''ceterum censeo'': ''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated successfully someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?''
:::::::::Could you, Conservative, updated the disclaimer? Something like
:::::::::{|class="wikitable"
|-
|style="background: grey"|Aschlafly and his home-schoolers endorse Conservative's ownership of this article
|-
|}
:::::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:50, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
It is very sad to see someone with [[Essay: Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] make an attempt to water down Conservapedia's evolution article. On a lighter note, {{personal remark removed}} of denied requests to make this article more palatable to evolutionists. The popular Christian YouTube video creator [[Shockofgod]] coined the phrase "Atheism is the Wile E. Coyote of worldviews" and it certainly applies to atheism and evolutionism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:08, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

:Again, you had the opportunity to score a few points in a discussion with someone whom you regard as an evolutionist and atheist. Again, you wasted this opportunity:
:*you didn't address the discrepancy of the text of the disclaimer and your behavior as detailed in the beginning of this section. The casual observer of our discussion gets the impression that you don't have a valid explanation
:*this impression will be assured by your meandering answers which are ripe of non-sequiturs and unsubstantiated statements:
:**'' Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder'' again, an ad-hominem. Doesn't invalidate any point I make
:**''On a lighter note... '' This whole section doesn't make sense for any onlooker, maybe it is clear to you...
:So: How many valid points have you made? (The answer is '''none''')
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 19:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You might not acknowledge that you are engaging in a evolutionist Pickett's charge, but of course we both know you are. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:32, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
::::And again: ''ad hominem''. What does this matter in this context? What will it matter in an actual debate that your interlocutor is pure as lilies or an evil villain?
::::The audience generally can't judge the character, it has to judge the arguments.
::::And ''in this regard'' you obviously can't stand your ground.
::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 19:43, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

== The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism ==

The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism.[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:55, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

*The campaign runs since May
*The main announcements of success were:
**the greeting of a ''single'' new volunteer
**the conversion of a ''single'' atheist
*Color me unimpressed. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:01, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
I am sure people said the same things about Christianity in its very beginnings. But look at it now:

In 2011, the ''[[American Spectator]]'' citing research published in the ''International Bulletin of Missionary Research'' reported that atheism is on the decline as a whole in terms of adherents.[http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thriving-christianity]

The ''American Spectator'' declared:
{{cquote|The report estimates about 80,000 new [[Christianity|Christians]] every day, 79,000 new [[Islam|Muslims]] every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the [[Western World|West]], while religion is thriving in the Global South, where [[Charismatic movement|charismatic Christianity]] is exploding."[http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thriving-christianity]}}

Atheism is based on nothing and it is easy to cut down and the explosion of Christianity in China is proof of this. A grassroots effort and not a top down strategy will be effective against evolutionism and atheism since many courts are currently populated with pro-evolutionist judges. Atheism doesn't have a prayer against the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:21, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

:Is the Question Evolution! campaign situated in the ''Global South'' or in the ''West''? Your study therefore doesn't corroborate your claim that ''effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism.''

:BTW: as a means of debate prognoses are only working if their effect can be seen during the course of the debate. When will the ''Question Evolution! campaign'' show the first signs of being ''devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism''?

:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:37, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
::::It seems as though someone is determined to edit out various comments to you so my desire to communicate with you has greatly waned. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:51, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
::For me, it seems that you deleted this talk page at 18.37 today. It was restored, deleted, and again restored. What went missing during this process?
::But of course, I appreciate your concern about missing comments and edit histories! No one should suffer from wanton deletions of material - as you so rightly state, this dampens the desire to communicate and to contribute to the project.
::Is this another dialogue which your are just abandoning?
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]]

== Why was this talk page deleted and the edit history erased... ==

... by User:Conservative at 18:37, 6 August 2011? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:46, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
::::See my previous post here. Namely, "It seems as though someone is determined to edit out various comments to you so my desire to communicate with you has greatly waned." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:52, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
:Which comments went missing? ''You'' can undelete them! And you should! See my edit in the previous section... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 19:05, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

:And frankly, I'm the last person to blame for material going missing! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 19:06, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
::I was going to comment in the previous section, but my whole train of thought was derailed by this deletion of my comments after I requested ''twice'' they not be tampered with. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:13, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

== Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question Evolution! Campaign ==

Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]].[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/evolutionist-science-professors-are.html] :) The campaign is already in a hall of academia. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:11, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

:As I said at [[Talk:Main Page]]:
:The statement ''A South African university science lecturer is posting the 15 questions of the Question evolution! campaign on his office door which is right by the break room.'' is based only on an anonymous comment to an [http://creation.com/question-evolution article] at creation.com

:I don't doubt that such a thing could have happened. But I don't think that the main page should feature probably bogus stories only because they have some plausibility.

:Your ''source'' just repeats this uncredited blog entry. Please remember: '''Everything you post must be true and verifiable''' . So, this story ''may'' be true, but it is certainly not verifiable.

:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:29, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I suggest you fly to South Africa and tour the halls of university Physics departments near their breakrooms. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:45, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is this a humorous attempt to deflect the fact that the story is virtually unsourced? Then it has failed. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:52, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Many creationists are no doubt enjoying their summer and school has not begun yet. Wait until the campaign goes into [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I full throttle mode.] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:13, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::So until the end of September we have to cope with bogus stories? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:15, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

==Obvious intentions of bias in the article==
"announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."
:They fail to point out that they represent probably less than 0.1% of all scientists, and that a single scientific forum could have more members..? So why are they using this in the article?
Rather than provide actual data, this article quotes a few scientists who have made points which support the views of the article.
There is no cited information which shows the opinions expressed are universally correct;
more of the article is spent disproving evolution than explaining it (which is barely done at all).
:::Given discrimination, how many are eager to answer surveys or go public? Second, science is not a voting booth. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:43, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Science is an open forum. Despite the fact that this article states several legislations have been made to enforce Creationism in schools, they have been overturned by the Supreme Court.
::::Proponents of creationism in these cases stated that
:::::Creationism is not science, and
:::::failed to produce any articles which supported creationism in any peer-review forum. [[User:Valuables|Valuables]] 17:42, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Listing fraudulent evidence offers only to attempt to discredit a theory. There's as much to talk about for Creationism, and it doesn't have any real effect on educating people about the theory or its evidence or lack-there-of, as this article doesn't address any evidence of evolution. [[User:Valuables|Valuables]] 17:42, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

== changes to the evolution article ==

Although the Conservapedia evolution article is a thorn in the side of many internet atheists/evolutionists (as it cites evolutionists candidly admitting the many fatal and serious weaknesses of the evolutionary paradigm) and continues to be a well trafficked article at Conservapedia, Conservapedia is considering making some changes to the CP evolution article. Of course, evolutionism devotees and other cranks will play no part in the revisions. There is no pressing need to do this, however, given that the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will grind away at evolutionary nonsense with great alacrity as [[Shockofgod]] will be promoting the campaign "full throttle". :) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?

2011-08-09T16:26:15Z

Valuables:

{{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

:''Answer'': This is a loaded question, and entirely subjective. This debate will not evolve coherently, since not all memebers of this discussion find "evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing". --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 23:48, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

==Discussion==

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 a lot 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)

==Scientific Consensus==
99% of biologists believe that evolution created modern speciation.
All science is sent through rigorous peer-review which would throw out nonsense and help develop theories further.
It's been 200 years, and even then dozens of scientists were preparing to publish their findings on it (not just Darwin!).

There is no other concept (except Creationism) for how speciation happened.
:Creationism can only be derived by
::observing animals pop into existence (which is done in the Bible, and no where else, and isn't a verified or peer-reviewed text)
::Seeing the evolution is impossible (Genetic Algorithms show the opposite of this)
There is no data which contradicts the theory of evolution that is even sound (let alone convincing).

It is "almost sure" that evolution is how we obtained modern speciation.
[[User:Valuables|Valuables]] 11:40, 8 August 2011 (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
: Oh? How many creatures or plants have you seen evolve into quite different creatures or plants? Answer please. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 19 February 2008 (EST)
::Very few. It's been only 10,000 years or so that we've had writing. History beyond that, however, shows life similar to life at the time, but more advanced, appearing, and adapting to a changing environment.
::In labs, the leap to multicellularity has been made by yeast in a few days (albeit accelerated from nature).
::Nylon eating bacteria developed in the time that nylon, a synthetic material, began being developed.
::What other proof do you need? [[User:Valuables|Valuables]] 12:26, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
: (paraphrasing Jbw224): 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)

It's funny about your so called authoritative voices in the scientific community that you mention are nearly all of them religious fundamentalists themselves...or at least funded by the Disc Institute, a religious think tank. If you want to "teach the controversy" then you can also teach holocaust denying, because there are plenty of "academics" who don't believe in the holocaust either.

Evolution, like the existence of the holocaust, is strongly supported by evidence. Those who believe otherwise hasn't published a single article and submitted it for peer revision in the realm of academics.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:24, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
: Please justify your claim of the persons concerned being "fundamentalists". And of them being funded by the Discovery Institute.
: Also please justify your claim that there are "plenty" of academics who don't believe in the holocaust.
: Your assertions that evolution is strongly supported by the evidence is disputed by many people. Your claim that those that believe otherwise haven't published a single peer-reviewed article is absolutely false.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Evolution isn't a theory, it's a scientifically proven process. Scientists have observed rapidly reproducing species such as Mayflies diversify after about 100 or so generations. We've seen it happen, Evolution, as a process, is proven. [[User:Apocalypse223|Apocalypse223]] 09:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
: Do you realise what's missing from your comment? What did the mayflies evolve into? Oh, mayflies! So where's the evolution (as distinct from the variation within a [[baraminology|kind]] that creationists teach? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yes, Philip, they did evolve into mayflies. They would not become a completely different species upon the first mutation. The way evolution causes new species to rise is that, after thousands of mutations, those mayflies become so genetically different from the mayflies that their ancestors were, they are no longer capable of breeding with that species of mayfly and producing fertile offspring. It is at that point that the "new mayfly" becomes a different species - perhaps a junefly? :) --[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 21:55, 12 October 2010 (EDT)
::Also, there are several instances of this happening outside of the above speculation. Take, for example, viruses. By the time flue season comes along, the flu vaccine that we used last year no longer works. This is because, in that year, the virus has mutated so many times (microorganisms reproduce much quicker than larger organisms) that it is essentially a different species of virus, and therefore it is immune to the innoculation that was designed for the old virus. After years of this, that virus would be even more different. HIV evolves resistance to drugs so quickly that they are practically useless.
::FOOTNOTES:[http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/m12webnotes/viralevolution.htm Viruses, Vaccines, and evolution of Influenza]
::[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_20.html Evolution and AIDS]--[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 22:07, 12 October 2010 (EDT)

::as far as i can tell there isn't much difference between micro evolution (which there isn't really a argument against anymore) and baraminology (the kind that creations teach), besides the fact that micro evolution leads to macro evolution (which there is a debate over) eventually, which i think is what apocalypse is getting at-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:56, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::: A problem is lack of a precise definitions of micro- and macro-evolution, but the difference between baraminology and macroevolution is not size of the change (which is what micro- vs. macro- implies), but the ''direction'' of the change. That is, microbe-to-microbiologist evolution requires ''increases'' in genetic information (i.e. the generation of new genetic information), whereas baraminology sticks with what scientists ''observe'', which is ''decreases'' in genetic information. See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/431 here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:32, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Science

2011-08-09T01:12:56Z

Valuables:

Science is not identical to [[physical science]]. The ''hard sciences'' like physics and chemistry may be physical sciences, but economics, sociology and psychology are also sciences. There's even a field of academic study called "[[political science]]". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
:How many articles have links to this article, with [[physical science]] being the intended destination? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

[[Albert Einstein]] was not a Christian. Perhaps we should explain more about his religious ideas. Did he ever come out as a full-fledged atheist, positively denying the existence of God? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:17, 12 February 2008 (EST)
: Wouldn't the [[Albert Einstein]] article be the place for that? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Einstein was a Jew, (BTW, why isn't there an article Judaism and Science?).

Question: why is it significant that many scientists are atheists. (It would have been just as accurate to say "many scientists are Christians/Jews/Buddhists/" etc.) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:21, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
: The significance would be that their atheism colours their science, such as rejecting God as a possible explanation of how we came to be. And I don't think that it would be "just" as accurate to say that many scientists are Buddhists. Some religions have greater representation than others. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:46, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== Scientists before Christ ==

In regard to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Science&diff=402631&oldid=402339], [[Flat Earth|Eratosthenes calculated the Earth's radius]] and [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Callippus.html Callippus calculated the length of a solar year]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 19:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Does astronomy count? If so, you could use the entire Mayan civilization. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:23, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: It might depend to some extent on what you call "science". See for example these quotes from a review of [[Rodney Stark|Rodney Stark's]] book[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/]:
{{QuoteBox|India, China, Persia, Greece and Rome all had venerable traditions of scholarship but why did only Christian Europe develop science?}}
{{QuoteBox|The Greeks pursued learning with great zeal but there remained always a gap between their speculative philosophy and their observation.}}
: These both indicate that science didn't exist before Christian Europe.
: So were Eratosthenes' and Callippus' works not quite what we'd refer to as "science" (e.g. simply mathematical calculations rather than use of the 'scientific method'), or were they isolated exceptions to the rule?
: Qualifying the scientists as "since Christ" seems a bit arbitrary. Perhaps we could change it to "Most of the early scientists of the modern scientific era who started many of the scientific fields...", although that seems a bit awkward to me. Or is it currently okay because "who started many of the scientific fields" is sufficient qualification?
: What do you think?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:35, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't think it's accurate to say that they started the scientific fields in the modern era, so I would qualify the statement as "in the early modern scientific era", since nowadays, scientists are less likely to be religious than the public.
:: Regarding the Greeks, science has become more rigorous throughout history. See [[phrenology]] and [[race science]], for example. I would be surprised if the beginning of any ancient scientific fields didn't start in superstition. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I'm not sure that science really has become more rigorous. Whilst some things like phrenology are no longer around, other areas, such as evolution, are as alive as ever.
::: Are you suggesting the following: "Most of the early scientists in the early modern scientific era who started many of the scientific fields...". That still seems a bit awkward or unnecessarily wordy for me. At the very least, I would drop the ''first'' use of the word "early" if we went with something like that.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: I suggest "Most of the scientists in the early modern scientific era . . ." It's not clear that they started the fields they were investigating. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 23:37, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Maybe we should also note that most Europeans and Americans at the time were also Christians. It puts into contrast the strange divide we see now. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 23:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: I've been trying to figure out for a few days what I think of the suggested wording. I've decided that I don't like it (sorry). I think that the meaning of "early modern scientific era" is unclear. I'm now thinking that a better wording would be along the lines of "Most of the scientists from the [[scientific revolution]] to the 19th century...". Also, the claim about them starting the various scientific disciplines is essentially correct (the first scientists in the fields are pretty-well by definition the founders of those fields).
::::: Researcher [[Rodney Stark]], apparently an agnostic, researched this issue. The following is from a review of one of hist books:
{{QuoteBox|To illustrate the role of Christians in the rise of science, Stark researched ‘scientific stars’ from 1543 to 1680, the era usually designated as the ‘scientific revolution’, and came up with a list of the top 52. Of these, 26 were Protestant and 26 Catholic; 15 of them were English, 9 French, 8 Italian, 7 German (the rest were Dutch, Danish, Flemish, Polish and Swedish respectively). Only one was a sceptic (Edmund Halley) and one (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 at least of which could be characterized as ‘devout’ because of their evident zeal. It is not until the time of Darwin that atheism appeared to accomplish anything significant in science (Halley’s work in astronomy and mathematics owed no debt to atheism).[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/]}}
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:09, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I like "[[scientific revolution]]", and I don't think the naturalistic [[theory of evolution]] is a significant finding. It seems more like an way to justify [[atheism]].

What's wrong with kicking back and '''marveling''' and the intricate patterns in the world God created for us? Why all the distrust and fear? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: Distrust and fear? More like a "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:5;&version=31; willing ignorance]", because they don't ''want'' there to be a God to whom they are answerable.
: Regarding evolution, the quote continues with "And the obvious flaw in Darwinism is that it ‘falls notably short of explaining the origin of species’ (p. 177). So atheism is left nakedly ideological, with all its attempts to wrap itself in science thwarted." Also, there is a footnote which adds "By attributing the appearance of design to natural selection, Darwin replaced this argument for the existence of God with a naturalistic process. His argument was flawed, however, in that natural selection can only select from things that already exist so it does not explain the origin of the created kinds".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:20, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::This appeal to authority is not impressive. And I'm all for marveling at the patterns of the world... but marveling is not science!-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 09:25, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Why do you consider it unimpressive? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:31, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::::A quote does not the truth make. Argument ought not be throwing sources at one another all day. Further it's from a biased source. Anyways, I have to go, but keep that in mind.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 09:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: No, a quote does not make the truth, but research can, in principle, establish the truth, and that is what Stark did. So what's the problem? And how is the source biased? And what sources would be unbiased? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:47, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
Okay, let's go into it further. The source is biased - CreationOnTheWeb - because it professes to be a scientific group with an agenda. The world's dominant mind on the philosophy of science, had this to say about agenda'd science - {{cquote|The scientist must, for example, be concerned to solve problems about the behavior of nature.... More important, the solutions that satisfy him may not be merely personal but must instead be accepted as solutions by many.... One of the strongest, if still unwritten, rules of scientific life is the prohibition of appeals to heads of state or to the populace at large in matters scientific.}} "Structure of Scientific Revolutions," p. 168. See, I have quotes too. That suggests that one ought to distrust a scientist with an agenda, who, by assuming an agenda, becomes no scientist at all. That makes me doubt anything arising within the "Journal of Creation."
Moving on, though, the analysis of the quotes has no context. The quoter takes "falls notably short of explaining the origin of species," out of context, so I have no way of verifying the quote short of buying the book, which I assume you haven't done.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 09:59, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: The source is a book review of a book that is by someone who is apparently an agnostic, and certainly not someone who works for CMI (Creation Ministries International). You're shooting the messenger. Second, CMI (the organisation; you named the web-site) does not profess to be a scientific group. They profess to be a Christian ministry that employs scientists and does its best to make its articles, etc. scientifically accurate. Yes, they have an agenda, just as almost everyone does, including atheists like Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott. But that doesn't mean that their science is faulty, nor that they have ceased to be scientists. Rather, you are engaging in the [[genetic fallacy]]: finding fault with the source rather than the argument. As for your quote, it doesn't refute anything I've said, but it's an interesting coincidence that the very person that you've been accused of being a sockpuppet of quoted me that book a few days ago. But as you're repeating, I'll repeat: Questioning the source of a claim rather than the claim itself is fallacious. It is clear that most mainstream journals also have agendas (for evolution, etc.), so do you distrust them also? I didn't think so. The fallacy of taking a quote out of context is one of removing it from its context ''in such a way as to change the meaning''. As you have not read the book, you have no basis for claiming that it is out of context. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:27, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::Thomas Kuhn is wildly popular among scientific and enlightened individuals, and he's widely taught in most colleges' humanities courses. I would call that no coincidence; I'm sure that, just like the person of whom I'm an alleged sockpuppet, I've gone to the bathroom in the last 24 hours :-).
::Also, have ''you'' read the book :-) ?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 10:36, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::: It's ''not'' a coincidence? There ''is'' a connection? So you ''are'' him? And here I was prepared to put it down to (an interesting) coincidence!
::: No, I haven't read Kuhn's book. How many and what creationist books, magazines, and/or journals have you read?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:55, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

== Oops! Sorry ==

Sorry for the misstatemet Philip. I meant to say "that is a coincidence." forgive me. I also meant to ask if you'd read Stark, not Kuhn, but I do commend Kuhn to your attention.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 11:14, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

== Removal of quotes ==

TheGySom removed a couple of quotes with the edit comment ''Since articles are not collections of quotes, a start'', and I agree that articles should be more than a collection of quotes. However, in doing so, he's removed the points that the quotes were making. This I ''don't'' agree with. Further, the replacement "basis of science" section is talking about its ''principles'', not the ''basis'' for it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:00, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Could you please clarify a little. I removed the first quote because it belongs in the Christians and Science article, not this one. The second quote seemed to state that the basis of science was an orderly universe, and that this was proof of a Creator. This doesn't really talk about the basis or need for science, although I will admit that I was incorrect in replacing it with the principles of science. How about renaming the section "Principles of Science", and we can try creating a "Basis of Science" section without relying on quotes? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:10, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
:: There is no ''Christians and Science'' article, but I'm happy for the first quote to be left out of this article, for now at least. The second quote did indeed state that the basis of science was an orderly universe. It did ''not'' say that this was proof of a Creator. You will note some discussion above about the multiplicity of science articles; I think that [[natural science]] should be merged back into this one. It has more on this issue of the basis of science. But the quote ''did'' talk about the basis of science: without the basis, derived from the Bible, of believing that the universe was orderly, science as we know it would not have come into existence.
:: Also, although I agree that an article should not comprise only or primarily quotes, it is quite useful and appropriate to include quotes, and this one is worth including, I believe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:41, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== Some claim that ==

It is a claim that The methodological naturalism is based on God making laws that govern the universe and logic, this is not universal within Christian doctrine or unique to Christianity. The scientific method was practiced before and there aren't any documents by those individuals who started using the scientific method that lay out explicitly that they are doing so because they assume that God made the universe in a particular way. If you can provide some of these documents for verification my conditional edits will still be accurate, but unneeded, if not then it is still an unverified claim to "Some claim that this is because..." is far more accurate and trustworthy than "this is because...". 1 timothy 6:20 tells us to be weary of false knowledge, so far that claim is just a rumor, and we should treat it as such, rather than invest in it, because if it is wrong then it will lead us astray. If you have read Ecclesiastes then you should know that it is good in the eyes of the lord to be wise, and I think its clear that it is unwise to make a claim based on faith in a rumor and then claim that it is based on fact and evidence, as we claim that conservapedia is. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:21, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
: You are wrong. It is not "rumor", but the result of much research by several different researchers. Did you read the references? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:37, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::I read the refferences (3 and 4, I don't have access to 5) and guess what, they don't contain any sources that lead them to their conclusion. It seems to start out of no where around 1850, as a rumor. as I said if you can find a reference that actually goes back to the time in question you win, but until that time you need a reference otherwise its just you saying that I am wrong. And even if you are correct my wording is still 100% correct if you are wrong and that is not the basis then your wording is 100% wrong and mine is still 100% correct. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:39, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::: "''...they don't contain any sources that lead them to their conclusion.''": Given that one is quoting someone else, and the other is an overview expanded later on (and that expansion is not on-line), that's hardly surprising, but doesn't mean that it's merely "rumor". You are still dismissing expert scholarship with nothing substantial of your own. But if you want more, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ here] is a review of reference 3 which goes into more detail, and includes this comment: "''Among the passages most commonly cited by medieval scholars was: ‘Thou has ordered all things in measure and number and weight.''":
::: Yes, your wording is 100% correct. And if you said that "Some claim that the world is flat" you would also be 100% correct, but that doesn't mean that we should put such statements in articles.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:46, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::I haven't forgotten about this or left it [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Parasite] , I'll be back later when I don't have so many essays to write --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:52, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Scope of scientific study ==

Science covers more than the physical and natural world. Psychology is also a science, and the [[human mind]] has not been shown to be a purely physical or natural phenomenon. Created by God, the human mind is more likely to be an aspect of our eternal [[soul]] than merely a function of the [[brain]].

We must '''not''' let liberal contributors (probably spillovers from Wikipedia) dictate their liberal agenda here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:14, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

==Aspects of science==

I've been thinking this over a lot, and I'd like our article to say:
#Science is a set of descriptions of our world
#Science is a way of studying the world and thinking about it to create these descriptions
#Science is the people and institutions involved in all of this

Science books for children largely consist of the first aspect. Only a very tiny minority of academics gets involved in the second aspect, and the news media largely ignores it. We do hear about prominent leaders (in the third aspect), especially if they make a breakthrough or get an award or if they fall from grace. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:19, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:Ed, your distinctions are great, but my own view is that politics transcends all categories and all disciplines. Every profession is affected by political bias, so why not scientists also? George Orwell was right, I feel, when he said "all issues are political." It's only recently that the public has woken up to the political distortions in science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:27, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Can this be looked at seriously? ==

This article needs to be reviewed and rewritten. The fact that in the first paragraph it minimizes women's contribution to science shows this was written by someone who took a few mandatory science classes in high school but never grasped it importance. Reading over the whole thing I cannot figure out if the author is saying science is trying to minimize Christianity or it is the child of Christianity. Science basis itself on hypotheses, experimentation and evaluation of results.
:Do this: Create a [[User:NorthernSights/Science article proposal]], re-write the article as you think it should be, and offer it as a proposed change. It's possible that some or all of what you write could be included in the current article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:11, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

== Women's influence on science ==

I would like to propose a small change to the second sentence to reflect the growing role of women in the scientific community. Instead of "''Second, there are the men (and a few rare women) of science who have amassed these descriptions and communicate them to everyone else.''", how about: "''Second, there are the men and women of science who have amassed these descriptions and communicate them to everyone else.''

While I am not a politically correctness nut, I do believe everyone is equal, and I think the current sentence portrays most women as not being capable of furthering science. I wanted to hear everyone's opinion on this matter instead of just changing the article without asking. --[[User:Jaddriscoll|Jaddriscoll]]

: I agree with your point and suggestion. Please go ahead and edit as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:35, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

::On the other hand, don't go overboard and insinuate the idea that women have been contributing as much to science as men. Even if we'd like to start offering them [[equal opportunity]], the fact is that their contributions have been minuscule. The great exception is [[Madame Curie]], who justly gets a unit of radiation named after her (the [[curie]]), plus one radioactive element ([[curium]]).

::I don't see anything in that sentence or any other here, implying that women are less capable. The question is whether their significantly lower work output is due lack of opportunity (i.e., sex discrimination) or lack of motivation (wouldn't most women rather stay home and raise their kids?).

::It's difficult to discuss these matters, because the last time a prominent academic tried to do so, he was set up for a fall (see [[Lawrence Summers]]). If you want to help write honestly about women's influence on science, I'm happy to help. But please don't waste my time by trying to inject feminist propaganda. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:27, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
:::[http://www.factmonster.com/spot/whmbios2.html These] [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/women-in-science-pioneers-blaze-path-for-others-1924794.html links] may be of interest. The only one I had heard of, aside from Curie, was [[Rosalind Franklin]], who featured prominently in ''[[The Double Helix]]''. [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 17:12, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

::I'm all in favor of finding out more about the obscure, the overlooked, and the downtrodden. For example, in classical music, if there have been any women composers whose compositions I've been ignoring, I'd love to listen to their music. And in literature, I finally discovered [[Jane Austen]] (women have made further inroads in fiction writing than in music, it seems).

::There's even a woman whose work is prominent in the [[global warming]] field. She's a Harvard astrophysicist. [http://www.uwo.ca/sci/publications/images/Baliunas.jpg]

::But it's '''because''' their contributions are so rare that one is interested; the last thing I'd want to do is pretend that their contributions have been commensurate. That would sweep under the rug any actual differences due to inclination or opportunity. Let's keep it real, baby. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:48, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

:::if there have been any women composers whose compositions I've been ignoring, I'd love to listen to their music. As for the romantics, I'd recommend Clara Schumann, Fanny Mendelssohn (Hensel), and Amy Beach. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:51, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

:::Hi team. It's true that women, for whatever reason, have historically made less contribution to physics than have men. Exactly how much less is difficult to pinpoint, as women were historically not allowed to present science except through men and so forth; I'm sure you're all familiar with this unfortunate bit of history. Anyways, if you're looking for prominent pre-feminism female scientists, check out Emily Noether, who is responsible for my favourite theorem in physics. Noether's theorem (as it is called) proves that all symmetries in physics have an associated conservation law. For example, time symmetry implies conservation of energy; in other words, the fact that a ball will fall exactly the same way whether dropped now or next Thursday implies that energy is conserved. I think this is a deep insight. Noether's theorem generalizes to quantum mechanics and has been a key tool in the advance of high energy theory. --[[User:JStone|JStone]] 12:19, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

Well, how about this revision: "''Second, there are the men (and in more recent times, women) of science who have amassed these descriptions and communicate them to everyone else.''".
I think this portrays the increased influence women have had, without sounding all feminazish.--[[User:Jaddriscoll|Jaddriscoll]]

:Nice compromise. Thanks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:03, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

==Article assumes huge bias that are irrelevant to content==
They state that "Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, believed in God" despite the fact that
:this has nothing to do with science as
::science is a process, not people
::Christianity is mundane enough to irrelevant regardless
It says "and many were creationists although the ideas of evolutionism or Darwinism were not yet popular", despite the fact that evolution wasn't formally theorized until the time they were popular.
I'd also like to point out, since Conservatives apparently love quotemining and playing the game of picking names:
'''DARWIN WAS A CHRISTIAN.'''.
There have been many statements that Science and Christianity don't need to be conflicting (and yet you're portraying Science as an atheistic canker). These statements have been made both by Churches and Scientific Institution.
Science isn't Atheistic- Scientists tend to be Atheistic (because for the purpose of science, which needs testable, disprovable, observable results, there is no God. That's faith, not science.)

Two consecutive sentences are completely flawed in any accuracy that is helpful to the reader. I think this article should be reevaluated.
[[User:Valuables|Valuables]] 21:12, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Evolution

2011-08-08T15:49:18Z

Valuables:

Talk:Evolution

2011-08-08T15:47:19Z

Valuables:

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

2011-08-08T15:44:14Z

Valuables:

{{debate-politics}}

==='''Teach Science As Science And Philosophy As Philosophy'''===

There seems to be an inherent contradiction in the notion that the existence of god/the mystical creation of life can be pursued as a scientific discipline, or something that could be taught as such a discipline. They most fundamental requirement of Christianity is faith, a belief in God and submission.

To pursue creationism or ID as a science or near-science is to throw aside faith in the search for logical underpinnings to the development of life. To me, that seems like a contradiction.

They certainly contradict each other, because they are both religions. Anything anyone holds as the supreme intelligence of the universe becomes his God. With the atheist, or humanist (both evolutionists) it's the mind of man. The humanist manifesto admits as much. Punch it up on your computer, and read it and see for yourself. Doesn't it speak volumes that the atheistic experience in Communism used terms such as:"Utopia" (perfection), and Workers "paradise" (Eden)?
Now, why should the religion of the Atheist (evolution) be taught in public school, and the religion of Christianity, which 80% of Americans prefer, be excluded? Evolution belief requires more faith than Christianity. From nothing to single cell, from single to reproducing multiple, invertibrate to vertibrate, sea creature to land, or air, or vice-versa, etc,etc,etc. No Proof. All by faith.

I'm another editor: Creationism or intelligent design should not be taught in a science class. They are not science. It is an utterly stupid question, and one to deflect the issue of whether they should be taught at all, to even ask if they should be taught in a science class. It's as stupid as to ask if sex education should be taught in a math class. The real issue is should evolution be taught in a science class. The answer can only be no, as evolution isn't science either. It's make believe.

For example, if we have survival of the fittest, then there would only be one specie left. This would have to be a plant, because all animals eat plants, and so to have an animal left would mean at plant would have to be left, and that means two species. Furthermore, it would not only have to be one specie of plant left, but if it's truly survival of the species, only one individual plant.

I'm Another Editor: The basic argument here is whether Creationism should be taught as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. The prior is not a science and can not be taught as a science because there are no scientific findings to back it up. Believing in evolution does not require atheistic viewpoints. There is no doubting that animals even during the presence of human observation change over the course of time and evolve. This does not say that at some point god did not create the world and animals and people but rather that the people and animals that god created change over the course of time. This is a fact and has been observed on many occasions. There is no argument here. The two ideas can go hand in hand.

==='''Teach Them Everything'''===
If we are to teach children about origins of all things and include Judeo-Christian Creationism as an alternative then we should have other beliefs as alternatives too. We can't teach every origin theory, myth, belief, etc. but we can teach a few. Perhaps a few that are culturally or geographically relevant. A combination of teaching evolution, creationism, Greco-Roman origin myths, and Native American myths would give a broader understanding than just evolution.

Even so, I go to high school and I find the teaching of evolution in biology and anthropology classes to be incorrect in many things. You think that if the government decides to teach something they would teach it correctly. The explanation of natural selection was atrocious. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know how funny it is that you refer to creationism as 'creationism' and roman beliefs as 'myths'? just two stories, both as unbelievable/believable as each other.

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.
You are stupid...they are taught as philosophy and history just like all religion should be, not as scientific fact.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.

::Wrong. Theories are not "only theories", and they are often correct. Try doing grade 9 math without the theory of Pythagoras. There is much more solid, physical evidence to support the Theory of Evolution than any other theory or belief.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I find your reference to school prayer interesting. Do you mean it should be allowed or required? And if so, why?[[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Counter-argument: Here's a shocking idea: maybe there isn't a giant secular conspiracy to deny God's existence and advance evolution without evidence. The preponderance of evidence supports evolution--why else would most scientists (the people most predisposed to think critically about scientific concepts) believe evolution to be a proven fact? I haven't yet seen a single good argument against evolution--and trust me, I've looked. Irreducible complexity is a myth, the 2nd Law arguments contain several fallacies (Answers in Genesis even advises witnesses not to use it in trying to refute evolution!), and really, the ID advocates haven't met the burden of proof. Even in one of the most Christian countries on Earth, people won't let you get away with just telling them "The Bible says so." Which is all you have that hasn't been debunked.

I suggest that you see this website:[http://www.emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm]. It has a lot to say about creation verses evolution.

Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Has creationism been proven? it had a lot longer than one hundred and forty eight years.... - Jimbobjeff18
: Today's assignment: Read in my [[essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] the parts about "proof", then explain how you are using the word in your question. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

::Gravity is not a theory, gravity is a phenomenon.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 08:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually you are incorrect. A phenomenon is something that can be seen, literally. What you observe when something falls is not gravity but the effect of gravity on an object. There is a difference. Gravity is a scientific theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Actully the fall is the phenomenon called gravity. The theory that seeks to explain the cause of the fall is a theory '''OF''' gravity. There is no single theory of gravity, there are many different theories that seek to explain the phenomenon of gravity. A theory of gravity is not called gravity, it's given name such as General Theory of Relativity. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 11:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Jaques, I am afraid you are incorrect again. The fall is the phenomenon but it is not gravity. It is the observed effect of gravity, not gravity itself. Falling is not gravity but the force of the attraction is gravity. You can have an object sitting on a plane and it will be affected by gravity however it would not be the same phenomenon that you are claiming is gravity, hence the reason why gravity is not a phenomenon. The theory of gravity tries to explain the force of gravity's interactions of objects within space. The General theory of Relativity seeks to explain special relativity with the added effect of gravitation on the shape of space and the flow of time, not actually trying to explain the force. The two theories are different due to the scopes of what each is trying to explain. Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that it cannot be the complete theory of gravity because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Later it was understood that it is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces. In this framework the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons. I hope this clears everything up.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Gravity is a ''law'', not a theory. A theory is not "as close to proven as science gets", a ''law'' is. Furthermore, genetic evidence is against the original Darwinian theory of evolution, while "Puncuated Equilibrium" and "Neo-Darwinism" are ruled out by mere probability. Furthermore, is the belief that there may be a God or other Designer who created the universe unscientific because it does not agree with naturalistic prejudice? Give me a break.[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 01:23, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

: I suspect it's both (gravity, that is) a law ''and'' a theory. That is, there is a theory to explain the law. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

3. Creationism is essentially arguing that because the natural world can't be explained 100%, therefore an old man with a gray beard really high in the sky must have waved his magic wand are created the world a few days.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

I hate to break this to you, but just because a 5000 year old book says that God created the world, that doesn't make it true. Look at the ''evidence''! There is no evidence against God...but there is evidence against the Bible.

Creationism is by deffinition not science. Science is the explination of the world without resorting to supernatural means. creationism is that life, the universe and everything were created by a supernatural entity

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

: '''REPLY'''
You state that "scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment." With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth and so can never be assumed false. But why should creationism be excluded because it doesn't suffer from the same attributes as Man's fallible beliefs? With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically. Science is supposed to be a search for truth, regardless of what that truth may be. As for 3, creationism IS based on observation and experiment, unlike Darwinism. According to Genesis, animals reproduce after their own kind, which is precisely what we see. What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans.

You go on to say that "a scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong." Well, creationism has not been proven wrong, so what's so bad about giving students access to alternative theories instead of simply trying to pretend that alternate theories don't exist?

If creationism is a logical fallacy because we KNOW that God's Word is infallible, then how on Earth can you possible say that Darwinism is scientific when Darwinists are required to ASSUME that God's Word is somehow false? Why the double standards? That doesn't sound very fair or scientific to me.

Creationism is a better theory than Darwinism, but we can't publish in so-called peer-reviewed science journals because the editors of said journals are all biased against Christianity. Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals. That's circular reasoning, just like when Darwinists date the age of fossils by "knowing" the date of the rocks, which are in turn dated by the fossils that they contain. This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY'''
It's hard to debate with people that don't follow logic when you argue based on logic. This isn't a putdown - it's a suggestion that to make this a worthwhile debate, you learn to recognize logical fallacies. I suggest reading http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ . I think it does a good job of going through the basics.

First, I should point out that we both come to this debate with a set of biases. I am a scientist and a skeptic. This has given me a bias to look at anything that isn't natural with skepticism; however, I do try to put myself in other people's shoes to see where they're coming from. I can see that you have a strong faith in your belief, and are unwilling to bend from it - in other words, you'll reject any evidence based on it. Fine - I don't imagine I'll change your mind, but perhaps I'll make you better at arguing your point.

Here are my problems with your argument:
1) "creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth". Who does? And where is your proof? The premise of your argument is that the Bible is a literal history of the world, that it was written through someone by God, and that it is unfalsifiable. Your premise requires circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. The conclusion, that the Bible is the Truth, requires that the premise, the Bible is the Truth is true. This is the same as me saying "I'm God.", then you countering with "How do you know?", and me saying "Because I said so." Ridiculous, isn't it? Furthermore, creationism is falsifiable; so is evolution. These are both conclusions of evidence we both have. It's the premise of creationism, that God wrote the Truth into the Bible, that is problematic. Even more problematic, and germane to this discussion, is that the God that did it is the Judeo/Christian/Islam God (yes, muslims pray to the same god as you do). So that's why it violates separation of Church and State.

Furthermore, there are several facts about creationism that make a firm believer as yourself have to make too many assumptions to make it true. This poses a problem for Occam's Razor, a valuable logical tool that states that and explantion of any phenomenon (a theory) should make as few assumptions as necessary. This ideal is engrained in science classes starting in grade school. Creationism makes many assumptions based on no evidence other than the Bible. And the Bible, by the way, is not one book. It's a compendium of books describing several thousand years of Hebrew history and culture, and then it skips a few thousand years and picks up with the life and times of a man called Jesus, and the goings-on of his followers soon after his death. It was compiled by people like you and me, and it's not an exhaustive list of the literature of the time, as any historian will tell you. Tell me how this compendium (arguably the greatest literature ever assembled) is any different than a compendium of Greek or Roman mythology, or even 12th-19th century English literature. Add the fact that there are multiple creation stories from cultures both extant and extinct (ask the Aztecs how they described creationism, or the Hindi, or Zoroastrians, which have an eerily similar story), and I have to ask - what makes your's so special?

2) "With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically." Yes, because science ignores supernatural explanations by definition. Actually, the definition of science requires that it only deals with natural phenomenae. So currently that cuts god out of the picture, since it/he can't be tested or observed (there are other, easier explanations that don't require the assumption that god is supernatural to explain many things). For example, in the Gospels, there are stories about demons being excercised from people. I don't doubt that this was a common explanation of the time period for someone rolling on the ground and frothing at the mouth, since people of the time knew nothing about the brain - however, an MRI scan of one of these possessed people might show that they suffered from epilepsy. Now, I can't say for sure, since I wasn't there - but one explanation requires a supernatural explanation, and the other gives a natural explanation. We can see epilepsy on an MRI. We can't see demons. People used to believe that maggots spontaneously appeared on meat until Francesco Redi covered a jar containing rotten meat with cheese cloth and showed that the maggots hatched on top. That was in 1668 AD. Do you still believe maggots appear spontaneously on meat?

3) "What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans." All I have to say is read up on the theory of evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu). I don't know where you got this notion, but that is not, in any way shape or form, what the theory predicts. Evolution is not progressive. Apes will never evolve into humans. If the Gorillas in the Congo were to split up into two non-breeding populations, then you would see, in quite a few thousand years, possibly longer, that both populations would be distinct from the original. Depending on the change in environment and genetic drift, one population might be similar to the original, and the other might not. There's no way to know, but that doesn't invalidate the theory. Evolution can't make predictions any more than you can say when you'll die. But both are inevitable.

4) "Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals." You're correct, that's circular reasoning. But no one says that creationism isn't science because it isn't published in peer-reviewed science journals. It isn't published because it doesn't meet the definition of science. I'm sorry - the only way out of that is to publish in a non-science journal, which you do, or change the definition of science (which Kansas tried to do). You have to understand that should god or any supernatural phenomenae (say, ghosts) be testable, they would instantly come within the pervue of science. Since no one can test a ghost (their occurance can be explained away in other ways), they can't be considered a phenomenon testable by the scientific method. As for ghosts, by the way, my brother's friend once asked "How come you never see any retarded [sic] or disabled ghosts?" Good question.

5) "This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts!" Another example of only seeing evidence you want to see. I'm an environmental scientist, and the company I work for is a carbon aggragator on the Chicago Climate Exchange, and let me tell you, there is hot debate about global warming and whether it has a human component, and there are articles published about it all the time in major peer reviewed journals. I read the literature. You don't. It's that simple. Basically you're equating global warming with a non-conservative viewpoint, and since it doesn't fit, it's wrong. Kind of closed-minded, don't you think? Don't think I've never questioned global warming; after reading the literature and weeding out the one's that I don't feel have a valid methodology, I have concluded, for myself, that global warming has both a human and a natural component, and that current predictions about it's consequences are overblown. If new evidence comes along to support or reject that conclusion, and I feel it's strong enough to change my mind, then I will change it. There - see; a scientist with an open mind. Show me someone on your side with the same gumption.

The problem with your point of view and others like you is two fold. First, you recognize bias in everyone but yourself. What if you hadn't ever heard of the Bible or Jesus? Biblical creationism wouldn't exist for you. Yes, negative evidence does not necessarily imply that it's wrong, however, one thing about evolution that makes me feel it is a valid theory is that it doesn't require you to be of any religion. It doesn't even require you to be on this planet, and, as far as we can deduce, in this galaxy to be testable. It's literally universal. Creationism is a narrow view of the world that only includes people who have ever been exposed to it. Those that aren't (other religions) make up similar creation stories that you would think are silly, yet they're based on the same flawed logic. Yet you think you're absolutely correct, and you base it on "evidence" that I can't dispute. Your argument is literally "you're wrong because I say so".

Second, you debate a topic you obviously have never bothered to read up on. I spent twelve years in Catholic school and have read the Bible from cover to cover, not to mention I own a copy of the Jefferson Bible (good reading). It only takes until Genesis chapter 2 to find a blatant, fatal contradiction in the creation story, which literal Bible readers must be content with a figurative connotation to get around because it's so obvious. I've spent years in higher education reading and studying evolution, and I read a fair amount about it in my free time. I also look for evidence of it in nature (I'm currently studying carnivorous plants in a bog in Michigan). If you read with an open mind, recognizing that you have bias, and realizing that you might be wrong (believe it or not, scientists do this all the time), you might find that creationism is best left in a history, literature, or philosophy class. Hey - you've got one up on us scientists. The Bible is relevant to all the humanities. Science just has a science class. - stubbstarbuck

:Falsifiability is important in science because if there's no test one can perform that could, in principle, show a hypothesis to be false, there's no conceivable observation that could ''support'' that hypothesis either. If creationism isn't falsifiable, it isn't science, and that's the end of it.

:Cats giving birth to dogs would ''falsify'' evolution, not support it. As would one extant species of ape giving birth to another. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Intelligent Design should not be taught in (public) schools. Intelligent design is part of (several) religions, and we have a separation of church and state. Saying that Intelligent Design is the "truth" and therefore should be taught is completely inaccurate due to the fact that religion is a BELIEF. Therefore, maybe YOU think it's truth, but I certainly don't. It all depends on your POV. Also, I don't really think we have a choice between religions, we only really have a choice between believing and not believing (as that is always a readily available option). If you were born into a Muslim family and brought up to believe that religion, would you not believe it as strongly as you believe Christianity (or w/e) today? [[User: sundevilfire|sundevilfire]]

Hmmm.... Creationism has NO scientific basis what so ever, people merely assume it is true because we traditionally have. Evolution is taught because it is by far the most likely theory judging by what evidence we have. Evolution is, yes, a theory. The term theory in science describes a widely excepted and scientifically based ideathat has produced nearly irrifutable amounts of evidence. Creationism is not a theory or even a hypothesis, but a baseless guess. If evolution was not well established would a respectable magazine such as Science News have a cover asking "Was Darwin Wrong," and an article titled by Half a page filled with the word NO?

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to learn about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

We all seem so worried about not offending those who don't believe in God or creationism, but nobody stops to think (or care) about offending those who do. I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true, but it's forced upon me in my AP Biology class. And if I speak out against it, the teacher basically tells me to be quiet and learn it anyways. --[[User:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 12:39, 16 March 2007

Just because your faith says that something is not true does not make it so. Many people in the middle ages believed that the earth was the center of the universe since God created it in the bible. We now know this to not be true.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

"I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true" All I can say is, wow. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. How can you come to any sort of logical or reasoned conclusion that it's not true if you don't want to learn about it? That would be like me saying "I won't read Harry Potter books because I know I don't like them". [[User:Human|Human]] 19:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:REPLY - The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed and there is a great amount of this evidence. Your claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings. A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay.--[[User:Tchonody|Tchonody]] 22:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.
:I hope you're joking. That's all I have to say. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Reply: In '''Science''' Class I sure hope science is relevant.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:So children shouldn't be learning theories eh? Alright, then that means the end of science altogether, and the end of math altogether. Wow. Nice education. Theories are not wrong, and they are much more true than Creationism. Give me a single thread of phsyical evidence that Creationism is correct and I will send a cheque for some large amount of money your way, because you will never be able to do so. Don't use the bible as a viable source, many people write books, what makes this one any more accurate than any other book ever written? Fossil evidence is dated using carbon dating - which is probably within several tens of thousands years accurate. That doesn't seem like it's very accurate, but when you find fossils that are approximately 200 Million years old, no-matter how many tens of thousands off it is, it's still over a hundred million. No possible way that Creationism could be true in that sense, yet you simply discard it and say the bible is right because it says so? That's extremely flawed logic. In fact, that's not logic at all. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Okay, I'll answer for ALFa. There is a certain amount of consumable energy in the Universe, and it's decreasing. If the Universe were really billions of Y.O., no more energy would be availible. --[[User:Desmond]]
::::COUNTER: Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy.No energy is ever destroyed, it is simply recycled. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:10, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I didn't think so.
:The bible will never be proven, for all you know, it was a story that kids used to read like Lord of the Rings. It's been translated and interpretted so many times, there is no way of telling what is fact, what is fiction, and what is just plain wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:That's not an axiom - you're using the term wrong. An axiom is a rule or statement. Are you saying the truth of the bible is a postulate? Again, we get back to the same two problems in this debate, which you clearly don't understand. 1) Biblical truth is an unfalsifiable conclusion because the premise, that God spoke through people, is unfalsifiable. 2) Because of this, you must use circular logic to make your conclusion sound, and that's a logical fallacy. Therefore, this debate is silly. How can you claim that your conclusion should be taught as science when it doesn't even meet the basic definition of science? - stubbstarbuck

NVConservative, the point that ALFa is trying to make is that Creationism isn't science because it is not falsifiable. There may be no way to prove it exists, but more importantly, there is no way to prove that it does not exist. With evolution, there are various things that could be observed that would disprove the theory--If the law of superposition was found not to be true, for example (that is, if human fossils were found below dinosaur fossils in the earth). However, there is no such falsifiability for Creationism. Ignore his telling you to reject the Bible and his claims about it being analogous to Lord of the Rings. That's not the point. Remember the question of this debate: Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a ''''scientific'''' alternative to evolution in public schools? Nowhere in the question is it asked whether religion or the Bible is true or important, just whether it should be taught as science. ALFa says that it shouldn't. This is different from a rejection of religion in general.
The point that I'd like to make is that not only is Creationism not science, but trying to present it as science, or trying to study Creationism in a scientific matter is doing religion a disservice. Cross-apply my analysis from "Teach All Theories." My thesis is that trying to mix science and religion destroys the benefits of both--If you stop trying to learn the inner workings of things (such as Evolution), you lose the benefit of science. If you insist that religion must be proven, then you lose the benefits of faith. Religion isn't about proof. Science isn't about faith. The two exist separately, even if their implications sometimes overlap (as in this instance). [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 19:44, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

REPLY: I agree with this person more than anyone else... All I hear is the Bible can't be proven through the scientific method, yet the Bible has yet to be SCIENTIFICALLY disproven. "Faith" does not rely on "science". There is no way to disprove that a God exists, and there is also no way to disprove that evolution is God's work.

Evolution in no way conflicts with creationism. Some ill-informed creationists believe untrue facts of evolutionism, such as the "monkeys made humans" belief. But, some scientists use science as a valid fight against creationism, then say that creationism is in no way scientific. I will not the overused "circular logic" but instead call it hypocracy.

It is possible to be a Christian AND an evolutionist. Even Charles Darwin said so. So let's leave it at that. I believe in my "faith" in God. I also acknowledge that science does exist and is necessary. I don't necessarily believe in all aspects of evolutionism, but I do believe in the premise of things adapting to their environments over time. I'm sure what I'm saying will have NO impact on anyone whatsoever. Beliefs are typically implanted and can never be changed. But, I will say that the entire fight of creationism disproves evolutionism (at its core) and vice versa is stupid. Plain and simple. Thanks. - ddmdandaman

== Listen to Science, not religion. ==

The Bible is no substitute for science, not now and not ever. All these bible-toting conservatives need to learn to distinguish between the literal translation of the Bible and the actual meaning. There is a reason why we do not interpret the Bible literally: much of it can be interpreted in many ways. For example, people probably aren't about to "stone" a nonbeliever. Go with the theory proven time and time again: evolution. There is a reason that all reputable scientists believe in it. What is this reason? BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

- We should not teach Creationism or Intelligent design for the same reason we aren't taught the theory that God created the Universe alongside that of Big Bang theory; it is a religious alternative not a scientific one. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to be taught about the theory in religious studies, but not in Science. Creationism is meant to be an alternative to scientific theory, not an alternate scientific theory.
Simply quoting from the Bible does not mean you have produced irrefutable evidence, and neither does believing in it, it is not a comprehensive tome of knowledge and I shall attempt to demonstrate how. It is certain that the Second World War happened, this is an indisputable statement. But this information is not contained at all in the pages of the Bible. We have photographs, countless individual eyewitness accounts, film, all cataloging the the events of the second world war. But nevertheless it is not in the Bible's pages. Should we therefore regard the fact that Jesus existed as somehow being ''more'' true than the fact that the Second World War happened? No we should not, it is at least ''equally'' true that the Second World War happened.
Just because evidence does not come from the Bible does not mean the evidence carries less weight.- [unsigned]

You are getting mixed up. Truth does not come in degrees, '''''but likelihood does.''''' It ''is'' equally true that WWII happend and that jesus exsisted because they are both undisputable fact. However, the theory of evolution is not. To those of us who beleive in the bible, no evidence can carry more weight than what the bible says and most of it carries less. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:58, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

I broadly agree with this [edit: this is to unsigned, not Ben, who interrupted. Ben, first, learn some manners; your faith does not entitle you to be rude to nonbelievers or anybody else. The existence of Jesus is disputable, and in terms of your belief, perhaps the Bible is the end of it, but in terms of its contributions to a scientific discussion on how the universe came into being, the Bible is worthless - it is not scientific evidence of anything]. If I may make a pedantic point, one statement cannot be "more true" than another. A statement is either true or it is not - it's like saying that one circle is "more round" than another, or one corpse "more dead" than another. Another more basic point is that the theory of evolution has not been proven to be true. No scientific theory has been proven to be true. All we can say is that it is consistent with the evidence. As has been pointed out extensively elsewhere on these pages, scientific theories are falsifiable but not provable. Because creation theory is not falsifiable - we cannot test it, as it makes no predictions - it is not a scientific theory. Your main point about the Bible not being a reliable source of factual information about how the universe came to be here is quite right. There are some valuable things to be read in the Bible, but they are more to do with how we should behave - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", as I believe Jesus said, is one such thing - and if I were to publicly proclaim that to discover the nature of the universe, a bronze-age book is a better guide than looking at the evidence, then I would be glad if somebody were kind enough to tell me I'm being stupid. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 15:40, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

== Let the Children Decide ==
I agree that the bible is not substitute for science as I sincerely doubt the bible could have invented the computer or many other wonderful things.
Yes, we should teach creationism/intelligent design in schools but we should also teach the theory of evolution.
I disagree that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory because it isn't scientific.
We should teach both theory's and any others of different faiths or cultures and let the children make up there own minds in the subject because if we try to force our own view upon them then they will most likely reject them entirely and refuse to even consder them as an option. This would be, I feel, the best corse of action.

Would we teach all religions' creation theory? Would you mind your children being taught the Hindu creation story? Not all religious parents are Christians, you know. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY''' 
By all accounts creationalism is scientific. There is much evidence to support the theory of intelligent design. From the DNA of mitochondria to the fossil record. I think it's possible to teach intelligent design for the same reason they teach evolution. Neither has been succesfully proven, yet evolution is shoved down our throats as absolute fact. P.S. i would like to hear the Hindu creation story. [unsigned]

By all accounts THAT YOU ARE PREPARED TO LISTEN TO creationism is scientific ("creationalism" is not a real word). To any person with any knowledge of how science works, it isn't. You point out that neither creation nor evolution has been proven. A true scientific theory can NEVER be proven; it can only be ''disproven.'' This is one of the bases upon which science works. Evolution is '''not''' shoved down our throats as absolute fact - it is simply the best theory we have '''based upon the evidence'''. The moment we find, for example, a modern human skeleton among dinosaur fossils, the whole theory of evolution will be very seriously challenged. On the other hand, creationists don't look at the evidence, they read the Bible. This is why creationism is a part of theology, but not a part of science. There is no evidence at all to support ID theory. When a scientist is faced with a problem which he cannot explain, then if he is honest, he will say, "I don't know," rather than make conjectures about supernatural agents such as God. If he arrives at a theory, he will do everything he can think of to prove himself wrong - but not by making things up. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 20:57, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

==Teach all theories==
Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roopilots6, I believe you are misunderstanding science. Science does not prove things, it disproves things. The theory of gravity has not been proven. The theory of relativity has not been proven nor shall the theory of evolution be proven. The issue with intelligent design is that it is a philosophy and not a science. How do you test intelligent design? What are the mechanisms that the designer used to design life? The intelligent design movement does not ask these questions, all they state is that life is so complicated that it must have been designed, that is what the IC argument is about. This seems to be giving up on discovering how things work, with this mindset medicine would not have made the break through it has made in the past 50 years.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::TimS, No I haven't misunderstood. Teach all theories. The problem is that the philosophy of evolution isn't science either. Scientists that use evolutionary philosophy mainly do so because they will be more likely to receive funding for their work. The belief system of theoretical doctrines requires great faith from its believers. This is the very definition of religion. Neither evolution, intelligent design, or the theory of gravity have yet to be proven. Evolutionary theory has corrupted true science into mere religion. As a religion, it should only be included into curiculums alongside others such as intelligent design theory. If you want to test intelligent design then follow the science that isn't being
corrupted by the evolutionary theory. You see, I do know science, and I do know religion. If you want to use them together then don't cry foul when others merely want to follow different evidence.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, any experiment done by a biological scientist in regards to evolution will have one of three results.

# It can strengthen current evolutionary theory
# It can force current evolutionary theory to adjust and incorporate
# It can disprove evolutionary theory

:::Using the math skills employed to determine the comparative liberalness of wikipedia, I can ascertain that there is a 33% chance that with any experiment, evolution can be disproven. As much as you say evolution is a religion, evolution is falsifiable and has predictive abilities. ID does not. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Myk, you're making a lot of assumptions there. First, you assume that the outcome of any experiment is purely random. I get this from your 33% chance thing. Let me do what you just did: If I drop a ball close to the Earth's surface, one of two things will happen:
::::#It will fall to the ground and prove gravity exists.
::::#It will float in mid-air and disprove gravity.
::::Using math skills, I can ascertain that there is a 50% chance that gravity doesn't exist whenever anything is dropped from mid air. Since things are dropped near Earth's surface all the time, the chance that gravity exists is almost nothing.
::::Do you see the problem with your logic? When there's a system in place, the chance of something tested within it being untrue is actually very, very low. The chance that gravity exists is actually very close to (but not exactly) 100%. The same applies to evolution. It's a natural phenomenon that you can test. It's a system that has a (close to) 100% chance of being true. It's entirely possible that creation happened, it's entirely possible that there's no such thing as the past and we're all living within a snapshot of time. However, the chances of either of those being true, according to current information, is very very low.
::::As for "Teaching all <s>theories</s> explanations," here's the problem with that. By the time we teach our children every single explanation about where the Earth came from, their grandchildren will be about fifty years old. There are too many explanations from all parts of the world to possibly teach to someone in a reasonable amount of time. The best we can do is to teach the most probable (or most successful) explanations, of which creationism is not one of. If anyone comes up with a model that explains things better than the current one, we will switch to that.
::::As for "Teaching all '''''theories'''''": A theory is a set of models that has an overwhelmingly large amount of evidence to support it and that hasn't been sufficiently falsified. The Big Bang theory and the five or so competing theories in science fit into this category, and we don't even teach all of those! Creationism doesn't, because there is very little evidence supporting it, and things like rocks and fossils seem to contradict it. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 22:24, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Roopilots6, once again you have shown that you truly do not understand science. What you may have learned in a high school science class does not scratch the surface of what constitutes science and what constitute philosophy. As Myk pointed out above the theory of evolution is a science because it meets the criteria of what is science. ID does not meet this criteria as of yet. The whole conspiracy theory about not receiving funding because you take a anti evolution stance is ridiculous, there is nothing that states you must indicate if you are for or against evolution when writing for a grant. Some institutions even support antagonistic evolution research funding due to the research further strengthening the theory. Why your statement about the faith needed to believe in evolution is false can be summed up that the empirical evidence out weighs the antagonistic evidence by such a staggering amount that it would require no faith at all. However, since ID does not give a mechanism for how things happen, nor does it state why things happen, it relies on faith for a person to believe that all living things were the product of the designs of some intelligence, that we can not see nor know how it influenced our designing. This my friend is theology not science. When ID can give an explanation of the mechanism of how this intelligence was able to design all of the diversity of living creatures on this planet then it could be considered science. Evolution is as much of a religion as gravity.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You miss the point. The theory of evolution hasn't met the criteria anymore then ID. Both are unfalsifiable. All of the smug assumptions that have created the bloated empirical evidence are meaningless since it still hasn't proven the theory of evolution to this very date. What you don't get is that this is what lends it to criticism. That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact. Before accusing others of conspiracies you ought not to be pushing your own. That flaw comes from every time you embrace the philosophy of Evolutionary theory. This is why evolutionist always make personal attacks when they've been called out since they know it is a merely a theory that will never be proven. It is theology cloaked with its priestly scientists endeavoring in a never ending quest to worship the creature and not its CREATOR. When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science. This was my whole point that neither has of yet shown the MECHANISM so that both should be considered within the realm of scientific inquiry. Even though I know the secular Humanist will never accept that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roopilots6, I guess you do not understand evolution. Research it some more. It has met and has passed the criteria for being a science and theory. Evolution is falsifiable, finding human bones lower in the earth's strata than dinosaurs would falsify evolution. Bacteria and viruses not adapting to antibodies would disprove evolution. Lack of mutations in the genome would disprove evolution. Your understanding of theory and science seems a bit flawed, theories are never proven but disproved. Science never proves anything but disproves much. Of course it leads to criticism, science is about digging and developing the understanding of a topic. Critical ideas are what is needed to be able to provide objective evidence to support the science. If there was no criticism then the science would be one sided and therefore biased. As for your statement about the mechanism it has been shown, mutation of genetic material. It is ID that says that the mutation is directed and therefore the burden of proof of what directs the mutation falls on ID. Evolution says it is just mutation and nothing else, because that is all that has been tested and observed. Please read up on what science is and about the theory of evolution before trying to be critical of it, your statements show a lack of understanding of both.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::TimS, I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you. I have no doubt that you have been selectively educated in how to view your world in exsclusively evolutionary ways. You've been taught that it is the only way that science can be used. Creationism/ID and Evolution are both UNFALSIFIABLE because they are the antithesis of each other. I do have a better understanding of both as apposed to your understanding of only one.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Roo, once again you show a lack of understanding. Evolution is falsifiable, some basic tests to falsify it are found in fossil records, dog breeding, and gene mutation not to mention the thousands of other tests that have been performed over the last 100 years by scientist who wanted to disprove the theory. ID acknowledges that a form of evolution takes place but can not provided the mechanism of how a designer could influence this form of evolution. William Dembski just posted today on his blog about directed evolution and how it is not Darwinian, thus supporting the fact that ID does rely on a form of evolution, however directed. Not until a mechanism is proposed can ID be considered a science, it is philosophical until it proposes something that can be tested. As of yet nothing has been produced that can be tested. That is the difference you seem to be missing about ID and ToE. I must that an attack on my education does not support your understanding of the theory of evolution, especially when the facts are clear about how the theory of evolution is falsifiable and how ID is not. As for being selectively educated, I would not disagree. Scientists tend to be educated by the majority opinion at that time, and currently the theory of evolution is held to be the most accurate theory for life diversity in the bioscientific disciplines. There is no dispute of this. Take a 400 series molecular genetics course and try to understand what is being presented without a clear understanding of evolution.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

"I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you." Roo, you consider ID to be science. ID is not science. ID's claim is, essentially: "Life is really, really, complex. Because life is so complex, we are going to accept that we cannot understand the mechanism for its development, and so resort to christian dogma." If you think that is science, then you do not have a better understanding of what science is than most. "That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact." Please, list them. "When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science." Um...genetic modification? Have you ever wondered why people get new flu shots every year? Or why it's unwise to take antibiotics more than necessary? Also, if each species was independently designed, why do early human fetuses resemble those of pigs, rabbits, and other vertebrae?

::Wrong, that isn't the claim of ID. If you don't know what the assumptions of evolution are, well you might want to learn more about the subject. Yes, by the simple rule of majority opinion, I would agree there would be no dispute. Science by mob rule, well you're welcome to that if you like it. Go ahead and keep repeating the mantra of Evolutionary theory is scientific fact while ID isn't, or the theory of evolution is falsifiable and ID isn't. Maybe people will believe it after repeating it enough times. What's the deal on directed evolution? The eugenicists believe they are helping in the process of evolution by making decisions about who can live and who will not. One of the great ideas spawned from the idea of natural selection of the survival of the fittest. The Nazis loved the eugenicists so that after 1945 the eugenists changed the name of the American Eugenics Society to the Society for the Study of Social Biology in 1972. All of this from the book with the title: On The Origin of Species, By Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the struggle for Life, By Charles Darwin, M.A., Published in London: by John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859. Now of course that subtitle is usually left out on more recent publications, but I think it proves my point. Oh, directed evolution isn't ID either. Sounds more like natural selection to me.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:07, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, I do suggest you read up on evolution. Your last paragraph is throwing up strawmen about evolution. Rumple was not far off about the claim of ID. Intelligent design states that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as evolution. It is a modern form of the teleological argument, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer though its primary proponents identify the designer as God. These proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life; however, intelligent design is not considered to be science by the scientific community because, as per a statement by The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. It is often described as a pseudoscience or junk science by scientists, as well as being proclaimed as such by the National Science Teachers Association.
:::Tell me Roo, how is ID falsifiable? I listed how evolution is falsifiable above, so please fill me in. As for the eugenics issue, well consider that the theory of evolution is based on random mutation, not the guided selective breeding that eugenics would support. So a supporter of eugenics would not be considered a supporter of evolution. Infact eugenics would fall more in line with ID since the evolution (microevolution, which ID claims is true) would be guided by the eugenicist. Perhaps, as I keep stating, you should educate yourself more on the topic of evolution before debating it.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there is a more important point to be made here: It comes back to that word proof. The goals of science and religion are fundamentally different, and various aspects of each can be debated. However, one part is clear: religion is about believing, and science is about knowing. When I say knowing I mean proving. Without proof, one cannot know for sure. That is where religion and faith come in. One believes not because one has, wants, or needs proof. One believes because one has faith. There is absolutely nothing wrong with faith, but it is different from science. Instead of proponents trying to make the argument that Creationism qualifies as science, or that evolution is just a religion, they should look at the fundamental difference between the two and remember why it is so. You shouldn’t try and prove Creationism, and you shouldn’t blindly believe in Evolution. Keep each in its place, for they lie in separate domains. Trying to mix the two inevitably destroys both. I think we can agree that religion has its value, whether stories of Creationism are taken allegorically or literally. Likewise, science has value; through science we can improve the quality of life on Earth. That's my two cents. [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 17:29, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Teach the controversy! Teach [[Flying Spaghetti Monster|Flying Spaghetti Monsterism]]! [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Don't==

Don't teach creationism in school if you don't want to hear evolution in church :P [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:55, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Creationism is a cockamany story invented by religion. Religion has no place in schools and is a completley outmoded institution. It no longer serves a purpose and this debate should not have been raised. There is no evidence that would suggest that creationism is a viable alternative to evolution.

==Already_there==

Evolution is already taught in church on Monday thru Friday K-12. Oh, you don't mean the Humanist churches do you. So sorry.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 17:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roo, I just do not understand this last comment. Are you implying that people should only attend church services to receive an education?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::In the same way they would be taught evolution to become religionists. You got it down.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:06, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Tell me, should we not teach Pi as 3.14... but teach it as 3 since that is what is derived from the bible for its measurement? What about the ice cores with millions of years of climate data from the Antarctic? Should we ignore this information as well? After all the bible when taken literally only allows the earth to be 6k years old. Enough about these pointless arguments perhaps you should respond to my post above.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well yes it is pointless for me argue the point. Change Pi? I don't think so. Listen, there are plenty of sources that will give you a different perspective then evolutions. The science is there. Learn the alternatives and don't be entrenched in evolution because it's become more religion then science.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:33, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roo, perhaps you should look into evolution a bit more. I have studied and taught cellular and molecular biology based classes for years now, and have yet to find an alternative to Evoultion that has the same amount of evidence and support from my peers. Nature has shown us things that evoultion predicts we would see as well as supports the basic claim of evolution, that organisms evolve over time with different stimuli. I have yet to find an alternative that would provide the same amount or better information than evolution at this time. Perhaps you could provide some samples that I could test?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Tims, if survival of the fittest is true, then perhaps you could answer one simple question: Why isn't there just one specie left? Actually, another question: Why isn't there just one individual of one specie left? Earl100.

It would seem TimS has wandered off to a more interesting corner of the net, Earl, but if you want an answer to that rather ridiculous question, I can offer you another question: if there were only one individual member of one species left, what would it eat? Presumably it would be able to fly, or else it would never be able to eat all the insects and birds, and it would be able to swim to very great depths, so as to consume all the life that lives in the oceans. It would be swift and strong in order to outrun and kill every other land creature, and it would have be very agile and nimble so as to reach the less accessible places where life is to be found. It would have to be immune to every poison produced by other animals and plants. In order to consume all other living things, it would have evolved to live in all environments - from tropical deserts and swamps, to temperate areas, alpine areas, and of course it would be at home at the ice caps. Perhaps you would like to submit a drawing of what you think this creature might look like - I have a powerful imagination, but I can't conceive of such a creature (although humans are the nearest thing to it, and the rate at which we are wiping out other species suggests that it may just be a matter of time...). Or perhaps you might prefer to think ''before'' asking questions about a subject you clearly don't understand? Look at life on earth. On the African plains, lions kill and eat zebra, but they don't wipe out whole herds in one go - as apparently they instinctively know that if they leave the fitter zebra, they'll have something left to eat next time they go hunting. The survival of any one species depends on the survival of other species. I know that this idea doesn't conform to the conservative notion of self-interestedness, but reality seldom does. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 13:05, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

==QM is an Object Lession in Science==

If you want to ''really'' understand the way that science works, look at the history of Quantum Mechanics. What starts out to be a nice little idea (namely that the world at the micro level is discrete rather than continuous), has had huge ramifications and has accumulated an enormous body of results, mainly becsuse (a) no-one really understood the philosophical underpinnings of the theory, and (b) no-one actually believed its predictions. Scientists have subjected this theory to all sorts of tests, to try to find the flaws in the logic, the holes in the theory, in order to understand what is basically going on - mainly because they could not believe their own predictions. Einstein concocted the famous EPR experiment in order to demonstrate what he believed to be the inconsistencies inherent in the theory - this was his attempt to demonstrate that 'God does not play dice' with the universe. The experiment, however, confirmed, rather than falsified the theory. However, we should note that this did not mean that scientists stopped testing the theory. The fact that its results are so bizarre, has led scientists to throw test after test at it in order to find the limits to the theory.

Quantum Mechanics is merely a model of the world: it has (a) an interesting idea, (b) a mathematical framework which is derived from that idea, which has both predictive and explanatory power, which produce (c) testable hypotheses which (d) have been tested to destruction. One day, someone will come up with an challenge that QM can't answer, and we will know the limits of the model. That will then allow us to formulate improvements to the model, or reject it in favour of a better model. That is the purpose of all the experiments.

That is the way that science works. If you are in favour of teaching science in schools, then you need to include in the syllabus those things which use this scientific method. If you think science is a waste of time, then you need to find away of accounting for why science has been successful in underpinning the technological advances of the last 200 years (such as the computer on which you are now reading this). Anything that is taught in science lessons, must, de facto, be science.

Creationism is an idea, but has no mathematical or theoretical framework which can yield testable hypotheses. Creationism invokes a creator and a creation point, and puts the action in the past. Unless you are claiming that the creator is still creating, then we cannot test whether the hypothesis is true. Without an ability to test, it is not science.

Evolution on the other hand, is science. You may not agree with it, but evolutionary theory does not just claim that things got this way in the past, but that they are happening here and now. That means that the theory is testable. In addition, evolution has a genetic mechanism which has the potential for explaining how evolution works at the molecular level. Evolution is still a young science, and therefore it is still itself very much evolving and changing. Currently, for example there are indications that there are some genetic mechanisms which allow 'learned' behaviour to be passed on to offspring via meta-tagging of the DNA code. This does not invalidate the central tenet of evolution, it merely modifies the theory to take account of new information, so that it better models the world we observe.

How has creationist theory changed as a result of any observation?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wow, ignorance is truely bliss. It is evident that you have never met an ID scientist or even read how it is applied in science. Of course not. You'd never even consider doing so. I can read many of your points and substitute Evolutionary Theory for Creationism/ID. So you have proven how people see the problem when only one and not both being taught. You live in a world where many, if not most, see the evidence of a Creator every where. People are still free to think openly. The Theory of Evolution is only one way. Mostly embraced by the religion of secular Humanism. So until you get the totalitarian society where you can tell everyone how to think, we'll choose that path ourselves. Let that be a lesson. --[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]], that was very well put. I must add one thing that I thought up some time ago, since you mention "meta-tagging" of the DNA code... I am waiting for someone to find a strand or section of DNA, any DNA, that has been properly commented. You know, intelligently designed code. And believe me, whatever my thoughts may be on this tempest in a teapot, if we observed such a thing there would be some big headlines in the science journals! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==The big picture==

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#Should children be taught how to '''do''' science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
#*During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See [[Eugenics]].)
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
#*Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
#Should children be taught to think for themselves?
#*See [[Values clarification]] - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
#*Should children be taught to '''rebel''' against authority?
#*Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?

I am commenting on that "notions of good or bad" comment. How could you compare evolution and creationism to good and bad. Which one is good and which is bad. That makes no sense.

I don't think we can answer the instant question without giving some attention to the bigger questions. It's all related. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Go-Go Gadget LINE BY LINE!

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#*
#Should children be taught how to '''do''' science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
#*Both--they are not mutually exclusive. However, I'm not sure there's any real way to "do" Creationism because it provides no falsifiable hypotheses. Children should be shown what is currently believed to be true in the scientific community today, and they should learn to apply the scientific method to make discoveries on their own.
#*During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See [[Eugenics]].)
#**Yes--if that was the opinion of science at the time, that's what should be taught. Now, today we know that that is not the case, in the same way we know lots of other things now that we didn't know then. Just because someday we might find out that something isn't the case, doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach something of which there is overwhelming evidence today. Also, just for kicks and giggles, Cross-apply TimS's analysis of eugenics under "Teach all theories," that eugenics is inconsistent with the Theory of Natural Selection and thus irrelevant.
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#**See my point about Values Clarification below.
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#**No, "Evolutionism" is a word you just made up. :-) The Theory of Natural Selection is a set of falsifiable hypotheses that have been demonstrated to be true by experimentation and observation.
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#**Scientific. Anthropogenic global warming is an attempt to explain something (the heating up of the earth) through falsifiable hypotheses. Whether you or I agree with that theory or not is a different story. The attempt to prove is what separates science from religion.
#What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
#*This is far from relevant. Children are not being taught that Creationism and Intelligent Design are bad or that evolution is good. Evolution is simply being presented as a Theory believed to be true at this point in time.
#*Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
#**What? Are you implying that sex is evil or that we should stop reproducing?
#Should children be taught to think for themselves?
#*If so, this doesn't mean that we should present religion as science.
#*See [[Values clarification]] - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
#**Not only is that article far from fact and much more opinion (Isn't this a violation of the commandments?), but the idea that Values clarification is bad is at odds with one of the main arguments in favor of Creationism--"Let them choose for themselves," as well as the argument that you made at the bottom, calling science and social studies "dogma." Which are you suggesting?
#*Should children be taught to '''rebel''' against authority?
#** Where would we be without a little rebellion? ;-) Seriously, though, rebellion checks against evils of the establishment, such as statism or coercion (I know this sounds really liberal, but bear with me). Without any kind of rebellion, we would all live in a fascist totalitarian state.
#*Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?
#**Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof (Princeton WordNet, <wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn>). How is anything taught in social studies or science classes dogma? It is exactly the opposite: an attempt to substantiate hypotheses.

Also, I implore you to read my short analysis of religion vs. science under "Teach All Theories." It should be at or near the bottom.

Please try and have a heart--if it looks like I'm poking fun, I am. Debate is about learning, right? The both of us can learn from each other and have a few laughs at the same time. If I come across as rude or sarcastic, I sincerely apologize. Also, if this way of thinking is not tolerated on Conservapedia, forgive me--I'm new.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 18:04, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==Be careful what you wish for==
In England the Biblical creation account is taught to nearly all children in Religious Education lessons, but in order for to be broadly acceptable it is accompanied by the creation accounts of many other religions, thus reducing it to just another story. Similarly, there is a requirement for state schools to provide daily collective worship but once again the desire for it to be broadly acceptable often leads to it being diluted to a bland "thought for the day" that is scarcely recognisable as worship. Some science curricula even "teach the controversy", but is taught as a controversy of the 19th Century rather than the 21st. Putting creationism/ID in a science curriculum in the the teeth of opposition from the people who will be asked to teach it is, regardless of what you think of its truth, unlikely to lead to it being taught in a way that its proponents would like. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 14:54, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::I'm cool with that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==YES and NO==

Creationism and Intelligent design should be taught in public schools, but [[Creationism]] should not be taught "as a scientific alternative". That would confuse religious faith with science.

I suppose the question was framed that way on purpose, since liberals make the following argument:
#Intelligent Design is a form of Creationism
#Creationism is religion
#Religion is not science

Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

ID proponents generally disagree with proposition #1, while tending to agree with proposition #2 and #3. So for ID proponents, this is not a [[sound argument]].

Actually, ID is not a form of Creationism. It is an argument that the [[theory of evolution]] has so little material support that a supernatural cause must be considered. Thus ID straddles the bounds between science itself and the [[philosophy of science]]. It gets into the philosophical issues of [[methodology]] and [[epistemology]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:29, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but Intelligent design still fails the acid test of being science: it doesn’t substantiate its claim. Evolution attempts to “warrant” itself with evidence from experiments, but the experimentation stops with the grand theory of Intelligent Design: <s>God</s> The Intelligent Designer created everything. The claims are just that--claims. They provide neither substance nor testable hypotheses. Likewise, unless an attempt is made to falsify Intelligent Design, it shouldn't be considered science.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 18:11, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==A Radical Alternative==
Perhaps churches could invite guest lecturers to discuss the Cambrian explosion or the Miller-Urey experiment as part of the sermon each Sunday. Or maybe church and state could just maintain healthy but separate spheres of influence? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:44, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== I dare you all... ==

To give one example of a testable proof of ID(Thus proving the necessary definition of science). I say this because I can name one tested hypothesis, I have drug-resistant bacteria. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:36, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Definitely==
If one theory is to be excluded, it should be that pseudo-science fairy tale aka evolution.--[[User:Urban67|Urban67]] 16:50, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Proverbs 26:4==

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him."

I don't think we should have to bring down God's Word to the level of the evolutionists in an attempt convince them. They have already decided that they would rather put their faith in Satan's Lie rather than God's Truth. They will never believe the evidence just based off the evidence because of this. The only solution to stop evolutionists and evolutionism is for evolutionists to have a personal encounter with the Son of God, Jesus Christ. He is the only one that can change their minds. We Christians are not strong enough because we are not really taking on the evolutionists, but trying to take on Satan because he is the one that has made their hearts so hard. That is why the only way to win the battle is to show evolutionists the love of Christ. [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 17:40, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Uh, no...==

Until ID actually presents a valid scientific argument, it shouldn't be in science class. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 17:44, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==What if we nab Him and He says "I didn't do it?==

From what I understand from the ongoing debate, scientists/evolutionists take the stand that a theory cannot be considered scientific if it cannot be falsifiable, or proven wrong. For example, the current theory of evolution could be proven wrong if in the future we excavate human bones in a jurassic layer. (Actually, wouldn't that just push the time frame back a bit?) Therefore evolution theory is scientific. Evolutionists say that since there is no way to disprove whether God created the world, the theory of intelligent design is not science, and cannot be taught in science class. In fact, there is one way to falsify the theory of intelligent design, isn't there? What if, someday, we run into God, and He denies having created the world? That would falsify the theory of intelligent design, making ID, by definition, science. {{unsigned|Jimtitcomb}}
: As you said, they might just put the time frame back a bit. Or they might claim it to be an intrusive burial. Or they might claim that it's not actually Jurassic after all. Whichever it is, they can find ''some'' excuse, so it wouldn't falsify it at all, which means that the theory as a whole (as distinct from some details) is [[falsifiability of evolution|not falsifiable]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

==Implementation: A question for those who support Creationism in the classroom==

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that you had the power to implement the changes you wanted. This still leaves a problem: large numbers of science teachers who are not qualified to teach Creationism (certainly not from a strictly Biblical standpoint) and who may be strongly motivated not to teach Creationism.

Now: it's been my experience that having a teacher who is ignorant and/or actively hostile to a concept "educate" children is frequently worse than simply not teaching the concept at all. Such a teacher can easily impart ideas that are inaccurate or downright wrong.

That being the case, how would you propose dealing with this problem? I see a few options:

A. Leave it up to individual teachers whether or not to teach Creationism

B. Require teachers, regardless of their personal beliefs, to teach Creationism according to a curriculum approved by Biblical experts, with penalties if they fail to do so.

C. Implement a code of conduct requiring all teachers to be good Christians. (Not as far-fetched as it sounds; such codes of conduct were common in this country up until the second half of the twentieth century.)

{{unsigned|BenP}}, June 2008.
: Given that option B is what happens now, but for evolution (i.e. teachers who don't believe in evolution are still required to teach it according to a curriculum approved by evolutionists), then I could ask what would be wrong with option B? Except that I would substitute ''creationary scientists'' for ''biblical experts''. However, what the leading creationist organisations propose (and I go along with this) is basically option A; that teachers who want to teach it be able to and be legally protected. And that includes not just teaching creation science and/or intelligent design, but teaching the problems with evolution. Yes, there has even been a case where a teacher was not allowed to use papers by Gould, etc. if they pointed out problems for evolution. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:23, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Lets see a Scientific Theory of Creation or Intelligent Design. ==

Yes if there is a teachable theory that complies with scientific method
No if there isnt
I firmly believe that students need to learn that everything they are taught , in all subjects is a beginning of the subject , and they exceptions, problem areas , will make more sense if taught after the basics are understood. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 22:17, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
: ID ''is'' a scientific theory, and scientific versions of creation have been around for decades. You have been taken in by anti-creationist and anti-ID rhetoric that claims that there is no such thing. But I'm glad you agree with the principle. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:25, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::No, it's not. You see, to be scientific, there need to be experiments. What experiments have been performed to prove that God designed living things? As far as I know (and I may be wrong, so please correct me), creationists looked at the world, assumed God did it, and called it a day. That's not science. That's superstition. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 22:29, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

== Those Who Forget History are Doomed to Repeat It... ==

It occurs to me that a similar debate could have occurred 500 years ago, but first, some clarification:

A number of people seem confused on the use of several terms that have been floating around this debate page so I've decided to post some pertinent definitions along with citations just to clear some things up:

All definitions come from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary

Theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

Phenomenon: ''plural phenomena'' : an observable fact or event

Now that that's cleared up I'd like to justify my earlier statement. We seem to be entering yet another period of history where (relatively) new scientific theories (see above) are conflicting with previously accepted religious beliefs and as a result the scientists positing these theories are coming under attack from the religious institutions that these theories threaten. I am, of course, alluding to [[Nicolaus Copernicus]]. If we examine the progression of Copernicus' and subsequently Gallileo's ideas, we see that for some time, there was a debate about whether the Geocentric or Heliocentric theory of universal organization was to be accepted, and we no longer debate whether we should teach the earth as the center of the solar system/universe. In the end, history shows us that the theory backed by available scientific data prevailed, although not before scientific progress in this area was stymied by fear of religious persecution. There are a number of similarities to be drawn between the Copernicans and the Darwinists, in my opinion. I welcome corrections and comments, but please no mudslinging...--[[User:CoyPraetorian|CoyPraetorian]] 14:16, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

: Copernicus and Galileo were ''creationists'' whose view were not inconsistent with the biblical account. Their dispute was not one of religion vs. science but of their (creationist-compatible) science vs. the secular "science" of Aristotle that the church had adopted.
: The parallel today is of the battle between creationary "science" and secular evolutionary "science". So the parallel is between Darwinists and Aristotelians, not Darwinists and Copernicans.
: Yes, the theory backed by the available scientific data prevailed, as I hope will happen in the future, with creation prevailing, as it is more compatible with the available scientific data than is evolution.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

::The parallel I was trying to make was not that Galileo and Copernicus were Darwinists, my point is that they too had to deal with the church saying that their views were not supported by the bible, but only by documented scientific observations. Therefore, I would argue that their debate was one of science vs. religion. Today, scientists favoring the Theory of Evolution are coming under attack for a similar set of reasons. The distinction to be made is that we no longer say that the Earth is at the center of the universe just because the church said so. I am simply positing that we take the same stance on evolution based on a preponderance of evidence. In response to your last statement with regards to the scientific data in support of creationism, I respectfully ask that you be more specific, as I am not sure which studies/papers/research/etc. you're referring to.--[[User:CoyPraetorian|CoyPraetorian]] 13:43, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::: "''...they too had to deal with the church saying that their views were not supported by the bible, but only by documented scientific observations.''": You mean like modern-day creationists?
::: "''Therefore, I would argue that their debate was one of science vs. religion.''": But it wasn't. Geocentricism is not taught in the Bible. The church was arguing from the ''secular science'' that they had adopted. Yes, they may have quoted a few biblical passages in support, but the "science" of the day was what they were arguing from, just a many Christians and churches today argue from secular science that evolution is true and try and find biblical passages in support.
::: As for supportive scientific data, I was meaning overall, rather than anything specific, and as such all I can do is point you to [http://creationontheweb.com here]. However, if you want an example, try [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042/ this].
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

::: To try and make that clearer for those not following, here's it laid out in a table:
:::{| class="wikitable"
! || Copernicus, Galileo, etc.|| Modern creationists || Church establishment of Galileo's time || Modern church establishment || Modern secular science
|-
| '''Position''' || Creationist (you wouldn't think so from anti-creationist arguments) || Creationist (as you'd expect) || Creationist (as you'd expect) || Evolutionist (to a fair extent) (as anti-creationists keep reminding us). || Evolutionist
|-
| '''Basis of particular beliefs''' || Bible and scientific research || Bible and scientific research || Aristotelean "science" || Secular "science"1 || Philosophical [[Naturalism]]
|-
| colspan="6" |1. The modern church establishment would reject the philosophical naturalism of modern science, but, for the most part not being scientists, put their trust in the "science" of those scientists.
|}
::: From this it can be seen that modern creationists, not modern secular scientists, are the parallel to Galileo and co., whilst in both cases the church establishment opposed on the basis of extra-biblical (I'd say ''un''biblical) views.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:45, 2 November 2008 (EST)

::::Perhaps I haven't been entirely clear. My point is not that Copernicus and his disciples were preaching evolution. In fact I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that they were creationist. My point is that their position of geocentrism was opposed for the same reason that Darwinism is opposed, which is that scripture and popular religious opinion of the time was in conflict with their beliefs. The distinction is that the debate about what lies at the center of our solar system is no longer relevant because observational and scientific evidence arose in overwhelming support of geocentrism, while there is still debate about our origins even in light of observable evolutionary progression in the case of viruses and bacteria, as well as fossil evidence and carbon dating.--[[User:CoyPraetorian|CoyPraetorian]] 15:42, 2 November 2008 (EST)

::::: I'm not suggesting that you were claiming that Copernicus and others were preaching evolution. My comment in the table above about not realising that Copernicus et. al. were creationists is not because they are claimed to have been evolutionists, but because their case is used as an example of science supposedly winning out over religion, whilst ignoring that they were doing their science within their religious framework.
::::: "''...their position of geocentrism [I assume you mean heliocentricism?] was opposed for the same reason that Darwinism is opposed, which is that scripture and popular religious opinion of the time was in conflict with their beliefs.''": This is about as ambiguous as it could be:
:::::* Scripture was ''used'' to oppose it, but Scripture was not opposed to it. Similarly today, Scripture is ''used'' to oppose young-Earth creationism, but Scripture is ''not'' opposed to it.
:::::* The "popular religious opinion" was actually the popular ''scientific'' opinion within the church. Just as evolution is the "popular religious opinion" today.
::::: The geocentricism/heliocentricism debate is (all but) over, because they rely on ''observational'' evidence (because we can observe the present). The origins debate is not over because it relies on ''philosophy'' about the ''unobservable past''. Viruses and bacteria show no changes that would produce microbe-to-man evolution, fossil evidence is missing the fossils that evolution would predict, and [[radiometric dating]] methods are unreliable and biased (and [[carbon dating]] has little to do with it).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 2 November 2008 (EST)

==Teaching ID/Creationism is unfair==

Letting ID be taught in the classroom is not a fair treatment of theories.

Let me give an analogy. Every World Cup somebody complains that it's unfair that Brazil and Italy always seem to win. Surely it would be fairer if Switzerland had a chance for a change? Well, no, because for Switzerland to have a chance at winning the rules would have to be changed substantially to favour Switzerland, so for example while every other team has to field only 11 players, Switzerland get 22. And if rules are to be fair, they must apply equally to all teams. Switzerland (or any other team) doesn't have a right to win every now and again, it must win according to the set of rules all teams are subject to. Even when these rules are applied equally, they will still favour certain teams - the best teams, made up of those who can play best within the rules. And that's a good thing, because whatever team it is, we want the best team to win, we think the best team ''should'' win. Sometimes the best team doesn't win (I think France were the best team in 2006), and there's always some disagreement, but everyone accepts that it's always the teams that are very good who win the Cup - the winner isn't selected by the rules at random.

The same is all true of the scientific review of theories and their acceptance into classrooms. It's not the case that any theory just has the right to be taught. All theories are subject to the same rules, they all have to pass through the same rigorous testing, peer review process, educational committees and so on before they get to the classrooms, and I hope we can all agree that that's a good thing (yes, any additions like "only materialist theories are allowed" would be unfair). The process favours the best theories, those suitable for being taught in a classroom. ID has not gone through this process, and so it is unfair that it becomes taught in the classroom.

Now defenders of YEC/ID may say "Well evolution is being favoured by the peer review process, because it's wrong and YEC/ID is right and that's being censored. Even though the rules may be fair, the people supposed to be enforcing them are not doing so." They may feel similar to how I would feel if every world cup was won by Morocco or Australia because of corruption by officials or something along those lines. However, if every world cup ''were'' being won by those teams for those reasons, I would argue that the officials be sacked and for abuses to be investigated, but never that Italy or Brazil should just be declared winners without having to go through the tournament at all. I would want a new tournament where the rules were being properly enforce to be held, and only if Brazil or Italy were to win it should they be declared winners. In the same way, if a YEC/ID does think that the rules of scientific review are being improperly enforced, then they should investigate the extent of this injustice by scientists, show how this censorship and favouritism is occurring, and try through legal and democratic processes to get those responsible removed and get people who will enforce the rules impartially instated, instead of just asking for the whole process to be bypassed in the case of their theory. Once the rules are enforced properly, then YEC/ID should, if well supported by evidence, be able to successfully pass through the process and only then should they be taught in the classroom. If a YEC/ID believes that it's not just how the rules are being enforced but the rules themselves that are at fault, then they must take into account how their rule changes might affect theories that they believe to be unscientific. For example (and I am not arguing that this is a view YEC/IDs hold) if the rules were to changed so that a theory simply needed to be accepted by a sizeable percentage of the population, then such things as astrology and mysticism would, by our principle that our rules should apply to everyone equally, be allowed to slip in.

I'll be interested in PJR's response to this. I hope my analogy was clear, and my post not too long. And finally, if anybody wants to post a criticism of my view, please take the entire post into account, because I don't want one of my claims being picked on when I've already provided counter-criticisms elsewhere in the post.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 22:04, 7 February 2009 (EST)
:: Your analogy was clear, and I don't mind (moderately-) long posts. However, your analogy was not entirely appropriate and ignores some underlying assumptions.
:: The soccer (World Cup) analogy is actually quite interesting—in the World Cup, the opposing sides are at least allowed to compete. This is not the case with ID nor creation. If the rules of the World Cup said that Australia was not allowed to compete because Australia can't win, it would hardly be a fair rule, would it?
:: "''It's not the case that any theory just has the right to be taught.''": And I guess it's not the case that any team has the right to compete? Oh, wait...
:: "''All theories are subject to the same rules,...''": No, ID and creationism are ruled out ''a priori''. The Biological Society of Washington, for example, published in their journal a pro-ID paper. They received massive criticism for it—''because it was pro-ID''. So they declared that they would not publish pro-ID papers again. Note that they didn't say that any future pro-ID papers would be properly peer-reviewed or etc. They said they ''would not be published''. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution#Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington|here]]. What's that about the same rules?
:: "''...(yes, any additions like "only materialist theories are allowed" would be unfair...''": I'm glad you agree. Because that is precisely the problem. Just look at all the anti-creationist arguments that claim that creationism is not science ''because it invokes God''. In other words, ''it's not science unless it's materialistic''.
:: "''Now defenders of YEC/ID may say "Well evolution is being favoured by the peer review process, because it's wrong and YEC/ID is right and that's being censored. Even though the rules may be fair, the people supposed to be enforcing them are not doing so."''": That's not exactly how I'd put it, but that's close enough for now. But keep in mind that the "rules" are not formally laid down like the rules of the World Cup. You can't take a scientific journal to court and say that "the laws of [insert country] say that scientific journals must accept all papers that pass a specified peer-review process". There are no such "rules" in that sense. You can really only appeal to their sense of fair play (which is obviously absent in these cases) or appeal to public sympathy.
:: "''In the same way, if a YEC/ID does think that the rules of scientific review are being improperly enforced, ...''": Qualified by my comments in the previous paragraph, this is the case.
:: "''...then they should investigate the extent of this injustice by scientists, show how this censorship and favouritism is occurring,...''": Dr. Jerry Bergman in particular has done this sort of study.[https://store.creationontheweb.com/au/product_info.php?products_id=740&osCsid=0e2a49ce6bb8f57186f7edbeb9c78636] See also [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution|here]].
:: "''...and try through legal and democratic processes to get those responsible removed and get people who will enforce the rules impartially instated...''": Wouldn't getting school boards to adopt a fairer approach amount to this? Yet the evolutionists fight it at every turn. Even claiming that evolution is not a fact was [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution#Cobb County School District|disallowed]].
:: "''...instead of just asking for the whole process to be bypassed in the case of their theory.''": Tell the evolutionists that. They use the courts to decide what is allowed in science. Isn't ''that'' a case of bypassing the system?
:: "''...if the rules were to changed so that a theory simply needed to be accepted by a sizeable percentage of the population...''": Yet that ''argument ad populum'' is the very sort of argument that evolutionists use. Evolution is believed by the majority of scientists, so therefore that's the only one to be taught. Part of the problem is that we are not talking about hard science (observable, testable, science) here. That is, nobody can run any experiments to see if dinosaurs really did turn into birds tens of millions of years ago. (Even if we ran experiments that should that scales ''could'' turn into feathers, it would not prove that this ''did'' happen.) We are, to a fair extent, talking about ''history''. So evolutionists can't say "we've proved [goo-to-you] evolution is true in the laboratory; see, here's the experiments, and you can run them again yourselves if you don't agree", so they have to resort to "most scientists agree"-type arguments.
:: Another problem, although already mentioned above, is that the "rules" are stacked against creation and ID. Or you could say that creation and ID has to pass rules that evolution doesn't have to pass. For example, in the case linked above, the court ruled that the school board decision was unconstitutional because the proponents of the decision had "religious" motives. That is, they had a view about God that was behind their decision. But this ignores that many evolutionists also have a view about God that drives their views—but these are ''atheistic'' views. So pro-theistic motives are not allowed, but anti-theistic motives are!
:: Note also that the main creationist groups do not support teachers being forced to teach creation and ID, although they do support teachers being ''allowed'' to teach it.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 12 February 2009 (EST)

==IT'S NOT SCIENCE==
Several large court cases had the proponents of ID state that '''ID is not science!'''
ID has virtually no scientific papers up for peer review
To qualify ID as science, you'd also be qualifying Astrology as science.

Teach it in Philosophy / World History (when discussing Christianity)- NOT science class, where there is no science behind it!
[[User:Valuables|Valuables]] 11:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

==No!==

If ID, or creationism should be tought at school, keep it out of science classes.

Why?

Because neither of themhave any scientific merrit. It's a poor attempt to use some scientific method to fit their perception of the world into biblical context. If Creationism should be tought at school well, then ALL creationist ideas should be tought at school. not only christian Creationism, but hinduism, Shamanism, Asatru Creationism, Aborigini creationism, and shyamanism.

Creationism is nothing more than a prolonged arm of a religious agenda.

Want fair and balanced knowledge?

Let the students learn about all religions in school. but keep it ou of bioogy classes, or anything that remotelly resembles science. Because science it is not.

Thanks

Bohemianwriter1 {{unsigned|Bohemianwriter1}}

Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?

2011-08-08T15:41:47Z

Valuables:

{{debate}}

In other words, if the Bible started with the story of Abraham and never mentioned how the earth was created, would anyone consider the idea that the earth was not millions of years old? Or does a desire to prove the Bible correct form the basis of creation science? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:49, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==YES!==
Young earth is a fact that is validated by an unbiased and accurate assesment of the evidence. The bible may have provided the clues but it stands on its own.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 14:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, it's not. If it were, then it would be the scientific consensus regarding the interpretation of the evidence. It isn't, purely for the reason that that is not what the evidence indicates. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 16:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

::Let's not forget, Rebiu: The claim isn't only that the earth is 6,000 years old. It's that earth and the universe formed ''contemporaneously'' 6000 years ago. If that were true, the most distant stars would be no more than 6000 light years away. However, the most distant stars are over 13 billion light years away. Either the speed of light is much, much faster than we measured--over 2.1 million times faster, in fact--or earth and those galaxies didn't form at the same time. But even if our instruments really were so clumbsy as to err over 2 million fold, the young earth theory would still have to explain how the planet managed to cool from a molten state so quickly. If the answer is that god just zapped it into being, then Cristians don't have to explain any observable data whatever. The only question I would then press is why god gave man the faculty of reason and the curiosity to explore if we needn't look any further than our Bibles. [[User:Whomever21|whomever]] 11:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, because other cultures have creation stories, many of which predate the bible and the rise of Judaism. Australian Aborogines, for example -- one of the oldest civilisations in the world -- have an elaborate creation story that has zero to do with Genesis. [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 06:57, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

==No!==

In the bible, outside of Genesis, God rhetorically inquires of Job if he was present when God laid the foundations of the Earth, and the theological point he is trying to make is that the earth predates man by many years and includes wonders and mysteries that Job could not even begin to imagine. Based on this evidence, it is likely that an old earth doctrine would have been established. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 07:28, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

No, because if it isn't in the Bible it isn't true. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 23:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Darn it, Joe, there goes my belief in the toothfairy! And what about Santa Claus...Meep!

200, 300 years ago, yes (although still considerably older than what YEC says). The evidence is everywhere that the earth cannot possibly be that young. Radiometric dating, looking at the age of planets, crust, rocks, life, etc, shows that it simply cannot be that young. [[User:Valuables|Valuables]] 11:41, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

==Comments==
The questions seem to contradict eachother, so I'll post here. If there was no creation story, then the literal biblists wouldn't immediately throw out all the scientific evidence of evolution. Most likely they'd accept it and go on with their lives. But since the story does exist, they feel it necessary to accept this as the literal truth and refuse to believe anything contrary to what they read. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:16, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes, but not anymore==

I think that prior to ways of interpreting the evidence that led to the understanding of a very old earth, most cultures would not have thought the earth was much older than their oldest records or legends - they would have no reason to do so. With modern scientific interpretations and more evidence of an old earth, a literal interpretation of the Creation in Genesis becomes more difficult to hold, and if it were not there (the Creation story), even fundamental literalists would have no reason not to accept that God made the earth a lot longer ago then previously thought. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

=I don't believe in Young Earth Creationists=

It must be a joke. No one is that bonkers.

==Today is: 17 Av 5767==
That is 5,767 years since the first man, Adam, first walked the earth. Not everyone holds the non-theistic religious belief of the earth being millions of years old. With modern scientific evidence increasingly supporting the factuality of a young earth, Gods Word is becoming more relevant in todays world. Every year something is found that scientifically proves the validity and accuracy of His word. Archeology continues to find evidence that backs up events written about in the Bible. Yet the world has rejected God as well as those He has chosen to be His people. It isn't dificult to see how tenaciously the world clings to a failed belief system that requires its adherents to believe in the evolutionary time table of millions of years. Simple reverse psychology applies perfectly here. If Genesis had described evolution then we would all be learning the young earth theory in every public schools and colleges. The unatural hatred towards Israel and Christian America proves how the natural man has gone in every direction except towards his own Creator God.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:23, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

You sound so sure that I'm convinced so long as your evidence doesn't come from a random webpage, wiki article, and is scientifically provable. Also, I'm sure you will be listing out your evidence and providing startling examples real soon. Right? --[[User:Xenuite|Xenuite]]

Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?

2011-08-08T15:40:08Z

Valuables:

{{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

:''Answer'': This is a loaded question, and entirely subjective. This debate will not evolve coherently, since not all memebers of this discussion find "evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing". --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 23:48, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

==Discussion==

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 a lot 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)

==Scientific Consensus==
99% of biologists believe that evolution created modern speciation.
All science is sent through rigorous peer-review which would throw out nonsense and help develop theories further.
It's been 200 years, and even then dozens of scientists were preparing to publish their findings on it (not just Darwin!).

There is no other concept (except Creationism) for how speciation happened.
:Creationism can only be derived by
::observing animals pop into existence (which is done in the Bible, and no where else, and isn't a verified or peer-reviewed text)
::Seeing the evolution is impossible (Genetic Algorithms show the opposite of this)
There is no data which contradicts the theory of evolution that is even sound (let alone convincing).

It is "almost sure" that evolution is how we obtained modern speciation.
[[User:Valuables|Valuables]] 11:40, 8 August 2011 (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
: Oh? How many creatures or plants have you seen evolve into quite different creatures or plants? Answer please. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 19 February 2008 (EST)

: (paraphrasing Jbw224): 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)

It's funny about your so called authoritative voices in the scientific community that you mention are nearly all of them religious fundamentalists themselves...or at least funded by the Disc Institute, a religious think tank. If you want to "teach the controversy" then you can also teach holocaust denying, because there are plenty of "academics" who don't believe in the holocaust either.

Evolution, like the existence of the holocaust, is strongly supported by evidence. Those who believe otherwise hasn't published a single article and submitted it for peer revision in the realm of academics.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:24, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
: Please justify your claim of the persons concerned being "fundamentalists". And of them being funded by the Discovery Institute.
: Also please justify your claim that there are "plenty" of academics who don't believe in the holocaust.
: Your assertions that evolution is strongly supported by the evidence is disputed by many people. Your claim that those that believe otherwise haven't published a single peer-reviewed article is absolutely false.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Evolution isn't a theory, it's a scientifically proven process. Scientists have observed rapidly reproducing species such as Mayflies diversify after about 100 or so generations. We've seen it happen, Evolution, as a process, is proven. [[User:Apocalypse223|Apocalypse223]] 09:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
: Do you realise what's missing from your comment? What did the mayflies evolve into? Oh, mayflies! So where's the evolution (as distinct from the variation within a [[baraminology|kind]] that creationists teach? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yes, Philip, they did evolve into mayflies. They would not become a completely different species upon the first mutation. The way evolution causes new species to rise is that, after thousands of mutations, those mayflies become so genetically different from the mayflies that their ancestors were, they are no longer capable of breeding with that species of mayfly and producing fertile offspring. It is at that point that the "new mayfly" becomes a different species - perhaps a junefly? :) --[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 21:55, 12 October 2010 (EDT)
::Also, there are several instances of this happening outside of the above speculation. Take, for example, viruses. By the time flue season comes along, the flu vaccine that we used last year no longer works. This is because, in that year, the virus has mutated so many times (microorganisms reproduce much quicker than larger organisms) that it is essentially a different species of virus, and therefore it is immune to the innoculation that was designed for the old virus. After years of this, that virus would be even more different. HIV evolves resistance to drugs so quickly that they are practically useless.
::FOOTNOTES:[http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/m12webnotes/viralevolution.htm Viruses, Vaccines, and evolution of Influenza]
::[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_20.html Evolution and AIDS]--[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 22:07, 12 October 2010 (EDT)

::as far as i can tell there isn't much difference between micro evolution (which there isn't really a argument against anymore) and baraminology (the kind that creations teach), besides the fact that micro evolution leads to macro evolution (which there is a debate over) eventually, which i think is what apocalypse is getting at-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:56, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::: A problem is lack of a precise definitions of micro- and macro-evolution, but the difference between baraminology and macroevolution is not size of the change (which is what micro- vs. macro- implies), but the ''direction'' of the change. That is, microbe-to-microbiologist evolution requires ''increases'' in genetic information (i.e. the generation of new genetic information), whereas baraminology sticks with what scientists ''observe'', which is ''decreases'' in genetic information. See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/431 here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:32, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?

2011-08-08T15:34:54Z

Valuables:

{{debate}}

==YES==

You'd have to be crazy to do something which you know is forbidden in the Bible, and then like the adulteress, "wipe your mouth and say you have not sinned". Denial of the sinfulness of homosexuality is part of the insanity of it all.
:Just so you know, not everyone believes in your Bible. You'd have to be crazy to believe that everyone does.
:: Loads of sane people sin. Sex before marriage, murder greed, etc.
Furthermore, it is a development disorder which begins in early childhood. Attempts to consider it "normal" are politically and ideologically motivated.

Homosexuality comes from unhappiness within the family and leads to further unhappiness when embraced. It's like a facial defect (such as a cleft palate) which could be corrected with plastic surgery.

Gay rights activists complain that society's refusal to accept them as they are and to okay their sexual activities, is the only thing that stops them from being happy. But this is a foolish falsehood. Within the "gay community", the murder rate is high, The murder rate is 15 times higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. <ref> Manfred E. Kober, "Homosexuality: Degeneracy, Debility, or Disease?" class notes, p. 1 [http://logosresourcepages.org/Believers/homosexuality&.htm] </ref>
and even in "gay enclaves" like Provincetown, Massachusetts where there is no societal disapproval at all the rates for depression, suicide, Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since longterm gay male relationships are rarely monagamous, it is hardly surprising if suicide attempts are proportionally greater. <ref name="SecondRef"> http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html [http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html] </ref>
drug abuse, etc. are much higher than normal.

Homosexuality is not a normal way of being. It was not created or intended by God. It is a sin and a mental illness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D., wrote:
*:A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that "the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes." Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else--not even life and health itself--is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. <ref name="SecondRef"/> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:I wanted to start off by saying that a few comments that Ed Poor made are not scientific. If this is a scientific debate, than keep it that way. If you want to turn in into a theological debate justifying homophobia than move the debate elsewhere.
:*My scientific and theological statements each stand on their own. Please respond to science with science and theology with theology, rather than dismissing my statements. Otherwise, there is no debate.
:To state unequivocally that homosexuality "is a development disorder which begins in early childhood," is dishonest. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization. <ref> http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html [http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html] </ref> <ref> http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ [http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/] </ref> Assuming homosexuality was a mental disorder, there is no justification for excluding theories discussing the origins of homosexuality. There may still be a biological or environmental basis for such sexual orientation even if it was remotely close to being considered a mental disorder. Mental disorders are arguably subjective classifications, do not address why such disorders occur, and such a classification is overall irrelevant to understanding homosexual behavior. <ref> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/ [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/] </ref>

:*Your accusation of dishonesty is misplaced. Positions taken by the APA or WHO are not related to the science; those organizations are politicized (see [[politicized science]]). What matters is the research.
:*Additionally, your reference to a biological basis is incorrect, as scientists have yet to find one - despite media campaigns about a "[[gay gene]]", the research points '''away''' from genetics.
:*As to "environment", if you mean the way children are brought up in their families, then this proves my point. If homosexuals are made, then homosexuals can be cured (although this is harder: see [[reparative therapy]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:38, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Homosexuality is not a normal way of being. It was not created or intended by God. It is a sin and a mental illness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D., wrote:
*:A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that "the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes." Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else--not even life and health itself--is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. <ref name="SecondRef"/> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:I wanted to start off by saying that a few comments that Ed Poor made are not scientific. If this is a scientific debate, than keep it that way. If you want to turn in into a theological debate justifying homophobia than move the debate elsewhere.

:To state unequivocally that homosexuality "is a development disorder which begins in early childhood," is dishonest. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization. <ref> http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html [http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html] </ref> <ref> http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ [http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/] </ref> Assuming homosexuality was a mental disorder, there is no justification for excluding theories discussing the origins of homosexuality. There may still be a biological or environmental basis for such sexual orientation even if it was remotely close to being considered a mental disorder. Mental disorders are arguably subjective classifications, do not address why such disorders occur, and such a classification is overall irrelevant to understanding homosexual behavior. <ref> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/ [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/] </ref>

:If "attempts to consider [homosexuality] 'normal' are politically and ideologically motivated," then attempts to consider it abnormal are also politically and ideologically motivated.

:I'm really not sure why the cleft palate analogy would make sense. Does cleft palate develop "from unhappiness with the family?" And does it lead "to further unhappiness when embraced?" That aside, the gist of this statement is that homosexuality can be treated. I'll explain how that is just plain false.

:People who denigrate or attack homosexuals for their behavior can negatively impact those individuals and can lead to depression. Is that so hard to understand? Again, making statements about the correlation of homosexuality with crime rates, depression and suicide is intellectually dishonest. Correlation is not the same as causation.

:By far the biggest concern with Ed's statements is the use of his references. The first reference leads to "Notes From the Adult Classes 2006 Evening Vacation Bible School" at http://www.logosresourcepages.org. These notes, not to mention the parent site, are chalk full of religious ideology and scriptural references. Remember my first paragraph concerning the religious realm cutting into scientific inquiry? Keep it scientific and leave theology out of it.

:The second reference is even more disturbing, hands down. NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality espouses using reparative therapy to "cure" homosexual behavior. Reparative therapy has never been proven to work and papers published by those who use this method are never peer-reviewed. <ref> http://www.nd.edu/~amanier/leftjab.html [http://www.nd.edu/~amanier/leftjab.html] </ref> Here is one of their mission statements from their website:

<blockquote>
"NARTH, founded in 1992, is composed of psychiatrists, psychologists, certified social workers, professional and pastoral counselors and other behavioral scientists, as well as laymen from a wide variety of backgrounds such as law, religion, and education." <ref> http://www.narth.com [http://www.narth.com] </ref>
</blockquote>

:Again, what does religion have to do with a scientific issue? Why are there pastoral counselors and religious lay-people working for a research and therapy organization?

:Not only that but, those working as psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and educators at NARTH are not backed by their peers. Organizations that do not accept reparative therapy include the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, and the National Education Association. <ref> http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html [http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html] </ref>

:Finally, N.E. Whitehead's, or Neil E. Whitehead's, quote makes serious assumptions and leaps of logic. If a gay advocate sees the "outlaw" aspect of homosexuality as a positive benefit, that doesn't mean that all homosexuals do. Nor does it mean that "outlaw" behavior is negative. "Outlaw" behavior is in response to what society already deems to be taboo, or a sin. To then say that many people who value same-sex behavior and therefore see this behavior as the only value of existence, is just false. Is there not room to be gay, have a family, do community service, go to church, and generally "value life?" Everyone values life. In sum, this debate has already been settled by the scientific community. --[[User:Edge333|Edge333]] 16:33, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Is ''Sin'' a mental illness? It does affect the mind. You can't seperate God from man. Man was created in His image and likeness. To go against the Creator and sin, you are writing checks to the Devil and his demons.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:32, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==NO==

A person should not be said to have a mental illness unless the person's actions substantially impair their ability to function in their work or personal life. Homosexuality does not impair one's ability to function; it does not impair a person's ability to fulfill their responsibilities at work, and does not prevent them from creating and maintaining meaningful and healthy personal relationships. Additionally, homosexuals are as psychologically healthy as heterosexuals. (Strickland, B.R. (1995). Research on sexual orientation and human development: A commentary. ''Developmental Psychology, 31,'' 137-140). Problems with homosexuality stem from the attitudes and actions of others toward homosexuals rather than from a homosexual's sexual preference.

On the other hand, one could certainly make a strong argument that homophobia is a mental illness. Homophobia, as an intense, irrational hostility toward or fear of homosexuals, has a high potential for impairing an individual's ability to perform in their employment. The majority of careers will require interacting with homosexuals at some point. If a person has such a loathing or fear of these individuals that he cannot work well with them, his homophobia will prevent him from fulfilling his employment responsibilities. --[[User:Laches|Laches]] 16:07, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Laches, in that case it sounds like you might be suffering from heterophobia. If people want to apply the label of mental illness to everthing they don't approve of then that can be a serious problem also. Such as the person that said the children of Christians going to public schools should be treated as if having a mental illness. Can you see the problem with that? I would hope that such people wouldn't be allowed into a position of authority over anyone. But it is just as well they say such things so that it will show the rest of us how intense and irrationally hostile people can be.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:48, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

While I don't know what Roopilots6 is trying to say with the heterophobia comment, his basic argument is concise and accurate. The fact that some individuals disagree with homosexuality does not justify the labeling of it as a mental illness.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 12:46, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

NO!!! Homosexuality is not a mental illness,is not immoral, and is not wrong in any way, ask yourself is it your fault you like choclate, or, better yet is it your fault your conservetive, there is nothing wrong being homosexual, and homosexuality s not a mental illness, twins may have identical genetics but just grew up differently and one became homosexual it has no basis in genetics -RG :{

I understand why some people disagree with homosexuality, but, as Laches said, just because people disagree with it does not constitute calling it a mental illness. If that was so, you could call democrats, conservatives, Michael Moore (alright, he is kind of nuts), liking or not liking a TV show, or any number of things a mental illness. Also, tolerating homosexuality is different from accepting it. You don't have to think it's totally alright. Heck, I don't think a lot of things the government does are totally alright. That doesn't mean that I'm an anarchist. I tolerate it. The same thing goes for homosexuality. You may not agree with it, but at least be respectful of it. --[[User:SapphoChan17|SapphoChan17]] 7:16, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Let me say that it is as much a mental illness as liking the color red, or living in a big house, or anything else that is just a way of life [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 08:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Are you kidding me? Whoever thinks homosexuality is a mental illness is so wrong. The majority of homosexuals are mentally sane and probably moreso than most of the idiots who think there is something wrong with it. Have you people been living in caves? A large proportion of people who have really made an impact on the world in some way are/were homosexuals...think about Oscar Wilde etc!
You people who think it is a mental illness, I have one more thing to say to you,
Return to your amish hovels and churn butter until you can do so no more, then sod-off back to the dark ages from whence you came! [[User:bealecr]] 14:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

leave the bible out of this! For gosh sakes, not everthing has to do with the bible. It is a book, and like the Koran, even Harry Potter, you can chose to believe in it. If you don't want to, thats fine. Homosexualioty may be a disorder from birth, a disorder won choses, or even just someone choosing to be gay. Most gays proby wouldnt chose this though considering how much flack they get mind you. if it is a disorder who cares though? Being gay should be no differnt then being black, white, or born with only one leg. We should all strive to achieve whats best for ourselfs and if being gay makes you happy, then go ahead. it doesnt matter if you chose to or not, do what you want. And by the way, how is discriminating against the gays good for heterosexuals? It benifits them in NO way.

It can't be cured and it can't be controlled. So no, of course not.
Its seen in nature [and in people]. So what's the problem?
That Bible of morals you have also says oppressors should oppress their people (Romans 13), women should be silent in assembly, should submit to their husbands, etc.

Homosexuality is not a mental illness. Someone said it is "a development disorder which begins in early childhood". That is not true. They are confused with an actual psychological disorder called Gender Identity Disorder, or GID. Gender Identity Disorder is commonly first seen in childhood. Children who show these symptoms are sometime called tom boys or nancy boys. Those with GID are homosexual, but they are homosexuals who seek a relationship with a heterosexual. An example would be a natural born male who dresses in woman clothing who seekes a relationship with a heterosexual man. He feels he was born in the wrong body and he should be a female. Many crossdress and consider sex reassignment surgury.

just as much as heterosexuality-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:07, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Is it anyones fault that they like the color blue? Is it anyones fault they like coffee? Is it anyones fault that they're sexually attracted to animals, corpses, or little children? If that's the case, then bestiality, necrophilia, and child molestation aren't immoral either. I mean, you can't help that you want to partake in sexual intercourse with an animal or corpse or child, right? Moral and immoral are based on how you feel towards a matter. Thats great to know you don't think its immoral, just know you speak for yourself and your own feelings. I would say to leave morality out of this since obviously there will be different truths. In terms of feelings and most everything, truth is in the mind of the beholder. but back to mental illness, mental illness is a health condition that changes a person’s thinking, feelings, or behavior or all three. But the question with that is, changes their thinking feelings or behavior from what? normal? natural? who decides what is normal or natural? the answer to that is popular opinion. its not necessarily truth, its just an agreement amongst multiple people. So why did the majority of people decide that homosexuality was a mental illness (before 1973 when popular opinion changed) ? I guess that they looked around for answers instead of just deciding things based on feelings. Penis and anus, vagina and vagina, they cant reproduce. The survival of a species is based on its ability to survive and reproduce. If we didn't have the technology we have (such as artificial insemination) , and if everyone was homosexual, there would eventually be no more humans. I guess that people said it was a mental illness because they figured that the want of survival of ones' species is normal or natural. (i say we need both homosexual and heterosexual in order to limit the population so that theres enough recourses to go around so that the race of human can continue.) -nathan

The real mental disorder is in believing what Conservapedia writes of homosexuality. Not only is the information misrepresentative, it excludes the fact that while some cases are inflicted by psychosocial causes, homosexuality can sometimes be genetically predisposed and has been observed in many species of animals, but most famously sheep. Either way, homosexuals are still people too and discrimination and persecution is not the answer. There once was a time when interracial marriage was illegal. Gays may become the blacks of tomorrow.

Freud stated that religion is a psychosis. A mental illness. When someone with mental illness accuses someone else of having mental illness, is he informed or crazy? James101.

Being black is genetic, homosexuality on the other hand is behavior, thus a comparison of interracial marriage and homosexual marriage, makes no sense-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

In some cases, homosexuality has been proven to be genetic.

:My following reply answers both this question and if homosexuality is a choice.
:No, it's just a sin. With what previous people have stated, mental illnesses dictate a person's actions. Only with medication and severe therapy are they able to overcome it.
:Homosexuals, whether someone thinks they are (choice) or they were actually melded into that state, they have will power. They can '''choose''' whether to act upon it or not. Summary: Homosexuality (attraction) is not a choice. Fake homosexuality (experimentation) is a choice. Homosexuals are not sinful (in this one sexual immorality sense) unless they act upon their attraction.
:Counterpoints/criticism encouraged on my above comments. o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]] [[User_talk:NathanG|my opinion matters?]] 14:41, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

yeah of course being gay is amental illness just like being left handed those revolting left handers how dare they go against the norm! and those people who can't curl their tongue in a tube why it sickens me just to look at them something is obviously wrong with them. and last the most disgusting of all those people who are immune to poison ivy eww can't believe they chose such sick lifestyles can you.([[User:Gosweden|Gosweden]])

I'm sorry, but if you think homosexuality is a mental illness (or worse, a choice) then your an ignorant bigot (or just mean, stupid, and/or gullible). Homosexuals are homosexual because of their genes. The ONLY reason people think otherwise is because their religion tells them so and they feel compelled to defend their infallible religion. Unfortunately (''sarcasm'') we don't live in a biblical world anymore; people can explain homosexuality properly and can be tolerant. I don't really like how religious people today still embrace the terribly old-fashioned viewpoint of the Bible and discriminate. C'mon people! Think for yourselves for once. You're grown adults . . . act that way! Sorta went off on a tangent there...my bad... [[User:AShep|AShep]] 21:38, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

==More Research Needed==

I dunno about this one. I know it's not normal, but I think before we go trying to fix or change something, we should understand it. I'm definitely in favor of research into homosexuality. Only then can we find the right way to fix it. --[[User:Hitchens|Hitchens]] 23:07, 21 December 2007 (EST)
:Why would we need to fix something that does not need to be corrected? [[User:ChrisQ|ChrisQ]] 22:40, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
: That is the major point. Where is the problem? As far as we know, Hitler, Stalin, Sadam Hussein, Torquemada, Musolini, all the current African dictators, Somoza, Pinochet, all Chinese presidents or emperators, and so on (we may fill several pages), are/were not homosexual, however, just one of them made more crimes that all the homosexual men together. We need to focus.....
::Are we talking about homosexuality as an attraction or acting upon homosexuality? God doesn't hate His children, He hates their sins. Fellow God-believers...am I right? o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]] [[User_talk:NathanG|my opinion matters?]] 14:46, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>
Hellooooooooooo??
Just because it is not "Normal" ~ doesn't mean it needs to be "fixed".
Some of history's greats are also not "normal".
We have a Taiwanese basketball star in Houston who is 7 feet tall.
He doesn't need to be "fixed".
Some more "not normal" greats in history are:
Michaelangelo, Alexander The Great, Eleanor Roosevelt, Ira Gershwin, Sir Elton John, Daniel of the Bible, ............. Oh, I could go on and on.

:Daniel of the Bible was not a homosexual; he knew what God's law was and knew it was an abomination. Your rants have been noted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 05:06, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Basically... ==
People hate homosexuality because it's different. It's as normal as heterosexuality is, but because it's not the norm, people hate it. It's that simple. --[[User:GunnerRecall|GunnerRecall]] 16:54, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
:You should refine your comment and say, "ultra Conservative Christians" instead of "people". o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]][[User_talk:NathanG|because people listen to what I say?]] 17:02, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

::Opposition to homosexuality is based on religious and scientific principles. We oppose race prejudice and discrimination without hating racists, simply because we believe that each person should be "judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin."<ref>[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanrhetoric.com%2Fspeeches%2Fmlkihaveadream.htm&ei=m72zSYymApaitgeFibjEBw&usg=AFQjCNEju4lodXxTPiTbb_rbD1h-PisYiA&sig2=IdyzsshL9YRXCVqS2fcDwg I have a dream] - [[Martin Luther King]]</ref> Doctors try to cure [[mental illness]] out of concern for their patients' well-being. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:46, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

==By definition, NO==
A mental illness is something that disrupts a person's ability to reason and perform everyday activities. Homosexuality does neither of these. There are plenty of intelligent, successful homosexuals that contribute to society. They can still drive their cars, go to work, and do everything else a heterosexual person can do. They can even have sex with the opposite gender, they just don't prefer that. Homosexuality is far from a mental illness. This should really be a morality issue, not an mental health issue. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 22:37, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?

2011-08-08T15:32:48Z

Valuables:

{{debate}}

Why not? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:30, 10 December 2007 (EST)

God's works are always questioned because He gave us a free will to do with what we wish and to question and believe, to love and to hate, to agree and disagree. We question because we are human and we are human because we questioned.--[[User:CRD|CRD]] 22:04, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

I think that God's works are questioned because our perception of God is so limited. The majority of people view God as a benevolent, loving, but stearn creator/magician/father figure. If that is what God is all about then we constantly have to wonder why God's creation contains pain, suffering and death. We also have to stuff our beliefs about how the world works into a creator/created way of thinking. Other cultures have had complex mythologies that essentially show God as having many faces; some good, some bad, some loving, some destroying, etc. The Old Testament God was more like that type of being. Maybe if our God were bigger, we might realize that the important questions aren't concerning God's works at all but our own. Like the Buddha we would simply set it aside and concentrate our efforts on living the right life in the here and now. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]

== How is this a scientific debate? ==

Science has not shown any proofs for existence of god. Also science questions every thing. From perspective of science, there is no god. Man made god in man's image (at least one group)--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 14:31, 18 November 2007 (EST)

:Within or without? Half full or half empty? There is no such thing as science having a perspective. Only individuals are in a position to gain a perspective. The proof of the existence of God is the created universe. There are those that would prefer that God never existed so that their own works won't be questioned. Of course they may be wrong. Whether you believe you evolved from a pool of slime or are an intelligently created being will be your own choice. The real question is whether you will ever recognize it when the answer to this question has been given to you?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:22, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

simple you can't test them, when your god decides to hand over some blood then I will believe.
([[User:Gosweden|Gosweden]])

Simple answer:
Science goes through rigorous peer-review and retesting.
Most 100 year old history books aren't reliable- why should thousand year old text books be treated any differently than one of those?
The stories they list aren't testable, or falsifiable, or generally evidenced by anything in nature (as they were written anonymously based on the beliefs of the times), so there isn't a reason to use scripture as scientific materials.
There is no reason at all to think that they are scientifically valid without first validating them (which is the opposite of what has been shown).

== Not everyone believes in God, in the same way as you ==

and whether you agree with them or not, it's a pretty good reason [[User:NRupert|NRupert]] 14:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Religion Essays]]