epic-san : I agree that it's not a science, because science is itself a tool that differs from faith in many ways. We can use science to come up with proofs that are as logical as we can make them. Though by this logic, it's no fair to teach other theories either, at least not into great detail, as they are not scientifically proven like, oh, the functions of the heart are or the reaction of oxygen and iron. It's reasonable to teach the science behind them, but not to teach support for them. I must say though, that it's not fair to say that there are no contradictions for theories. For example, there is no proven reason given as to why energy appeared in the big bang theory, making it unsolid.

OracleofthePenguin : That's something that hasn't been figured out yet and has no relevance. The scientific theory of the big bang is simply that all the universe rapidly expanded into existence from an incredibly hot and dense state. That's it. The mechanics of it are under debate because we simply haven't figured it out yet. Not knowing why energy was formed is not a contradiction, it is something to find out. The basic Big Bang theory is consistent with everything we observe. You're saying that we don't know the exact mechanics of the theory, such as how all the energy came to be, therefore that makes it illogical. Then explain to me why the Big Bang theory is consistent with all of our observations of the universe. Also, in terms of the mechanics, as with other things we haven't figured out yet, I'm proud to stand tall and say "I don't know". But neither do you, and the top astrophysicists and mathematicians in the world are working to find the answers. And guess what? Some of the kids that are taught the theories that are consistent with every single one of our observations will go on into science careers, and they are the ones who will find more things out, make more observations, collect more data, and find out new things and make new theories. There are no measurements or experiments that disprove that the functions of the heart are or the reaction of oxygen and iron, while there are lots of measurements, observations, and experiments that do validate it. Same goes for evolution, the big bang theory, and every other scientifically accepted thing. Read over my scales analogy again, and hopefully you'll understand what I'm saying. And this all ties back to validate teaching kids science, and not creationism, in science class. We don't know what came before the big bang, or why the energy was created. But you know what? Years ago, people didn't know why they didn't float off the earth. People didn't know what the stars were. But you know what? Scientists figured it out. Scientists keep figuring things out, and the things we don't know will be figured out. You know how I know that? Because all the evidence points towards it, and none against.

epic san:

I don't have nearly as much time for debating as I used to.



Well, If I can try and break down what you're saying, you mean that you can't teach creationism because it is a religious view? or because it is unscientific? All theories require faith to jump the gap between evidence and reasoning.


Also, the big bang is only one of three (I think) major theories out there on how it all came to be. The big bang is just the most widely accepted one. A scientist wrote a book about why he thinks the big bang is false, and he supplied a different theory. This scientist was an atheist if I recall correctly, and he wasn't promoting creation science.

You know, a lot of people have tried to make evolution fit into the Bible as well.


If you mean that we can only teach scientifically correct theories, then take a look at this.

When you look at a dishwasher, would it be a logical conclusion to say that there was a person who designed, or built the dishwasher?
This is a logical observation, not a religious one.

Intelligent design only says that this world was probably designed by a creator by the same reasoning as the dishwasher. Even one geek philosopher (can't remember his name, sorry ) went out in the meadow and decided that there must be one person who designed everything because of the order and design in nature.

I thought that he said that it couldn't be any of the greek gods who did it either, but I'm totally sure bout that last part.


The idea that everything was designed by a deity is not a religous view, it is something that is observed.

I think that when you're talking about favor, you might have misidentified what it means to show favor.
Cause, in the constitution it states that our rights come from our creator, and are unalienable. That we have a creator, or at least a designer is an observation, an observation that is found in the constitution.

I think that to show favor means stuff like giving tax breaks for people of a certain religion.

Teaching a scientific theory should be okay in the classroom. We just need to show non religious, and religious views a fair chance to be taught in the classrooms. 

Or, not teach either.

If you think that evolution is the correct theory, then I wouldn't mind speaking with you about that a little bit here. But I don't want a big debate either, okay?


If you bring your best single piece of evidence for evolution, Then I will bring my best single piece of evidence for creation. Then we won't waste a bunch of time, okay?

Sword legion : My meaning is that creationism shouldn't be taught in public science classrooms because it is unscientific. Some theories require much more faith to jump the gap than others because there's no evidence that points towards them. They can't be definitively contradicted, but there's no solid evidence. Again, the scales.

One scientist wrote one book that I have never heard about,. That means that it couldn't provide any solid evidence to contradict the Big Bang. How much evidence does the atheist scientist provide for his theory? Just because he's an atheist and he wrote a book doesn't mean that he's automatically credible. He obviously wasn't noticed and his theory debunked. There are a lot of smart people and a lot of dumb people in all beliefs.

It's great that some people tried to make evolution fit into the bible. I commend them for that.

We know that someone built the dishwasher because we can trace it back to the manufacturer. We know that the water systems and screws and all that were man made because they're documented, and we can find conclusive proof. We can find proof that the dishwasher was made by something by way of certified documentation. We haven't found any proof that there was a creator of the universe. All of our observations in this point in time support the already established scientific theories. People can make any number of claims without proof.

So saying that you look at the universe and have a hunch that something created it is not evidence for that claim.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that our rights were given to us by our creator.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
That would be favoring a monotheistic group of religions, as creator would be singular. Teaching that would suggest that the government favors monotheism.

And teaching a theory (one creator) that pertains to a small group of religions is excluding others. Buddhism, for example.

One piece of evidence does not form an argument. If you really want mounds of evidence, go ask an evolutionary scientist, and go to a natural history museum.

Local Mods : Please move to debate forum.

Sword legion : Might want to actually read the whole Constitution before making that claim, as it is not true. And it is a horrible idea to "give your strongest piece of evidence" to pit against another one piece of evidence. There is no 'strongest piece'. You can't have a proper debate using a single piece of evidence. It doesn't work like that. A single piece of evidence does not an argument make. 

epic-san :

You're saying that creationism is unscientific, and that therefore you can't teach it in public schools.
But you don't want to talk about whether that is true or not. So, I can't really take this any further.

I offered an easy way to see just which one is more scientific, and you refused. Are you afraid of losing?

"So saying that you look at the universe and have a hunch that something created it is not evidence for that claim."

This is no hunch, it's common sense. It is not logical to say that the universe came from nonexistance at all.
If all you have at the beginning is nothing, then all you have is literally nothing. Our universe is tenthousandfold more complicated than a dishwasher, and there is no way that it could form on it's own.?


"If you really want mounds of evidence, go ask an evolutionary scientist, and go to a natural history museum."

I did not ask for mounds of evidence, because I do not have time like I used to for this stuff. I asked for your strongest piece of evidence if you're so sure that evolution is true and creationism is false. Big talk but no bucks. This is very easy, but you won't do it because no fear that I will succeed in showing that both theories require large amounts of faith- or that evolution requires large amounts of faith.

"social studies class is a more than appropriate time to learn about religions and their beliefs and cultures from an objective standpoint"

This seems a little contradicting, because now you're teaching about faith in schools, and there is not way your going to be able to teach about all religions on the earth without leaving out some. Or, I guess that you could talk about each religion very generally and not do them any justice to as what they really believe.

Edited this part out as it's way off topic and kind of upsetting.

Editing out my post as it is way off topic

Sword legion : All I'm saying is tat I'm arguing on behalf of science, and I am not myself an expert in the field.


Let's say we're learning about India in social studies. We learn about the caste system, but we want to learn about the culture of India. You can't do that without learning a bit about hinduism, from an objective?standpoint. "They believe this, this, and this". It's a part of the culture and would be a missed learning opportunity about the culture of India if hinduism was ignored. That's just from an objective, cultural standpoint, hence why it's social studies. For instance, schools do units on greek mythology. Kids are taught about the greek gods and what the ancient greeks believed, but they aren't told that it's definitely true. Also, the school might skip over Norse mythology, but it doesn't cause riots, because it doesn't have a place in the curriculum. In a social studies curriculum, if a bit of learning about mythologies about any religion would help the class understand better what was or is going on in those countries, then teach it. Just don't tell them that it is the truth. THAT is the government respecting an establishment of religion, telling kids that their unfounded claims are true. Teaching from a nonbiased standpoint is mythology education. There's a difference between education and indoctrination.

rcarter2 stated perfectly why I didn't want to present a "strongest evidence". I'm also arguing on behalf of separation of church and state, as well as science. I'll tell you right now that I'm not a scientist. But, I can think logically and produce a brilliant argument of the basic ideas. I didn't say that there was no evidence. I said that there is a lot of evidence. Go ask an evolutionary scientist, go talk to an archaeologist. I'm not a scientist, but I can direct you to people who have evidence. If I tried to present all the evidence for evolution, I would drown in all of it. But by all means, present your evidence for creationism, and I will smash it into pieces.

Also, it sees that you've been going to rcarter2 a lot in order to debate. I have no one that I go to, and I'm presenting a pretty good argument on my own. If you need to rely on outside support to help you argue your point, then it seems that you might not be fit for arguing it.

Also, about the universe forming from nothing.


We don't know where it came from, but we know how it came to be. Instead of making a claim with no evidence to back it up, we can stand up and honestly, proudly say that we have no idea. A god that fills in the gaps of knowledge becomes a smaller god as the years pass by.


Also, it's really pathetic that you're resorting to the kindergarten method of effectively calling me a chicken. I can stand up and say that I'm not an expert on the subject, but I have the basic concepts down and can argue them. I'm telling you that there are many more qualified people who can completely smash your claims, and that you should try and debate who really knows evolution and science inside out. You'll end up learning a lot, because it seems that you really don't know a lot.?

Edited out this part due to being way off topic.

epic san:

"Also, it's really pathetic that you're resorting to the kindergarten method of effectively calling me a chicken. I can stand up and say that I'm not an expert on the subject, but I have the basic concepts down and can argue them. I'm telling you that there are many more qualified people who can completely smash your claims, and that you should try and debate who really knows evolution and science inside out. You'll end up learning a lot, because it seems that you really don't know a lot."

Oooohh, but if you would just go talk to any Creation scientist you would see why evolution is just so false!

That's a logical fallacy to state "if you would just research it, then you would agree with me!"

"We don't know where it came from, but we know how it came to be. Instead of making a claim with no evidence to back it up, we can stand up and honestly, proudly say that we have no idea. "

Then you already have had to use faith- like religion.

Well, here's the evidence that I found for evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

A human's skeleton produced from a pig's tooth. And they even "scientifically" built him a wife- all based off one misidentified tooth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

"The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleoanthropological hoax ever to have been perpetrated. It is prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of humanevolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery."

That's why I don't care for research on the internet that much. If there is something that they aren't telling you, then you're at the complete mercy of a lie. You can't always trust people. We can trust scientist just about as much as atheists say they can trust the Bible.

Editing my post out, as it was way off topic

Editing my post out, as it was way off topic

I usually stay out of these things, but.

Sword legion :
rcarter2 :


You guys are acting like little kids.

"You LOVE to pick off short sentences/phrases and present them in incomparable context to some attempt to discredit."

"I have the PM records showing you coming to me MULTIPLE times asking me for debating advice."

"I Did not contradict myself, you are taking those 2 statements out of context."


Please, we are trying to convince others of our opinion, not insult each other.



Oh, and Hi rcarter, long time no see.

epic-san:

"So we both agree that more knowledgeable people should be arguing this."

I think that simpler minded people on the subject can debate these things on a simpler level.
Never just accept thing from "the experts", that's how masses of people have been fooled into things like Nazi racism.


"Also, if you look at any debate between experts, no creation scientist has ever proven evolution false."

No time has evolution, or creationism ever been proven true in one of these debates.

"You presented two hoaxes based on idiots grafting bones together.  In the same articles, it is stated that they were scientifically investigated and quickly proven false. The fossil record isn't a bunch of hoaxes, as bones are easily identified by professionals and they can tell when something is not right. It was quickly shown as false back then, and any new hoaxes are proven false even quicker."


Well, this is what I found. If there's something that they're not telling you, you'll never know. I don't trust them. These even appeared in school textbooks for a period of time. :/


"The fossil record has been painstakingly combed through time and time again and proven true."

I don't agree with that. I have never seen the fossil record proven ever. The geological column doesn't exist anywhere in the world, and if it did, it would be 300 miles thick. also, Scientists find out how old a layer of the earth or of rocks are by looking for what they call index fossils. But, what do the scientist do when they want to date a fossil?

They check what layer it's in.

No offense, but that's circular reasoning. 



Okay, I would like to say something important here:

"Also, about saying we have no idea about what came before the big bang... we don't. We have no idea, you have no idea. Some people say there's a god. some people wish to find out for themselves But, logically, if a void in our understanding of the universe can be filled with the idea of a god, then it can be filled with any other number of claims."

But please, think about this. . .

. . . 

If you believe that something that doesn't have a mind or soul created the big bang, then you believe this all just happened . . . and how realistic is that? Isn't an intelligent designer much more on the spot of realism?

That's one reason on why I believe in God.



bombchu link :

God bless you sir. I'll see what I can edit out that was wrong.

rcarter2 :

I'll see you around. Shalom

Sword legion :

"If you believe that something that doesn't have a mind or soul created the big bang, then you believe this all just happened . . . and how realistic is that? Isn't an intelligent designer much more on the spot of realism?"

Which is precisely why I still believe in God. Science can explain the step by step process on how everything developed after the energy was there, but cannot explain how it got there in the first place. Divine intervention is the only thing that makes sense to me in that matter. My disagreement is not whether or not God exists, but exactly the process in which God created the Universe.

Sword legion : No one knows what came before. Realistically, it could be anything, so it is my error to try and argue my point. What my point is is that these scientific theories are appropriate to be taught in science because they were formed from a hypothesis and evidence was found and the research is done and over. That's evidence based reasoning and it is science. What i'm saying is that spiritual belief is not evidence based reasoning. It's by no means a wrong way to think, but it's not science-y. That was the original point of this thread. Spiritual belief is a beautiful thing. Strong communities are formed. It has a rich history and culture. Science isn't all great though. Like anything, science can be used for good or bad. E=MC^2 was a great equation. The A-bomb was formed from it. Most of the principles of religious beliefs are to do good. But, people have perverted and abused old texts to justify horrors. Each side has its ups and downs and each has a place on earth. But they're not related. 

I have my reasons for thinking what I think, and they're not unfounded. But, you bring up a good point. Although that's not going to make me believe you, I can see now why you think that. Sometimes all it takes is understanding, and what you said helped me a great deal to understand you.

Also, a parting shot - about accepting things from the experts... you do that too. If you believe that the Bible is true, then you just accept it. Many people just take information from authority figures and that's a problem with our society. I didn't just accept things, I looked it over myself and came to my own conclusion. You came to yours. The end.

... I say teach both. I personally am a Creationist, but I also believe in freedom and giving people choices. See, my main issue with public schools is that they use the parents' tax dollars to teach the children evolution and evolution only, something the parents might or might not agree with, and as someone previously stated, this can cause conflict and confuse some up and coming young people. They need to show both sides of the coin in my opinion, or show neither at all. Interesting fact: Some college professors have lost their jobs, careers and tenure for even entertaining the thought of intelligent design. Ben Stein explores this sad but not-so-unfamiliar occurrence in a documentary called, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."

As for whether or not creation and intelligent design are scientifically founded; I believe they are. Many scientific signs point to a young Earth, such as polystrate fossils to give just one example. Also, tip offs that a major cataclysmic disaster occurred about 4,000 years ago (The Genesis Flood), such as the fact that our oldest recorded coral reefs, deserts, etc. are recorded to be right around 4,000 years old dating back to their origins. Another interesting fact: Didja know we're slowly losing the moon? The moon's orbit is enlarging at a rate of about 3.8cm per year. That doesn't sound like much, but if the Earth were millions of years old as the theory of evolution states, then the moon would have been so close to Earth that the gravitational force of both bodies pressing against each other would have caused something similar to a Meisner Effect (Ever set one magnet on top of another and watched it float as they repelled each other?), and this the two would have pushed away from each other MUCH farther than what we see now, and the moon most certainly would have broken from its orbit. That's just to name a few things.

Now, also, yes I think evolution should be taught alongside creation even though I disagree with the evolution theory. Scientific facts for both theories should be put forth equally. However, what bothers me? Textbooks these days carry outdated and false 'evidence' for the theory of evolution. Yes, give the children a choice of what to believe, but show them the truth, don't print outdated info to make them believe what you want them to. For example: Nebraska man. Nebraska man was claimed to have been sort of this 'missing link' and 'putative ape' based solely on a tooth that was found... and the tooth was later found out to be the tooth of a pig-like creature known as a peccary. Fun fact? Nebraska man is still taught as fact in school textbooks even though it was debunked. They still teach in textbooks that whales once had legs, and that they still have 'vestigial' bones where their legs once were before re-adapting to the ocean. The very bones they're talking about are not vestigial, but are used in reproduction, yet they still teach that they're useless leftovers in the gene code.

Again, I'm all for teaching both creation and evolution side by side, but for the love of vanilla coke, teach FACTS and give the children a choice is all I'm asking. Don't use outdated info to lead someone to believe what you want them to, and that goes for both creationists and evolutionists alike. Teach both, but teach FACTS. Thank you for your time, God Bless.

Sakura Pryde : Sorry to rain in on what you said, but the scientific signs you brought up actually do not point to a young Earth.

Starting with the deserts. That only points to a young Earth if you dismiss that our current dessert areas weren't always deserts. Back mapping the Earth's orbit, axis tilt, and continental placement, it is easily explained why our current deserts are only about 4,000 years old. Climate zones are marked as such

Now, here is the thing. Those zones never change. The axis of the Earth can change, the continents move, but those climate zone lines don't change as long as the general orbit in regards to the sun doesn't change. However, it also does. Again, back mapping the Earth's orbit, the Earth's axis tilt was 24.1 degrees 9,000 years ago. Now, it is 23.45 degrees. Over an entire angle degree change is dramatic. But it isn't sudden. It is gradual. On top of that, lets go back to the orbit in regards to the sun. Right now, the Earth is closest to the sun during the month of January. Mapping backwards by tracking orbit, the Earth was closest to the sun during July. Huge climate difference to factor in with axis tilt and continent placement. With back mapping, we see the Earth. When that change is factored in to the continental shift that is constantly happening, our current deserts were only pushed into the desert climate zone about 4,000 years ago. Hence, our current deserts are only 4,000 years old. But what is currently desert will eventually be pushed out of desert climate. So the age of our current deserts in no way suggest a young Earth. The exact same thing applies to the coral reef age. Again, those are only our current coral reefs.

For the moon explanation, there are 2 factors you are missing.

It is true the orbit is getting larger. It is roughly 3.8 cm a year. If the orbit had always been growing by 3.8 cm per year, then you would run into Meisner Effect. But what you don't seem to realize is that the lunar orbit has not always been growing by 3.8 cm per year. That is just the current speed. Back mapping lunar orbit, you wold see that different factors gradually increase the growth of the orbit. Those factors being ocean size/location creating different levels of Tidal Friction, speed of the spin of both the Earth and the moon, and speed of the orbit itself.

But that explains a small bit. The more important part is that the Earth's moon was created long after Earth was first formed. Moons arise though a few different ways, none of which have the moons formed at the same time as the planet it orbit. Our moon most likely was made by the celestial crash method. A large celestial bodies (planet size) often collide during the early ages of a solar system. Sometimes, both celestial bodies are destroyed into small rocks again. Other times, the impact breaks off massive chunks, but not destroying either one. One of those planets remains in orbit (albeit the orbit will change with that kind of collision) and the other one is bounced away. The chunk that breaks off typically stay in the orbit of the body that stayed in orbit, forming a moon. Ours was likely this method. One thing that supports that our moon was created from Earth's crust is the fact that the composition of the moon is near identical to the upper layers of the Earth. On top of that, our moon is depleted of heavy elements such as iron. Now you might be wondering what iron and heavier elements have to do with anything. When planets form, the heavier elements are typically pulled down to the core, and lighter elements closer to the top. The fact that our moon is depleted of heavier elements suggests that it was formed off the upper surfaces of an existing planet. Since our moon's composition is so strikingly similar to ours, that leaves the Earth as the best candidate from which our moon could have formed. With that, the moon has not been around for as long as the Earth has been. Therefore, there is no contradiction to the Earth being billions of years old even though our moon's orbit is currently growing by about 3.8 cm a year.

The arguments you gave are very common creationist arguments, but they are severely flawed. They simply stop the research the moment it reaches the conclusion that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. But true science does not stop when it hits a conclusion they are looking for. Something is science when it continues to look farther and farther into it. These 2 explanations you brought up do not do this. They just simply stop instead of looking farther because the ones who came up with these explanations had an agenda to stop researching once they reached their pre-determined conclusions.

rcarter2 : You're right, true science doesn't stop due to a certain age or conclusion. But first off, you keep mentioning 'back mapping'. I don't see how back mapping can be considered as plausible evidence because #1: It wasn't witnessed and recorded first hand beyond a certain point and #2: Certain cataclysmic geological events can throw off this back mapping, such as again, a worldwide flood. Yes I keep revisiting it, but if it was in fact a real event, and looking at evidence I believe it was, then it has a major effect on back mapping and should be closely looked at. Things like stratification, and again, polystrate fossils, closed fossilized clams atop Mt. Everest, etc. suggest a global cataclysm such as this one. Its an entire study known as "Flood Geology."

Now if the flood did in fact happen, then this throws off many back mapping studied. For example: Carbon-14 dating. To put it very simply, fossils exposed to saline solutions (Such as sea water) are not viable in Caron-14 data tests. Two samples were taken from a mammoth if memory serves; one sample from the frontal area and one from the rear area. Both samples were tested through carbon dating and resulted as being thousands of years apart in age. And that's just one example. There're many others you can look up.

Also, one major piece of evidence: Man's footprints alongside dinosaur's footprints in the same strata of rock found in Glen Rose Texas. And its not just a couple of footprints, its a long strata of them. Extensive testing has shown depression underneath the footprints from when they were first made in the soft mud, as well as some other testing, shows that they are in fact real and were not faked. If man and dinosaur were separated by millions of years of evolution, then how is this at all possible? Some have speculated a shifting of the plates and ground, but the prints are too well preserved and don't show signs of enough geological damage for the kind of shifting that would require.

Now I'm not saying there's no way evolution is true, or that there's no way the earth is older. I'm just saying there's evidence for both theories that needs to be observed carefully. I may be a creationist, but I'm not saying evolution doesn't have a chance of being true either. I'm saying both are theories that have substantial, debatable evidence supporting them and as such both should be studied, not just one. Some may favour one, but if there's a chance that the other could be true, then it needs to be looked at as well is all I'm saying.