Evolution or Creation?

[invidia]

Our creators are the Xel'Naga

 

[Kirby]

Xenu, the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs.

 

[Onceler]

Non creationism Intelligent Design

 

[xSauronx]

jeebus these threads are getting old...as old as the 4.5 billion year old earth.

evolution bitches: its where its at

 

[sdifox]

Where is Xenu in all this?

 

[DangerAardvark]

It's a failure of science education in this country that so many Americans believe that there's an actual scientific debate about whether or not evolution has occurred. How is it that today, 4 years since Kitzmiller v. Dover, we still have people using the "it's only a theory" argument? If, at this point, you still can't be bothered to learn the scientific definition of a theory, there's no helping you.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
It's a failure of science education in this country that so many Americans believe that there's an actual scientific debate about whether or not evolution has occurred. How is it that today, 4 years since Kitzmiller v. Dover, we still have people using the "it's only a theory" argument? If, at this point, you still can't be bothered to learn the scientific definition of a theory, there's no helping you.

To be fair, it is not education that failed, it is the administration actively promoting ID. Look at the various states that actually allowed ID into the classroom though legislation.

 

[EGGO]

...except evolution doesn't try to bring itself off as creation.

There, I bit the OP's flamebait.

 

[Amused]

I believe in creationism. I believe evolution created life.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
It's a failure of science education in this country that so many Americans believe that there's an actual scientific debate about whether or not evolution has occurred. How is it that today, 4 years since Kitzmiller v. Dover, we still have people using the "it's only a theory" argument? If, at this point, you still can't be bothered to learn the scientific definition of a theory, there's no helping you.

To be fair, it is not education that failed, it is the administration actively promoting ID. Look at the various states that actually allowed ID into the classroom though legislation.

UM, the admin has no control over local and state policy.

 

[MotF Bane]

I actually expected this to be an Arcadio thread.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
It's a failure of science education in this country that so many Americans believe that there's an actual scientific debate about whether or not evolution has occurred. How is it that today, 4 years since Kitzmiller v. Dover, we still have people using the "it's only a theory" argument? If, at this point, you still can't be bothered to learn the scientific definition of a theory, there's no helping you.

To be fair, it is not education that failed, it is the administration actively promoting ID. Look at the various states that actually allowed ID into the classroom though legislation.

UM, the admin has no control over local and state policy.

I did not say federal administration.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
I actually expected this to be an Arcadio thread.

He is supposedly Catholic.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
It's a failure of science education in this country that so many Americans believe that there's an actual scientific debate about whether or not evolution has occurred. How is it that today, 4 years since Kitzmiller v. Dover, we still have people using the "it's only a theory" argument? If, at this point, you still can't be bothered to learn the scientific definition of a theory, there's no helping you.

To be fair, it is not education that failed, it is the administration actively promoting ID. Look at the various states that actually allowed ID into the classroom though legislation.

UM, the admin has no control over local and state policy.

I did not say federal administration.

Ah, my bad. You might wanna clarify that.

 

[IronWing]

Does life begin with the conception of a thread? Are threads created ro do they evolve. If created, is it intelligent design?

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: Onceler
Non creationism Intelligent Design

This thread is now about why you chose to bump up a 2 month old useless thread.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
It's a failure of science education in this country that so many Americans believe that there's an actual scientific debate about whether or not evolution has occurred. How is it that today, 4 years since Kitzmiller v. Dover, we still have people using the "it's only a theory" argument? If, at this point, you still can't be bothered to learn the scientific definition of a theory, there's no helping you.

To be fair, it is not education that failed, it is the administration actively promoting ID. Look at the various states that actually allowed ID into the classroom though legislation.

UM, the admin has no control over local and state policy.

I did not say federal administration.

Ah, my bad. You might wanna clarify that.

You didn't read the second sentence huh? See bolded

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: iFX
My view is that there is not enough conclusive evidence to support either of these theories.

1) Creation is not a theory. It cannot be falsified.
2) Gravity is "just a theory." Go jump off a bridge. That theory says you'll plummet to your death. But it's just a theory.

A "theory" in science is something which has a lot of evidence behind it, and it's actually quite a strong word. Unfortunately, it gets misused a lot in popular culture, and most people think of it as a very weak term. A hypothesis is a bit weaker - it's an idea about how or why something is the way it is. Once it's tested, and there is a lot of evidence to support it, a new scientific theory can be created, which tells how or why the observations are what they are.

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
I chose the 3rd option. I don't think Evolution and Creationism are mutually exclusive. On a long plane ride, sitting next to my best friend (who is a devout Christian), we had a pretty in-depth conversation about this. There's no reason why an almighty being couldn't have simply set in motion the forces of evolution and natural selection. I always get a bit hung up about all this stuff on the creation of the universe. The very creation of the universe seems to defy the laws of physics - how can matter come from nothing? I think it's possible that a god, or whatever you choose to call it, could have simply set things in motion with the laws of physics/chemistry.

Oh, and this thread is flamebait.

Our physical laws break down at the moment of the Big Bang. It would be like asking you to go outside of our Universe and describe what you see. What happens when you leave our realm of space and time? All of our languages, including mathematics, function with three physical dimensions and one temporal dimension. How do you describe a place which lacks these attributes?
And besides, why does this deity or god get a free pass to exist outside of our laws of physics, but the Big Bang singularity does not?

Originally posted by: destrekor
the very existence of the universe - which means that at some point it had to have started from almost nothing - proves that NOT OF THIS IS REAL!
OMG does that blow your mind? We are totally the imagination of something (our creator. praise you for dreaming about us in your never-ending coma!), or a simulation that needs to be stopped immediately.
that'd be weird. all of a sudden, nothing in here. do we just... turn off?
woah

Mmm, good dope man. Good shit. Dammit I'm hungry. You got any Snickers?

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: iFX
My view is that there is not enough conclusive evidence to support either of these theories.

1) Creation is not a theory. It cannot be falsified.
2) Gravity is "just a theory." Go jump off a bridge. That theory says you'll plummet to your death. But it's just a theory.

A "theory" in science is something which has a lot of evidence behind it, and it's actually quite a strong word. Unfortunately, it gets misused a lot in popular culture, and most people think of it as a very weak term. A hypothesis is a bit weaker - it's an idea about how or why something is the way it is. Once it's tested, and there is a lot of evidence to support it, a new scientific theory can be created, which tells how or why the observations are what they are.

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
I chose the 3rd option. I don't think Evolution and Creationism are mutually exclusive. On a long plane ride, sitting next to my best friend (who is a devout Christian), we had a pretty in-depth conversation about this. There's no reason why an almighty being couldn't have simply set in motion the forces of evolution and natural selection. I always get a bit hung up about all this stuff on the creation of the universe. The very creation of the universe seems to defy the laws of physics - how can matter come from nothing? I think it's possible that a god, or whatever you choose to call it, could have simply set things in motion with the laws of physics/chemistry.

Oh, and this thread is flamebait.

Our physical laws break down at the moment of the Big Bang. It would be like asking you to go outside of our Universe and describe what you see. What happens when you leave our realm of space and time? All of our languages, including mathematics, function with three physical dimensions and one temporal dimension. How do you describe a place which lacks these attributes?
And besides, why does this deity or god get a free pass to exist outside of our laws of physics, but the Big Bang singularity does not?

Originally posted by: destrekor
the very existence of the universe - which means that at some point it had to have started from almost nothing - proves that NOT OF THIS IS REAL!
OMG does that blow your mind? We are totally the imagination of something (our creator. praise you for dreaming about us in your never-ending coma!), or a simulation that needs to be stopped immediately.
that'd be weird. all of a sudden, nothing in here. do we just... turn off?
woah

Mmm, good dope man. Good shit. Dammit I'm hungry. You got any Snickers?

You could have just linked to the "Theory" thread

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
It's a failure of science education in this country that so many Americans believe that there's an actual scientific debate about whether or not evolution has occurred. How is it that today, 4 years since Kitzmiller v. Dover, we still have people using the "it's only a theory" argument? If, at this point, you still can't be bothered to learn the scientific definition of a theory, there's no helping you.

To be fair, it is not education that failed, it is the administration actively promoting ID. Look at the various states that actually allowed ID into the classroom though legislation.

UM, the admin has no control over local and state policy.

I did not say federal administration.

Ah, my bad. You might wanna clarify that.

You didn't read the second sentence huh? See bolded

Read it yourself. I know YOU know what you meant, but to someone else it could be inferred to mean the president's admin.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: sdifox
You could have just linked to the "Theory" thread

A recent thread? I must have missed it.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: sdifox
You could have just linked to the "Theory" thread

A recent thread? I must have missed it.

not recent, this was a ownage of the year thread where a dude (can't remember his handle, he's still around) tried to argue "Theory of relativity is just a theory"... but at-wiki seems to be down so I couldn't link it.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Amused

Read it yourself. I know YOU know what you meant, but to someone else it could be inferred to mean the president's admin.

well, he did what he thought was in the best interest of the nation. It is really not his fault the american people were dumb enough to vote for him twice.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Amused

Read it yourself. I know YOU know what you meant, but to someone else it could be inferred to mean the president's admin.

well, he did what he thought was in the best interest of the nation. It is really not his fault the american people were dumb enough to vote for him twice.

Um.... huh?

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: sdifox
not recent, this was a ownage of the year thread where a dude (can't remember his handle, he's still around) tried to argue "Theory of relativity is just a theory"... but at-wiki seems to be down so I couldn't link it.

Ah, I see. Yeah, that must have been fun.
GPS satellites wouldn't work properly if they didn't account for time dilation due to relativistic effects.