Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

evolution tought in schools.

notoriousdebater
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 7:34:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
okay so this is my first post on these forums and i want to kick it off with a little debate on evolution. here is a signed document of over 12,000 scientists signatures where they are vouching that they have no substantal evidance of evolution! Also in their is the other 2,000 that participated in the survey! Also if you would please take some of your time to read (not all) just a few of the facts that each parties stated and then chose for yourself if this theory should be tought in our public schools as fact! http://dl.dropbox.com...
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 7:39:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
OP, perhaps you can explain how creationism accounts for the current form of the human body, whether the already discussed eye, or a number of vestigial structures within.

That's a starting point for your supposed refutation of evolution...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
notoriousdebater
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 7:43:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 7:39:53 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
OP, perhaps you can explain how creationism accounts for the current form of the human body, whether the already discussed eye, or a number of vestigial structures within.

That's a starting point for your supposed refutation of evolution...

i belive that it should all be left out of school and they should teach the neccesities.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 7:50:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 7:43:52 PM, notoriousdebater wrote:
At 3/26/2012 7:39:53 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
OP, perhaps you can explain how creationism accounts for the current form of the human body, whether the already discussed eye, or a number of vestigial structures within.

That's a starting point for your supposed refutation of evolution...

i belive that it should all be left out of school and they should teach the neccesities.

Only the necessities, eh?

So the very basis of a vast subject like Biology would probably be considered a necessity, no?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 10:06:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 7:43:52 PM, notoriousdebater wrote:
At 3/26/2012 7:39:53 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
OP, perhaps you can explain how creationism accounts for the current form of the human body, whether the already discussed eye, or a number of vestigial structures within.

That's a starting point for your supposed refutation of evolution...

i belive that it should all be left out of school and they should teach the neccesities.

Interesting. So please explain what is a necessity and how you would determine what subject is a necessity or rather what part of the curriculum.

And your former post implied that you wanted to do away with it due to its falsehood...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 4:45:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 7:34:20 PM, notoriousdebater wrote:
okay so this is my first post on these forums and i want to kick it off with a little debate on evolution. here is a signed document of over 12,000 scientists signatures where they are vouching that they have no substantal evidance of evolution! Also in their is the other 2,000 that participated in the survey! Also if you would please take some of your time to read (not all) just a few of the facts that each parties stated and then chose for yourself if this theory should be tought in our public schools as fact! http://dl.dropbox.com...

Don't download this file. It's likely malicious. There is no need to distribute text data in a computer program.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
notoriousdebater
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:03:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 4:45:25 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/26/2012 7:34:20 PM, notoriousdebater wrote:
okay so this is my first post on these forums and i want to kick it off with a little debate on evolution. here is a signed document of over 12,000 scientists signatures where they are vouching that they have no substantal evidance of evolution! Also in their is the other 2,000 that participated in the survey! Also if you would please take some of your time to read (not all) just a few of the facts that each parties stated and then chose for yourself if this theory should be tought in our public schools as fact! http://dl.dropbox.com...

Don't download this file. It's likely malicious. There is no need to distribute text data in a computer program.

yes i added the wrong extention to the file after saving it here is the .scr file not the .exe i am sorry for the confusion! http://dl.dropbox.com...
notoriousdebater
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:05:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 7:50:01 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 3/26/2012 7:43:52 PM, notoriousdebater wrote:
At 3/26/2012 7:39:53 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
OP, perhaps you can explain how creationism accounts for the current form of the human body, whether the already discussed eye, or a number of vestigial structures within.

That's a starting point for your supposed refutation of evolution...

i belive that it should all be left out of school and they should teach the neccesities.

Only the necessities, eh?

So the very basis of a vast subject like Biology would probably be considered a necessity, no?

you do make a valid point sir but they can teach everything they need to excluding how everything started.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:37:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 5:05:04 PM, notoriousdebater wrote:
At 3/26/2012 7:50:01 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 3/26/2012 7:43:52 PM, notoriousdebater wrote:
At 3/26/2012 7:39:53 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
OP, perhaps you can explain how creationism accounts for the current form of the human body, whether the already discussed eye, or a number of vestigial structures within.

That's a starting point for your supposed refutation of evolution...

i belive that it should all be left out of school and they should teach the neccesities.

Only the necessities, eh?

So the very basis of a vast subject like Biology would probably be considered a necessity, no?

you do make a valid point sir but they can teach everything they need to excluding how everything started.

Hm, I'm either misunderstanding your point or sensing a misunderstanding of evolution. The theory of evolution only explains the beginnings of species- it doesn't explain the beginning of life in general. There are theories for the beginning of life in general, but they are far less supported with evidence than evolution. Evolution explains a lot regarding our understanding of biology. It would be difficult to give someone a full understanding in an intro bio class without explaining it in full. Really, you'd do people a disservice to tell them you are teaching them biology- but without mentioning evolution. Evolution is central. The big bang theory, and other such beginning-of-life theories, don't necessarily aid one's understanding of biology or science in general. Not at this juncture anyway. They'll probably be more central than evolution someday in the future. Maybe we'll find out? :D
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 6:44:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 5:03:49 PM, notoriousdebater wrote:
At 3/27/2012 4:45:25 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/26/2012 7:34:20 PM, notoriousdebater wrote:
okay so this is my first post on these forums and i want to kick it off with a little debate on evolution. here is a signed document of over 12,000 scientists signatures where they are vouching that they have no substantal evidance of evolution! Also in their is the other 2,000 that participated in the survey! Also if you would please take some of your time to read (not all) just a few of the facts that each parties stated and then chose for yourself if this theory should be tought in our public schools as fact! http://dl.dropbox.com...

Don't download this file. It's likely malicious. There is no need to distribute text data in a computer program.

yes i added the wrong extention to the file after saving it here is the .scr file not the .exe i am sorry for the confusion! http://dl.dropbox.com...

Yeah, right. It's still a program. You are obviously trying to spread malicious software.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 7:59:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 6:44:20 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/27/2012 5:03:49 PM, notoriousdebater wrote:
At 3/27/2012 4:45:25 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/26/2012 7:34:20 PM, notoriousdebater wrote:
okay so this is my first post on these forums and i want to kick it off with a little debate on evolution. here is a signed document of over 12,000 scientists signatures where they are vouching that they have no substantal evidance of evolution! Also in their is the other 2,000 that participated in the survey! Also if you would please take some of your time to read (not all) just a few of the facts that each parties stated and then chose for yourself if this theory should be tought in our public schools as fact! http://dl.dropbox.com...

Don't download this file. It's likely malicious. There is no need to distribute text data in a computer program.

yes i added the wrong extention to the file after saving it here is the .scr file not the .exe i am sorry for the confusion! http://dl.dropbox.com...

Yeah, right. It's still a program. You are obviously trying to spread malicious software.

lol, damn ,you called that. http://www.debate.org...

I wonder if that was voluntary??

I never click on links like that but I never would have guessed what it actually was.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 8:09:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Damn it...I wanted to relish time arguing with a creationist...and disproving common misconceptions of the evolutionary model.

Just, damn it...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
summer1234565
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 1:12:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Evolution should be taught creationism youin school b/c evolution is scientific and you can prove it.
With creationism you can't you have no way of knowing if he did create us. Plus the only way we can prove it is with the bible. It doesnt have ture words . Maybe buit we cannot prove creationism! I say thumbs up to teaching evolution in school and not creationism. Also students might like the factr that we couldve been made from animals! Who knows maybe we are! OOOOOOOOOOOOO! ( eery sound)
Nickname: Awesome Summer
summer1234565
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 1:15:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Evolution should be taught creationism in school b/c evolution is scientific and you can prove it.
With creationism you can't you have no way of knowing if he did create us. Plus the only way we can prove it is with the bible. It doesn't have true words . Maybe but we cannot prove creationism! I say thumbs up to teaching evolution in school and not creationism. Also students might like the fact that we could've been made from animals! Who knows maybe we are! OOOOOOOOOOOOO! ( eery sound)
Nickname: Awesome Summer
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 6:40:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I feel that this is going to evolve (funny pun is funny) a psuedo-Scopes vs Tennessee Board of Education type debate
turn down for h'what
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 7:04:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Some very basic, foundational truths:
1.> Adding intelligent design to the curriculum would not automatically eliminate evolutionary teaching.
2.> Allowing students to choose between a faith based science and a secular science would not prevent them from learning math, English, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, social sciences or language arts.
3.> The mere availability of intelligent design does not make it a prerequisite for graduation.
4.> Allowing faith based sciences would not require a student to pray.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also:
1.> If the public school support an optional faith based education, then the school district will garner more financial support. Parents who desire to raise a child in the faith will support the institution that supports them.
2.> Teachers who lead a privately faith-centered life no longer need to fear reprisal or unjust termination for mentioning Jesus or Muhammad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.> Countless regionally accredited colleges maintain a religious studies degree program and their review of Genesis has not caused them to lose accreditation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Macro-biological evolution is a theory. Period. [1]

theory of evolution noun
(biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals
http://dictionary.reference.com... [1]
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 7:18:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
By the way, the list of scientists that oppose the Darwinian paradigm can be found here. They have a link to the PDF.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org...
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 10:10:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 7:18:14 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
By the way, the list of scientists that oppose the Darwinian paradigm can be found here. They have a link to the PDF.


http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org...

What is their alternative explanation?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 10:11:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 7:04:34 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
Some very basic, foundational truths:
1.> Adding intelligent design to the curriculum would not automatically eliminate evolutionary teaching.
Which religion will you be teaching? Will the Sikh version of creationism be taught? The Hellenic version? The Muslim version?

Creationism is not science and should not be taught in public schools. The government has no right to force religion down people's throats.
2.> Allowing students to choose between a faith based science and a secular science would not prevent them from learning math, English, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, social sciences or language arts.
3.> The mere availability of intelligent design does not make it a prerequisite for graduation.
4.> Allowing faith based sciences would not require a student to pray.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also:
1.> If the public school support an optional faith based education, then the school district will garner more financial support. Parents who desire to raise a child in the faith will support the institution that supports them.
2.> Teachers who lead a privately faith-centered life no longer need to fear reprisal or unjust termination for mentioning Jesus or Muhammad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.> Countless regionally accredited colleges maintain a religious studies degree program and their review of Genesis has not caused them to lose accreditation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Macro-biological evolution is a theory. Period. [1]


theory of evolution noun
(biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals
http://dictionary.reference.com... [1]
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 6:41:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 10:10:42 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/27/2012 7:18:14 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
By the way, the list of scientists that oppose the Darwinian paradigm can be found here. They have a link to the PDF.


http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org...

What is their alternative explanation?

It varies, I suppose. They're not claiming an alternative. They object to Darwinian evolution. If Darwinism is truly incorrect, would it matter if an alternative was agreed upon?

It's really an Ostrich with it's head in the sand. "We must support Darwinism because no other naturalistic reasoning exists....even if Darwinism is false."
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 6:53:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 10:11:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/27/2012 7:04:34 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
Some very basic, foundational truths:
1.> Adding intelligent design to the curriculum would not automatically eliminate evolutionary teaching.
Which religion will you be teaching? Will the Sikh version of creationism be taught? The Hellenic version? The Muslim version?
The Genesis account of creation (which is shared by Muslims, Jews and Christians).
Hellenic theology is already being taught and the students do not have the choice to skip a lesson in Greek studies.

Creationism is not science and should not be taught in public schools. The government has no right to force religion down people's throats.
It is as much a science as the naturalistic sciences. What can be observed and studied has never been in conflict with the Genesis account. It's the theoretical portions (Big Bang, M-Theory, Macro-biological evolution) that conflict.

Also, it would be an elective study, which means nobody is forcing it down your throat. You may choose to study it. Nobody is forcing you to take 4 years of biology in High school. Nobody is forcing you to take 4 years of math. You simply need the prerequisites and a few elective credits.

Here is the irony. If you don't supply an elective alternative, it's you who is forcing students to learn what you want them to learn. You have exclusive control over the curriculum. You are the indoctrinator.

indoctrinate — vb
1. to teach (a person or group of people) systematically to accept doctrines, esp uncritically
2. rare to impart learning to; instruct

2.> Allowing students to choose between a faith based science and a secular science would not prevent them from learning math, English, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, social sciences or language arts.
3.> The mere availability of intelligent design does not make it a prerequisite for graduation.
4.> Allowing faith based sciences would not require a student to pray.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also:
1.> If the public school support an optional faith based education, then the school district will garner more financial support. Parents who desire to raise a child in the faith will support the institution that supports them.
2.> Teachers who lead a privately faith-centered life no longer need to fear reprisal or unjust termination for mentioning Jesus or Muhammad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.> Countless regionally accredited colleges maintain a religious studies degree program and their review of Genesis has not caused them to lose accreditation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Macro-biological evolution is a theory. Period. [1]


theory of evolution noun
(biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals
http://dictionary.reference.com... [1]
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 6:56:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 6:41:15 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
At 4/28/2012 10:10:42 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/27/2012 7:18:14 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
By the way, the list of scientists that oppose the Darwinian paradigm can be found here. They have a link to the PDF.


http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org...

What is their alternative explanation?

It varies, I suppose. They're not claiming an alternative. They object to Darwinian evolution. If Darwinism is truly incorrect, would it matter if an alternative was agreed upon?

It's really an Ostrich with it's head in the sand. "We must support Darwinism because no other naturalistic reasoning exists....even if Darwinism is false."

I don't even see explanations as to WHY Darwinism is false on that site I just see a petition. Surely they can present their evidence, no?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 6:58:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 6:53:35 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
At 4/28/2012 10:11:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/27/2012 7:04:34 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
Some very basic, foundational truths:
1.> Adding intelligent design to the curriculum would not automatically eliminate evolutionary teaching.
Which religion will you be teaching? Will the Sikh version of creationism be taught? The Hellenic version? The Muslim version?
The Genesis account of creation (which is shared by Muslims, Jews and Christians).
Hellenic theology is already being taught and the students do not have the choice to skip a lesson in Greek studies.

Really? Can I have proof that Hellenic theology is being taught as a science in schools across the nation?

Why just the Genesis account of creation? You are discriminating against thousands of other religions.
Creationism is not science and should not be taught in public schools. The government has no right to force religion down people's throats.
It is as much a science as the naturalistic sciences. What can be observed and studied has never been in conflict with the Genesis account. It's the theoretical portions (Big Bang, M-Theory, Macro-biological evolution) that conflict.

Really? I want evidence for all of these claims.
Also, it would be an elective study, which means nobody is forcing it down your throat. You may choose to study it. Nobody is forcing you to take 4 years of biology in High school. Nobody is forcing you to take 4 years of math. You simply need the prerequisites and a few elective credits.

My tax money should not be used for unconstitutional activities. No religion in public schools means no religion. I support our Constitution.
Here is the irony. If you don't supply an elective alternative, it's you who is forcing students to learn what you want them to learn. You have exclusive control over the curriculum. You are the indoctrinator.

Not really. I'm not forcing them to believe anything. I am simply refusing to allow my tax money to be used for unconstitutional activities.

indoctrinate — vb
1. to teach (a person or group of people) systematically to accept doctrines, esp uncritically
2. rare to impart learning to; instruct

2.> Allowing students to choose between a faith based science and a secular science would not prevent them from learning math, English, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, social sciences or language arts.
3.> The mere availability of intelligent design does not make it a prerequisite for graduation.
4.> Allowing faith based sciences would not require a student to pray.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also:
1.> If the public school support an optional faith based education, then the school district will garner more financial support. Parents who desire to raise a child in the faith will support the institution that supports them.
2.> Teachers who lead a privately faith-centered life no longer need to fear reprisal or unjust termination for mentioning Jesus or Muhammad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.> Countless regionally accredited colleges maintain a religious studies degree program and their review of Genesis has not caused them to lose accreditation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Macro-biological evolution is a theory. Period. [1]


theory of evolution noun
(biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals
http://dictionary.reference.com... [1]
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 7:00:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You obviously have no conception of "scientific theory". "Just a theory" arguments reveal the lack of knowledge of scientific theory on the part of Creationists because scientific theories are called "theories" after they explain new phenomena that previous theories could not explain and have not been falsified after thousands of independent tests. It is an honor for a hypothesis to become a theory. This is basic middle school science.
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 4:29:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 7:00:42 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
You obviously have no conception of "scientific theory". "Just a theory" arguments reveal the lack of knowledge of scientific theory on the part of Creationists because scientific theories are called "theories" after they explain new phenomena that previous theories could not explain and have not been falsified after thousands of independent tests. It is an honor for a hypothesis to become a theory. This is basic middle school science.

Royalpaladin,
Simply stating that I "have no conception of scientific theory", doesn't make it true, nor does it make you my intellectual superior. Your display of flagrant character attacks does not aid your argument.
If it pleases the audience, I am employed as a field service technician for a company that designs and maintains particulate systems. I work with lasers, x-rays, pressurized gases and a slew of other machines that utilize pycnometry or comparative volume analyzers to measure particle size, surface area, density, volume and porosity. I understand science. It's my job.

Concerning your objection to the State vs Church conflict:

It's mere existence is not a platform for exclusion. After all, our armed forces have government trained clergy on the federal payroll.
Separation between Church and State does not mean "War between Church and State", nor does it demand "Distrust or Power Struggles between Church and State". It was designed to harmonize the two entities. Consider the persons who signed the Constitution:

Daniel Carroll Maryland Catholic
Andrew Adams Connecticut Congregationalist
Richard Hutson South Carolina Congregationalist
Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist
Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist
John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist
Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist
Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian
Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian
Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian
Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
John Banister Virginia Episcopalian
James Duane New York Episcopalian
Edward Langworthy Georgia Episcopalian
Gouverneur Morris New York Episcopalian
Nicholas Van Dyke Delaware Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Cornelius Harnett North Carolina Episcopalian (Deist)
John Dickinson Delaware Quaker; Episcopalian
Henry Laurens South Carolina Huguenot
John Hanson Maryland Lutheran
Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian
John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian
John Walton Georgia Presbyterian
Nathaniel Scudder New Jersey Presbyterian
William Clingan Pennsylvania Protestant,
Joseph Reed Pennsylvania Protestant,
Daniel Roberdeau Pennsylvania Protestant,
Jonathan Bayard Smith Pennsylvania Protestant,
Francis Dana Massachusetts Protestant,
Samuel Holten Massachusetts Protestant,
James Lovell Massachusetts Protestant,
Henry Marchant Rhode Island Protestant,
John Collins Rhode Island Protestant,
Thomas Adams Virginia Protestant,
John Harvie Virginia Protestant,
John Mathews South Carolina Protestant,
William Henry Drayton South Carolina Protestant,
William Duer New York Protestant,
Titus Hosmer Connecticut Protestant,
Edward Telfair Georgia Protestant,
John Wentworth Jr. New Hampshire Protestant,
John Williams North Carolina Protestant,

If you don't believe Creationism is a science, then explain a few things:
1.> Polystrate Fossils
2.> Giantic Insects
3.> Fossil Amber with 33% Oxygen content
4.> Extinct Species named "Forefather of all landdwellers" being found unchanged and thriving.
5.> Global Flood stories naming a man and a giant ship from almost every culture.
6.> World Population bottleneck circa 4000 years ago.
7.> World's largest desert about 4,000 years old.

There is plenty of science to be studied. Your objections, (not to sound condescending) I believe are based on fear. You would rather litigate the Christian out of the school, than face them on a level playing field.

Anyone can yell loudly at his opponent. It won't make you right.
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 5:53:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 7:04:34 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
Macro-biological evolution is a theory. Period. [1]


theory of evolution noun
(biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals
http://dictionary.reference.com... [1]

Plate tectonics is "just a theory" as well.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 4:43:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 7:43:52 PM, notoriousdebater wrote:
At 3/26/2012 7:39:53 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
OP, perhaps you can explain how creationism accounts for the current form of the human body, whether the already discussed eye, or a number of vestigial structures within.

That's a starting point for your supposed refutation of evolution...

i belive that it should all be left out of school and they should teach the neccesities.

Evolution is pretty much necessary for the inner study of biology/microbiology.

Please, don't turn this to a Scopes vs Tennessee Board of Education trial.
turn down for h'what
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 4:47:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 5:05:04 PM, notoriousdebater wrote:
At 3/26/2012 7:50:01 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 3/26/2012 7:43:52 PM, notoriousdebater wrote:
At 3/26/2012 7:39:53 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
OP, perhaps you can explain how creationism accounts for the current form of the human body, whether the already discussed eye, or a number of vestigial structures within.

That's a starting point for your supposed refutation of evolution...

i belive that it should all be left out of school and they should teach the neccesities.

Only the necessities, eh?

So the very basis of a vast subject like Biology would probably be considered a necessity, no?

you do make a valid point sir but they can teach everything they need to excluding how everything started.

Oh, by the way, evolution is not 'how everything started'.

You're thinking of abiogenesis, which is the study of the coming of organic life from non-organic matter. You know, carbon-based lifeforms, proteins-into-amino acids, ect ect. It's a really interesting field of study.

I feel that the people who are against the teachings of evolution is school are probably those who understand it the least, ergo such misconceptions between evolution and abiogenesis are commonly made.
turn down for h'what