Sam - you are so dense sometimes I swear you must be faking it. Creationism is NOT an alternative to evolution as evolution is not about the origin of life - where as creationism is.
I would have no issues at all with scientific arguments against evolution being introduces, however...there are none. The only arguments involve mythological beings creating all life in a week, or other such stories. Not science, but religion or mythology. Based on your point of view, Bullfinch's Mythology should be accepted scientific textbooks. On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:16 PM, PT <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Did you say all creatures evolved from the first form of life or that > > they > > > just evolve as they go. You do realize this is not black and white? > There > > > are degrees of acceptance. Your statement makes me think you don't > > > understand evolution. > > > > No. You do not understand evolution. The Theory of Evolution, at its > > core, is NOT an origin theory. It does not attempt to explain the > > creation of life. All the theory attempts to explain is the process of > > the change in the distribution of alleles among the populations of a > > species over time. That is it. Creationism has nothing to do with it. > > It can't be taught as an alternative to evolution, unless you believe > > evolution doesn't happen at all and everything is as it was created by > > divine plan. > > > > Exactly. So why is "an argument against evolution" considered an argument > about origins? > > Do we completely understand evolution? Is our current theory of > > evolution likely the complete explanation of what is happening? No. > > That does not, however, leave room open for teaching an unrelated, > > myth-based, alternative explanation. > > > > Who want's to teach an unrelated myth-based, alternative explanation? I > thought we were talking about arguments against evolution. > > > > > Do we understand gravity? Do we know what it is or exactly how it > > works? No. That does not mean that we should teach that gravity works > > because a mythical deity reaches down from the heavens and takes objects > > suspended in the air and places them on the ground, which used to be the > > prevailing belief. > > > > > Whaaa? > > > > All Creationism is, is another example of "We don't know, so God must > > have done it." That isn't something that needs to be taught. We humans > > tend to reach that conclusion on our own in the face of not having any > > better idea. > > > > Creationism is not an alternative to evolution. The two are not related. > > > > Creationism has no place being mentioned in any science classroom and > > should not be used as the basis for any argument against scientific > > hypotheses or theories, related or not. It is that simple. > > > > > I think we all agree about that. We're talking about more details about > evolution. > > . > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:366999 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
