Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[Axeldeath]

@ThatSmartGuy synaptic chemical connections within our brains

[ProHypster]

@Axeldeath Nothing is less than something.

 

It doesn't exist.

 

Also it is a mathematical expression.

[danielsangeo]

Love is an affection or attraction to a specific thing.

 

As for "formula" about God/Creator, what "formula"? What "calculating"? I asked a question about where God/Creator came from if "something" can't come from "nothing". I don't have to do a thing but read the answer to that question and perhaps ask for clarification afterwards.

[Axeldeath]

Three of us posting in the same topic at once... We are going to crash the server at this rate D:

[ProHypster]

Love is an affection or attraction to a specific thing.

 

As for "formula" about God/Creator, what "formula"? What "calculating"? I asked a question about where God/Creator came from if "something" can't come from "nothing". I don't have to do a thing but read the answer to that question and perhaps ask for clarification afterwards.

 

Oh god... why are we talknig about evolution if we can't calculate simple things:

 

The only explanation to the theory would be that Something (God) was always there, there was never nothing. (No God) So something wasn't created, it is eternal.

 

EDIT: Can we go back on topic and debate previous things I posted leaving this debate valuable and not worthless

Edited May 6, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[danielsangeo]

So, if God was "always there", why can't the universe be "always there"?

[Axeldeath]

I'm trying to understand that last post but... I'm not sure it's possible

 

EDIT Dammit daniel :/ you posted before me. I meant ThatSmartGuy's comment not yours

[ProHypster]

So, if God was "always there", why can't the universe be "always there"?

 

It is possible of course.

 

In philosophy there is different views, some say God is simply everything in the world. Hence, we are part of God.

 

To me, biblical linkage to God explains it better.

 

Some say the two are linked which I don't count as impossible either.

[ProHypster]

I'm trying to understand that last post but... I'm not sure it's possible

 

EDIT Dammit daniel :/ you posted before me. I meant ThatSmartGuy's comment not yours

 

Study physics. An apple cannot be created from nothing but it can exist without ever being created, it defies our usual life events but it is possible theoretically and in fact it's either that or something that broke physics happened and we were created because in physics there is no other explanation than that.

[ProHypster]

Now go back on topic please, debate shifiting from disproving evolution as a fact to Physics.

[danielsangeo]

Axle: Sorry!

 

ThatSmartGuy: I don't really know how to respond to that. Sounds like a bunch of hooey to me. As for disproving evolution as fact, I'm sorry, but that's impossible. Unless every single child is identical to their parents and their parents are identical to their parents, that would be the only way to disprove evolution. Since we know, for a fact, that children are not identical (clones) of their parents, then evolution is fact.

 

The only other way to disprove evolution is to change the definition of evolution.

[ProHypster]

Axle: Sorry!

 

ThatSmartGuy: I don't really know how to respond to that. Sounds like a bunch of hooey to me. As for disproving evolution as fact, I'm sorry, but that's impossible. Unless every single child is identical to their parents and their parents are identical to their parents, that would be the only way to disprove evolution. Since we know, for a fact, that children are not identical (clones) of their parents, then evolution is fact.

 

The only other way to disprove evolution is to change the definition of evolution.

1. A bunch of hogus, or a philosophical study that most people only understand at the age of sixty:

 

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

 

2. Wait, wait, wait but that's the correct part of evolution.

 

I'm talking about dinosaurs turning into birds and being taught to children

 

apes turning into humans..

 

And then far-stretched but species turning into other species also isn't a fact.

 

Read my previous posts on the last page.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Axeldeath]

"The only explanation to the theory would be that Something (God) was always there, there was never nothing. (No God) So something wasn't created, it is eternal."

 

That was the bit I didn't understand, daniel posted what my reaction to that was though. And no the topic is not disproving evolution, where did you get that idea? The debate is centered around whether or not creation "science" (lol) should be taught in schools. It shouldn't, full stop.

[ProHypster]

"The only explanation to the theory would be that Something (God) was always there, there was never nothing. (No God) So something wasn't created, it is eternal."

 

That was the bit I didn't understand, daniel posted what my reaction to that was though. And no the topic is not disproving evolution, where did you get that idea? The debate is centered around whether or not creation "science" (lol) should be taught in schools. It shouldn't, full stop.

 

You misunderstand, if there was a god then the only physical explanation of him would be that. That was the question, how can God exist in the world of physics.

 

EDIT: Axeldeath, that part is over the debate is now whether evolution should be taught in schools as a fact.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[danielsangeo]

ThatSmartGuy: You've gone from complaining about "evolution" to speciation. We have evidence of speciation. I've posted evidence of speciation in this thread.

 

Oh, and man didn't evolve from apes as you're thinking. Apes and man evolved from a common (non-ape) ancestor.

[ProHypster]

Final off topic post by me to DanielSango:

 

Pantheistic definitions

 

Pantheists assert that God is itself the natural universe. The most famous Western pantheist is Baruch Spinoza.

 

Panentheism holds that the physical universe is part of God, but that God is more than this. While pantheism can be summed up by "God is the world and the world is God", panentheism can be summed up as "The world is in God and God is in the world, but God is more than the world and is not synonymous with the world". However, this might be a result of a misinterpretation of what is meant by world in pantheism, as many pantheists use "universe" rather than "world" and point out the utter vastness of the universe and how much of it (temporal causality, alternate dimensions, superstring theory) remains unknown to humanity. By expressing pantheism in this way and including such elements, rather than limiting it to this particular planet, and specifically limiting it to human experience, the theory is somewhat nearer to the view of panentheists while still maintaining the distinct characteristics of pantheism

 

EDIT: Response to Danielsango: You are not catching up with me, read my previous posts were I answered to your speciation evidence.

 

Speciation is part of evolution.

[danielsangeo]

I read it and I read Doom Shepard's response to your response on speciation. I don't have anything else to add on that unless you do because what Doom stated was accurate.

[Axeldeath]

You're all over the place dude, jumping from topic to topic without sufficently backing up any of your claims with evidence. Call me a robot if you like but I think- evidence > claims - sorry if you think that's not how I should view the world but don't think philosophy can explain the functions of the world anywhere near as well as science can.

[ProHypster]

@Danilesango Yes, it turns out I skipped it and I just realized it, after reading it I have no further question and announce that speciation is indeed proven and that i now believe it. Stupid of me to forget that dogs are evidence of speciation and all this time I haven't thought about that.

 

It seems like most of evolution is proven and what's not is very likely now.

 

Thank you for the debate. I'm out with the statement:

 

Evolution should be tought in schools as a fact as to how it works but should not be stated as a fact where there is inconclusive evidence in history where species turned into another species.

 

I relearned another thing today.

 

As to God, i will have to conclude on what I have so far.

 

EDIT: That last sentence will take some time to reform so I will be out of the atheism, philosophically redundant debate for a while.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Axeldeath]

Well.... That was unexpected, usually people are way too " see no evidence, hear no evidence, speak no evidence " on the evolution vs. creation topic. Time to move onto something else I suppose, at least until someone posts another arguement, maybe I would prefer to debate with philosophers if they are like you ( more open-minded towards different points if view ). TO THE CIVILIZATION PROBLEMS FORUM!! HUZZAH!!!