Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Jul 22, 2025 6:00 pm



Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Evolution 

How were you taught evolution in high school?
Evolution as a fundamental of science with no disclaimers/alternatives. 53%  53%  [ 16 ]
Evolution only, but with a disclaimer (It's only a theory and there are others) 17%  17%  [ 5 ]
Evolution and an alternative (Intelligent Design, Creationism), but focus on Ev. 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Evolution with an alternative (see above) given equal merit 7%  7%  [ 2 ]
Creationism/Design with slight references to this possibility called Evolution 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Creationism or Design ONLY 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Avoided the topic altogether 17%  17%  [ 5 ]
Total votes : 30

 Evolution 
Author Message
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Evolution
Eagle wrote:
Who knows,


Everyone but you, obviously. Not that real facts or data have ever meant a lot to you.

Quote:
I had just never seen an actual poll to that effect.


Well now you've seen several.

Quote:
I was just surprised when I looked at that article and saw that you had embellished the facts to fit your talking point, which made me chuckle, making up statistics, horray! You need to read up on scientific polls, maybe take a statistics class, because what you did totally nullifies the percentages you are using.


First of all, again, embellishing? From you? HAHAHAHA! Tell me, Eagle, what do you think of someone who just makes something up to fit a talking point? Huh? Please, tell me what you think that says a person. "Heck, at one point, Obama was stumping to have all the troops out within a month!"

Second, I didn't make anything up. The NYT article left that specific part of the question out of their story. It was NOT left out of the question asked in the survey, as the numerous numerous polls I cited would illustrate to anyone who didn't have their head stuck up their ass.

Again, what do you hope to prove by denying the fact that nearly half of Americans believe in YEC? This isn't really about ANY of these facts, it isn't about evolution or the discussion. You're trying desperately and pathetically to prove something about me, and it just makes you look more lame and sad than usual. You've created a straw man and are arguing against points that no one here has made, like about hiding religious ideas from people, which no one here supports.


Sat Aug 30, 2008 4:48 pm
Profile WWW
Yes we can call dibs on the mountain guide

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:47 pm
Posts: 3290
Location: Houston
Post Re: Evolution
There ain't nothing wrong with half of Americans believing in a Young Earth... I'm sure the percentage in Saudi Arabia or Malawi is higher.

_________________
(hitokiri battousai)


Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:10 pm
Profile
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:30 pm
Posts: 12096
Location: Stroudsburg, PA
Post Re: Evolution
Beeblebrox wrote:

Faith in a higher power is irrelevant to the evolution debate. Most scientists believe in God.


Actually, they don't. By a huge percentage. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

_________________
Buy my books! http://michaelaventrella.com


Image


Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:17 pm
Profile WWW
Site Owner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
Post Re: Evolution
Groucho wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote:

Faith in a higher power is irrelevant to the evolution debate. Most scientists believe in God.


Actually, they don't. By a huge percentage. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html


You and your facts! :grrr:

_________________
Image


Sat Aug 30, 2008 11:38 pm
Profile WWW
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Evolution
Groucho wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote:

Faith in a higher power is irrelevant to the evolution debate. Most scientists believe in God.


Actually, they don't. By a huge percentage. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html


That article is from 1998. Here's an article from 2005 about a Rice University survey: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ ... s_god.html

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.


Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:04 am
Profile WWW
I just lost the game
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:00 pm
Posts: 5868
Post Re: Evolution
We were taught natural selection (whenever the subject came up, which wasn't often). We were never explicitly taught evolution, but it takes a nutless monkey to make the connection. I graduated high school in 2007.

I have no qualms with people not wanting to "believe" in evolution (I hate using the word believe alongside science), but that doesn't make your beliefs a good substitution for that science. Creationism is not science. Science takes data and observations, and takes from them a testable and disprovable hypothesis. Creationism takes the final resulting idea (which is neither testable nor disprovable) and tries to find data to support it.

I'm pretty devout in my faith and even I know that.

_________________
Image


Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:46 am
Profile
Powered By Hate
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:55 pm
Posts: 7578
Location: Torrington, CT
Post Re: Evolution
Jim Halpert wrote:
Anton Chigurh wrote:
Sorry, school's in session and I've slept 10 hours total this week. Basically, you're totally bang-on on evolution and Jim Halpert's education in Arkan-saw clearly wasn't too good.



I graduated high school in michigan in a school that was ranked top 250 in the nation


And you still don't know what the fuck a scientific theory is? :zonks: You know, that only looks worse on you.

_________________
It's my lucky crack pipe.


Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:16 am
Profile
Stanley Cup
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:52 pm
Posts: 6981
Location: Hockey Town
Post Re: Evolution
Anton Chigurh wrote:
Jim Halpert wrote:
Anton Chigurh wrote:
Sorry, school's in session and I've slept 10 hours total this week. Basically, you're totally bang-on on evolution and Jim Halpert's education in Arkan-saw clearly wasn't too good.



I graduated high school in michigan in a school that was ranked top 250 in the nation


And you still don't know what the fuck a scientific theory is? :zonks: You know, that only looks worse on you.



:roll:


Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:43 pm
Profile
Yes we can call dibs on the mountain guide

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:47 pm
Posts: 3290
Location: Houston
Post Re: Evolution
Anton Chigurh wrote:
And you still don't know what the fuck a scientific theory is? :zonks: You know, that only looks worse on you.

As a freethinker, perhaps think before you speak. That's an insult towards Jim. There is no good to be gained from denigrating the intelligence of other people that have already made up their minds about metaphysical issues.

_________________
(hitokiri battousai)


Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:05 pm
Profile
Powered By Hate
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:55 pm
Posts: 7578
Location: Torrington, CT
Post Re: Evolution
Anita Hussein Briem wrote:
Anton Chigurh wrote:
And you still don't know what the fuck a scientific theory is? :zonks: You know, that only looks worse on you.

As a freethinker, perhaps think before you speak. That's an insult towards Jim. There is no good to be gained from denigrating the intelligence of other people that have already made up their minds about metaphysical issues.


The validity of my thoughts have zilch to do with my sniping bitch attitude. I'm perfectly aware that I'm an asshole. But I tend to reserve my scorn for idiocy.

Why should he get a free pass for not thinking (or in this case, doing his homework) before he speaks? Scientific theory = colloquial theory. Instead, like many people on this issue, he brings up a debunked misconception that time in a seventh-grade science class could answer.

And I only debate here much anymore because I like tear-assing. Debate on policy and the events at the conventions is totally, utterly irrelevant. Even the SCOTUS sold out. To me, it's all about observing a parade of systematic failure in humanity. It's fun, though!

_________________
It's my lucky crack pipe.


Last edited by Tyler on Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:04 pm
Profile
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Evolution
Anton Chigurh wrote:
And you still don't know what the fuck a scientific theory is? :zonks: You know, that only looks worse on you.


I don't think it's about our education system in the case of evolution, or at least not in the cases where they actually teach it. People are raised on Creationism and are largely taught it by their parents or the church. When they reach high school, they are simply rejecting science by choice. But yes, you're right, it does make them look worse.


Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:05 pm
Profile WWW
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Evolution
Anita Hussein Briem wrote:
That's an insult towards Jim. There is no good to be gained from denigrating the intelligence of other people that have already made up their minds about metaphysical issues.


It's not a metaphysical issue. Jim believes in something utterly ridiculous, contradicted DIRECTLY by nearly every known branch of science. His comment about "it wouldn't be a theory if it were a fact" betrays a deep ignorance of the science he rejects.

If he came in here and said that the sun orbited the earth, and that it was not a fact that the earth went around the run but only a theory, would we give him any credence, any due respect for his "metaphysical" "belief"? No. Geocentrists are rightly ridiculed. Now imagine if they thought geocentrism should be taught alongside heliocentrism as a legitimate science in science class.

Btw, according to a literal interpretation of the Bible, the earth is immovable, stationary in the cosmos, and therefore the sun does revolve around it.


Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:12 pm
Profile WWW
Stanley Cup
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:52 pm
Posts: 6981
Location: Hockey Town
Post Re: Evolution
Beeblebrox wrote:
Anita Hussein Briem wrote:
That's an insult towards Jim. There is no good to be gained from denigrating the intelligence of other people that have already made up their minds about metaphysical issues.


It's not a metaphysical issue. Jim believes in something utterly ridiculous, contradicted DIRECTLY by nearly every known branch of science. His comment about "it wouldn't be a theory if it were a fact" betrays a deep ignorance of the science he rejects.

If he came in here and said that the sun orbited the earth, and that it was not a fact that the earth went around the run but only a theory, would we give him any credence, any due respect for his "metaphysical" "belief"? No. Geocentrists are rightly ridiculed. Now imagine if they thought geocentrism should be taught alongside heliocentrism as a legitimate science in science class.

Btw, according to a literal interpretation of the Bible, the earth is immovable, stationary in the cosmos, and therefore the sun does revolve around it.



Where did i say i believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible?


Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:13 pm
Profile
KJ's Leading Pundit
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm
Posts: 63026
Location: Tonight... YOU!
Post Re: Evolution
Jim Halpert wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote:
Anita Hussein Briem wrote:
That's an insult towards Jim. There is no good to be gained from denigrating the intelligence of other people that have already made up their minds about metaphysical issues.


It's not a metaphysical issue. Jim believes in something utterly ridiculous, contradicted DIRECTLY by nearly every known branch of science. His comment about "it wouldn't be a theory if it were a fact" betrays a deep ignorance of the science he rejects.

If he came in here and said that the sun orbited the earth, and that it was not a fact that the earth went around the run but only a theory, would we give him any credence, any due respect for his "metaphysical" "belief"? No. Geocentrists are rightly ridiculed. Now imagine if they thought geocentrism should be taught alongside heliocentrism as a legitimate science in science class.

Btw, according to a literal interpretation of the Bible, the earth is immovable, stationary in the cosmos, and therefore the sun does revolve around it.



Where did i say i believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible?


In beeble's screwed up mind.

_________________
trixster wrote:
shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element

trixster wrote:
chippy is correct

Rev wrote:
Fuck Trump


Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:15 pm
Profile
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Evolution
Jim Halpert wrote:
Where did i say i believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible?


The literal interpretation of the Bible is the ONLY foundation for the belief in Creationism (albeit there are other creation myths, but we're talking about the one that Christian fundamentalists want taught as science). There is no outside evidence beyond the Bible to support the theory that the earth was created in its present form 6000 years ago.

So if you don't believe that the Bible is literally true, what possible reason could have you have for believing it's account of Creation and rejecting virtually all known science?


Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:21 pm
Profile WWW
Stanley Cup
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:52 pm
Posts: 6981
Location: Hockey Town
Post Re: Evolution
Beeblebrox wrote:
Jim Halpert wrote:
Where did i say i believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible?


The literal interpretation of the Bible is the ONLY foundation for the belief in Creationism (albeit there are other creation myths, but we're talking about the one that Christian fundamentalists want taught as science). There is no outside evidence beyond the Bible to support the theory that the earth was created in its present form 6000 years ago.

So if you don't believe that the Bible is literally true, what possible reason could have you have for believing it's account of Creation and rejecting virtually all known science?



I don't believe the world of created 6000 years ago. I believe that the days it took to create earth were actually thousands of years.

As for evolution, yes i believe that god created us. However, I'm not narrowminded enough not to accept that evolution is possibility. Adam and Eve may not have been humans, they could have been organisms and evolved from there. When the bible was written, it was told to them what happened, God could have used metaphors or interpretations to make it easier for the people in that time to understand.


Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:27 pm
Profile
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Evolution
Jim Halpert wrote:
I don't believe the world of created 6000 years ago. I believe that the days it took to create earth were actually thousands of years.


My apologies for assuming YEC instead of just...C.

So if you accept that the earth is thousands of years old DESPITE what the Bible says, or that the Earth revolves around the sun despite what the Bible says, then why not accept evolution, given evidence so overwhelming that even the Vatican accepts it as fact?


Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:52 pm
Profile WWW
Yes we can call dibs on the mountain guide

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:47 pm
Posts: 3290
Location: Houston
Post Re: Evolution
Beeblebrox wrote:
Anita Hussein Briem wrote:
That's an insult towards Jim. There is no good to be gained from denigrating the intelligence of other people that have already made up their minds about metaphysical issues.


It's not a metaphysical issue. Jim believes in something utterly ridiculous, contradicted DIRECTLY by nearly every known branch of science. His comment about "it wouldn't be a theory if it were a fact" betrays a deep ignorance of the science he rejects.

If he came in here and said that the sun orbited the earth, and that it was not a fact that the earth went around the run but only a theory, would we give him any credence, any due respect for his "metaphysical" "belief"? No. Geocentrists are rightly ridiculed. Now imagine if they thought geocentrism should be taught alongside heliocentrism as a legitimate science in science class.

Btw, according to a literal interpretation of the Bible, the earth is immovable, stationary in the cosmos, and therefore the sun does revolve around it.

Science isn't a metaphysical issue, but creationism is. That philosophical asymmetry is what makes these discussions impossible. What makes sense to one person does not make sense to another. Screaming at the "ignorant" for philosophical issues won't convert them to your way of thought, any more than for political issues.

To really make a difference, elect leaders that believe in 21st-century knowledge as opposed to 14th century mythology.

_________________
(hitokiri battousai)


Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:18 pm
Profile
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Evolution
Anita Hussein Briem wrote:
Science isn't a metaphysical issue, but creationism is. That philosophical asymmetry is what makes these discussions impossible. What makes sense to one person does not make sense to another.


Creationism is only metaphysical in the sense that "God did it." But to say that the Earth is 6000 years old and that species have existed as is since that time is an assertion of history, not faith or philosophy. When you say that the rocks in the Earth are 6000 years old, you're making a geological assertion. Ditto biology, physics, and astronomy.

If we acknowledge, for instance, that an evolutionary biologist can believe in God, then what separates evolution from Creationism is the factual assertions. And by that measure, Creationism is flat out wrong, and the people who believe in it are kooks, just as one might describe a flat earther or a geocentrist. People who reject that the sun is the center of the solar system are not accorded any respect in academia and are largely relegated to the fringe of the internet and conspiracy theorists. Why not Creationists?


Sun Aug 31, 2008 4:13 pm
Profile WWW
Yes we can call dibs on the mountain guide

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:47 pm
Posts: 3290
Location: Houston
Post Re: Evolution
Beeblebrox wrote:
Creationism is only metaphysical in the sense that "God did it." But to say that the Earth is 6000 years old and that species have existed as is since that time is an assertion of history, not faith or philosophy. When you say that the rocks in the Earth are 6000 years old, you're making a geological assertion. Ditto biology, physics, and astronomy.

If we acknowledge, for instance, that an evolutionary biologist can believe in God, then what separates evolution from Creationism is the factual assertions. And by that measure, Creationism is flat out wrong, and the people who believe in it are kooks, just as one might describe a flat earther or a geocentrist. People who reject that the sun is the center of the solar system are not accorded any respect in academia and are largely relegated to the fringe of the internet and conspiracy theorists. Why not Creationists?

It took ages for heliocentric astronomy to fade away. Millions still believed the sun is the center centuries after Galileo lived and died, especially in societies outside the Enlightenment. If you believe in the power of scientific truth, simply be patient and let history bring about the inevitable. The world has less creationists than at any other time in human history, and as each successive generation dies away, a bit of ignorance dies with it. Look at the flat earth theory, or Jim Crow for that matter. For with most people, ignorance can only be conquered with death. Give it a hundred years, my friend.

_________________
(hitokiri battousai)


Sun Aug 31, 2008 4:35 pm
Profile
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Evolution
Anita Hussein Briem wrote:
Millions still believed the sun is the center centuries after Galileo lived and died, especially in societies outside the Enlightenment. If you believe in the power of scientific truth, simply be patient and let history bring about the inevitable.


They had an excuse. They didn't know any better. Mass education did not exist then the way it does now. If you believed it then, it's because that's all you were taught. If you believe it now, it's DESPITE the overwhelming scientific evidence, education, and general knowledge. To believe in Creationism now, you must make the conscious decision to reject science.

Quote:
The world has less creationists than at any other time in human history, and as each successive generation dies away, a bit of ignorance dies with it. Look at the flat earth theory, or Jim Crow for that matter. For with most people, ignorance can only be conquered with death. Give it a hundred years, my friend.


I hope you are right. ;)


Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:19 pm
Profile WWW
Yes we can call dibs on the mountain guide

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:47 pm
Posts: 3290
Location: Houston
Post Re: Evolution
Beeblebrox wrote:
Anita Hussein Briem wrote:
Millions still believed the sun is the center centuries after Galileo lived and died, especially in societies outside the Enlightenment. If you believe in the power of scientific truth, simply be patient and let history bring about the inevitable.


They had an excuse. They didn't know any better. Mass education did not exist then the way it does now. If you believed it then, it's because that's all you were taught. If you believe it now, it's DESPITE the overwhelming scientific evidence, education, and general knowledge. To believe in Creationism now, you must make the conscious decision to reject science.

They had overwhelming evidence that the Earth is round (since antiquity) for anybody with enough curiosity to probe the subject. Since Isaac Newton, anybody with the curiosity to learn mathematics and astronomy could have discovered the secrets of the cosmos for themselves. Today, anybody with the curiosity can learn enough paleontology to settle any doubts. What's the keyword? Curiosity. The ignorant have one thing in common throughout the history of human civilization: lack of curiosity.

This lack of curiosity could be innate, or could be forced upon children by their parents. Ever wonder why wingnut parents are so terrified of exposing their children to alternative ideas before they're old enough to be fully inculcated?
Quote:
Quote:
The world has less creationists than at any other time in human history, and as each successive generation dies away, a bit of ignorance dies with it. Look at the flat earth theory, or Jim Crow for that matter. For with most people, ignorance can only be conquered with death. Give it a hundred years, my friend.


I hope you are right. ;)
[/quote]
I hope so as well.

_________________
(hitokiri battousai)


Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:28 pm
Profile
Online
Devil's Advocate
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am
Posts: 40611
Post Re: Evolution
100% evolution taught in my school, and they treated it as fully and legitimately as any other bio topic

_________________
Shack’s top 50 tv shows - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=90227


Sun Aug 31, 2008 6:29 pm
Profile
Confessing on a Dance Floor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:46 am
Posts: 5578
Location: Celebratin' in Chitown
Post Re: Evolution
evolution is always taught as a theory because that' what it is. highly accepted, but a theory nonetheless. I was taught this by Jesuits.


Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:11 am
Profile
A very honest-hearted fellow
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Posts: 4767
Post Re: Evolution
Sam wrote:
evolution is always taught as a theory because that' what it is. highly accepted, but a theory nonetheless. I was taught this by Jesuits.

Well the Society of Jesus has always been the more scientific of the orders.


Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:32 am
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.