• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Evolution VS. Creation

Which do you believe in?

  • The Theory Of Evolution

    Votes: 130 73.9%
  • Creationism

    Votes: 46 26.1%

  • Total voters
    176
Status
Not open for further replies.

ebilly99

Americanreigon champ
Creation should be taught in science and also why it can not be possible. First teach that the earth is 6000 years old, then explain why that cant be. By the time they are done creationist will demand that creation be taken out of school.
 

glacialcat

Well-Known Member
yes but it should stay out of the science class because it is not science and atleast teach both theories considering that is more fair because if you teach only one of them the information becomes one sided and you can't make your own choice what to believe

A few things

1) That there exists two sides is simply incorrect. There are many, many, many forms of creationism. Intelligent Design, Christian creationism, Islamic, Raelian, etc. Even within intelligent design (or Christian creationism, intelligent design is directly descended from Christian creationism) there are different versions. Flat Earth, Geocentrists, Young Earth, Old Earth, and there's many kinds of Old Earth. If you begin teaching creationism in biology classes you will literally spend the entire class giving equal time to all these theories. And each one is just as possible as others, so you can't really argue only teaching one.

2) Evolution isn't science? What? What is science then? The main things that make something science are: Falsifiability, testability, and ability to make useful predictions. Evolution fits every single one of these criteria.

As for celebitrainer's belief that evolution should not be mandatory.... I nearly agree. If Biology as a whole isn't mandatory. If students don't have to take biology at all, sure. Don't make evolution mandatory, since there won't be any classes to teach it in that are mandatory.

But if Biology is mandatory, then evolution simply must be taught. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Teaching biology without teaching evolution is feasible, but only so far that teaching chemistry without teaching the Periodic Table is feasible. Only so far as teaching nuclear physics without teaching the atomic model is feasible. Without evolution biology is nothing but memorization of facts without a central idea connecting or explaining them.
 

bee.

cutee
Creation all the way!

Most people might argue with my beliefs, but I guess I can't help but believe that one day we will be rewarded for just being a good person, and that there's a higher being out there watching over us..

Just getting my 2 cents worth
 

ebilly99

Americanreigon champ
Good bee. Lets teach creation... But which on. I am found of the norse creation story. Is that cool? how about pastatarism? Pirates and humans share 100% of our dna. Also as soon as pirates died out global temp rose. Is that not proof that the fsm loves pirates and created them first?
 

glacialcat

Well-Known Member
Ah, that makes sense. I was unsure what he was responding to, and I sort of assumed the worst.

My first point still stands, but I apologize for the misunderstanding.
 
Last edited:

kanika1710

New Member
The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. Unfortunately, if you don't agree with this label, you too are labeled. Regardless of whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist, if you disagree with the stereotype, you're condemned and "exposed" as a religious fanatic who is secretly trying to pass religion off as science or, even worse, trying to disprove science in order to redeem a ridiculous, unscientific, religious worldview. The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution). Whether we like to admit it or not, those of us who subscribe to the theory of evolution do so by faith. And while the recognition of design in biology may have theological implications, it is not based upon religious premise - it's based upon empirical observation and logic.
 

Eloi

Well-Known Member
Is it sad that the poor 'bot can generate a better argument than some on here?
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
kanika said:
The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution).
Actually, Evolution has. That's why it IS called a theory. Try learning what a scientific theory is first. It's not the same in popular usage.

And while the recognition of design in biology may have theological implications, it is not based upon religious premise - it's based upon empirical observation and logic.
Show me it.
 

Megaton666

Swampert Trainer
The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution).

right... and the same goes for the Theory of Gravity, Theory of Atoms, Theory of Relativity, and Theory of Music.

I agree with GhostAnime, learn what a theory is before you try debating about it!
 
I thought God was a loving god. How is making it more difficult for non-believers to believe and get saved "loving" in any way?



No. Evolution is incredibly important to biology. Not teaching evolution in biology is like... I dunno, not teaching gravity in physics. Removing it from a scientific curriculum because some people don't believe in it is ridiculous. By that logic, we shouldn't teach about the Holocaust in social classes, because some people don't believe it ever happened.

As for the "should creationism be taught in schools" question: As soon as you get some actual scientific backing behind creationism, you can teach it in schools. Until then, keep it out of science classrooms and put it in elective theology/religious classes where it belongs.

I just need to ask one thing here:
Why did you quote Eloi's post and say I was the one who posted it? The second one was mine, but the first message you quoted was posted by Eloi, not me.
 

Rasolgon

Member
Creation all the way!

Most people might argue with my beliefs, but I guess I can't help but believe that one day we will be rewarded for just being a good person, and that there's a higher being out there watching over us..

Just getting my 2 cents worth

I hope you are a troll.

Anyway, these threads are pointless since religious people will always try to find some argument to counter a scientific fact. Even if it makes no sense. And when they are out of arguments they will spew out things like "But God loves us". Funny thing: most of these people are Americans. Not saying it's all off them but there sure are a lot.
Thank God for Europe. (Pun intended) Sane Americans, don't feel offended, I'm not talking about you, I like you for being sane in a country of people who desperately try to hold on to a medieval concept.
 

Magiclapras

Dragon Goddess Flyder
Evolution for me. But in all honesty, it's like the chicken/egg argument, there's no right or wrong answer.
 

Masterge77

Floatzel rules!
Both, I believe God created evolution, thus, it's a tie between the two.....
 

J.T.

ಠ_ಠ
I just need to ask one thing here:
Why did you quote Eloi's post and say I was the one who posted it? The second one was mine, but the first message you quoted was posted by Eloi, not me.

Oops. I rewrote the link to direct to the post Eloi made, and I must've forgotten to rewrite the name of the quotee. Sorry.

unsourced whining

Hmm, I wonder why that might be? Could it be because there is a staggering amount of evidence from many different areas of science for evolution and that by denying that evolution happened you are calling fields such as chemistry, botany, paleontology, geology, and embryology, not to mention one of the most important parts of biology, into equal questioning?

We are fully aware that creationists don't have problems with every area of science. The problem is that there are many that they do have problems with.

The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution).

Failure. "Theory" is used in a scientific sense much differently than how we use the word in everyday usage. Theory as most people use it would mean something closer to "hypothesis" or "reasonable guess". In science, though, it means something for which there is a ridiculous amount of evidence. Hence why we have things like the theory of gravity. Good luck discounting that because it's "just a theory".

Whether we like to admit it or not, those of us who subscribe to the theory of evolution do so by faith.

Oh hey, thanks for telling me why I believe what I do! God knows you know why better than I do. I believe in evolution because staggering amounts of evidence point towards it being the reason different species developed on Earth. Tell me what part of that requires blind faith in the religious sense.

And while the recognition of design in biology may have theological implications, it is not based upon religious premise - it's based upon empirical observation and logic.

Agreeing with GA here. Let's see some of this "empirical observation and logic". I have a feeling I know exactly what this is gonna be, but eh.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
That tends to happen when bots make better arguments than humans!
 

Mankanshoku Mako

Well-Known Member
I hope you are a troll.

More likely someone who utterly fails at debating. On another note, I somewhat surprised evolution has about 3 times as many votes as creationism. I kind of expected your average pokemon fan to fall into the category of moderate Christian, but here I find myself pleasently surprised.
 

Ohshi

Banned from Club Penguin
I believe in the Theory of Evolution. But I also believe that God created evolution.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
More likely someone who utterly fails at debating. On another note, I somewhat surprised evolution has about 3 times as many votes as creationism. I kind of expected your average pokemon fan to fall into the category of moderate Christian, but here I find myself pleasently surprised.
Proof that Pokemon makes people more likely to believe in Evolution because Pokemon evolve!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top