Pope enters Creationism debate

[mendhak]

Hail the Pope and his universal knowledge of Creation. I am glad that our generation and generations to come have a public figure such as Benedict to act as proponents on the side of truth and all that is good and should be.

Amen and Hallelujah!

[conipto]

That is possibly the most expensive chair in the universe.

I'm glad the Pope settled this for the world!

[demotivater]

Consider yourselves lucky, you could be talking about Peter The Roman instead of Benedict.

[yrwyddfa]

I hate to burst your collective ignorant bubbles here . . .

(i) The Catholic Churches stance on evolution, after John Paul II, accepts that some form of natural (ie non-deity based) evolution should be considered a doctrinal truth.

(ii) The only bodies in the world to actually have a theory on the creation of life are faith bodies. Science does not purport nor can never purport to ever have an idea on the origin of life since there can be no empirical, nor induction proof.

As for my opinion? Should directed evolution be taught? Perhaps: it is after all an unproven and unvalidated theory rather like autocatalysm and panspermia, of which I was taught at school . . .

Or maybe we should should just hold our hands up to the kids and say "We don't know"

[crptcblade]

I've taught my kids that a giant rabbit gave birth to us all.

[yrwyddfa]

I've taught my kids that a giant rabbit gave birth to us all.

Clearly wrong: it's turtles All the way down . . .

[mendhak]

Some civilizations once thought that the universe, earth and us humans were created by gods who vomited out the universe and the planets and the animals and humans.

[yrwyddfa]

and balanced such vomit on an infinite series of turtles; going all the way down

[honeybee]

Well, to be serious I think it's plain stupid to be teaching kids all the theories of how humans originated. It's best to stick with evolution as the basis and let them grow up and then learn the other theories, which can be taught in colleges.

It comes down to something as simple as this: When you learn the numbers, there's no point starting an argument over why One is called "One" and not "Obya"? In the ensuing confusion the only certain thing is you wouldn't learn your numbers.

.

[Valleysboy1978]

Why not teach religion in a Religious Studies class? (mostly just the basic beliefs of each religion) and teach Creationism in Science (Biology?). Then let the kids decide which they believe in, they are intelligent enough to decide on their beliefs

[honeybee]

Why not teach religion in a Religious Studies class? (mostly just the basic beliefs of each religion) and teach Creationism in Science (Biology?). Then let the kids decide which they believe in, they are intelligent enough to decide on their beliefs

Well, who says kids are intelligent enough to decide on their beliefs?

.

[dsheller]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster did everything:

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

[Wally Pipp]

I don't have kids so that's a problem solved

[Valleysboy1978]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster did everything:

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

That is absolutely fantastic! I'm a believer!
So I'm now a pastafarian? Sweet!

[yrwyddfa]

I don't have kids so that's a problem solved

I have four of the little terrors. I say improve the schedule on TV . . .

[capsulecorpjx]

Science says evolution is free of direction and order (from a divine force) because no one has proven such a claim.

For example:
At this moment, you can't prove that I don't have an elephant in my trunk, so I must be right.

Same as saying:

You can't prove there is no divine force behind evolution, so I must be right.

Hail the Pope and his universal knowledge of Creation. I am glad that our generation and generations to come have a public figure such as Benedict to act as proponents on the side of truth and all that is good and should be.

Amen and Hallelujah!

[yrwyddfa]

Science says evolution is free of direction and order (from a divine force)

Science doesn't say that.

Science says that there is an unproven hypothesis that evolution may have been directed by a supernatural force.

There are many scientifically unproven hypothesis; such as string theory and GUT. The vast majority of them do not include God.

[Valleysboy1978]

From my understanding the theory of evolution is the theory of a species adapting to a new environment. Hence the phrase "the species most likely to survive are those most adaptable to change" after all the only constant is change.

Here's a challenge for you then capsule, follow the above link to the description of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and prove why he is not the one true god

[capsulecorpjx]

From my understanding the theory of evolution is the theory of a species adapting to a new environment. Hence the phrase "the species most likely to survive are those most adaptable to change" after all the only constant is change.

Here's a challenge for you then capsule, follow the above link to the description of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and prove why he is not the one true god

Um... Like I said, it is not science's job to prove that a claim is false.

So it's not my job to prove your claims.

1) Its hard to prove a negative
2) It is the burden of the person making a claim to prove it.

[zaza]

Speaking of which, that claim of yours in your sig has been demolished many times, by myself and others, over in the Maths forum. Feel free to do something about it.

[capsulecorpjx]

Speaking of which, that claim of yours in your sig has been demolished many times, by myself and others, over in the Maths forum. Feel free to do something about it.

I still believe 0.999... <> 1, there is a mathematician that proves it using a wierd numbering system.

Though I concede my proof is flawed, I'm keeping it in my signature to annoy you guys :-p

[Valleysboy1978]

Um... Like I said, it is not science's job to prove that a claim is false.

So it's not my job to prove your claims.

1) Its hard to prove a negative
2) It is the burden of the person making a claim to prove it.

It s science's job to find evidence, regardless of if it proves the claim is false or true.

"It is the burden of the person making a claim to prove it." - Okay then hotshot. Instead of trying to avoid the problem at hand why don't you prove it? Prove to all of us here why God is the one true god.

[techgnome]

I don't have kids so that's a problem solved

And the rest of society thanks you...

I have four of the little terrors. I say improve the schedule on TV . . .

I agree!

Well, who says kids are intelligent enough to decide on their beliefs?

.

Kids can be more intelligent than adults will give them credit for.... although, these days, unless it's a PS2 or XBox game, they probably wouldn't give it a second thought (or even a first.)

Long before I entered High School, I had reconciled my scientific views on evolution with my religious beliefs of creationism - it borders on the "intelligent design" theory - to my satisfaction.

-tg

[Valleysboy1978]

Well, who says kids are intelligent enough to decide on their beliefs?

And I suppose you would choose their beliefs for them? I for one say kids are intelligent enough to decide their belief...it's known as free will. Something religion doesn't really encourage.

I agree with techgnome that kids are much more intelligent than they are given credit for.

[capsulecorpjx]

It s science's job to find evidence, regardless of if it proves the claim is false or true.

"It is the burden of the person making a claim to prove it." - Okay then hotshot. Instead of trying to avoid the problem at hand why don't you prove it? Prove to all of us here why God is the one true god.

I don't believe in God.

I think you are always confused on what my position is.

My post was saying its not my job to prove your Spaghetti monster is real. In response to another post you made, that is also confused on what my position is.

[Valleysboy1978]

You keep trying to avoid the questions capsule. Perhaps you do not know the answers and will not admit it? For example you say that is not what your position is, yet you do not elaborate on what your position is to clarify the situation

[capsulecorpjx]

You keep trying to avoid the questions capsule. Perhaps you do not know the answers and will not admit it? For example you say that is not what your position is, yet you do not elaborate on what your position is to clarify the situation

Perhaps you need stop assuming and actually read my posts.

You for some wierd reason think I'm religious, when I'm secularlist.

You keep asking me to prove the existence of God, when I said I don't believe in God.

Anyway.

The burden of proof on God's existence lies on the people who claim God exists.

[timeshifter]

You can't prove there is no divine force behind evolution, so I must be right.

You can't prove that there is a divine force behind evolution, so you must be wrong.


What now?

[capsulecorpjx]

You can't prove that there is a divine force behind evolution, so you must be wrong.


What now?

That was satire, read the first part.

[timeshifter]

My point is, you can't prove either side correct. So, why teach one and not the other? Why teach either of them? If neither can be proven, what's the use?

[capsulecorpjx]

My point is, you can't prove either side correct. So, why teach one and not the other? Why teach either of them? If neither can be proven, what's the use?

Hmmm. Well evolution has a decent amount of scientific proof behind it.

I'm not so sure about divine intervention affecting the course of evolution. That's harder to prove, and really I can't imagine how anyone would even begin to give proof.

[demotivater]

Solution is simple. "Class, consider this: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? You are dismissed."

[yrwyddfa]

Hmmm. Well evolution has a decent amount of scientific proof behind it.

Where? Can you point me to a link?

[moeur]

Deja vu all over again. I think we've had this discussion before.

The theory of evolution is a theory which can be disproved if contradictory evidence is discovered.

The belief in a creator is not a theory and cannot be disproved and therefore belong in a religion class and not a science class alongside evolution.

If we decide to treat creationism as a science then we might as well include astrology, homoeopathy, and channeling,

[Shaggy Hiker]

Solution is simple. "Class, consider this: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? You are dismissed."

The answer is: The egg.

Next question: Why was the first question asked?

[yrwyddfa]

Deja vu all over again. I think we've had this discussion before.

The theory of evolution is a theory which can be disproved if contradictory evidence is discovered.

The belief in a creator is not a theory and cannot be disproved and therefore belong in a religion class and not a science class alongside evolution.

If we decide to treat creationism as a science then we might as well include astrology, homoeopathy, and channeling,

What's channeling?

[Something Else]

Its like talking on the speaker phone with someone, except without the phone, with a ghost, and you replace the speaker.


hmmm,

Actually, its more like a friendly temporary possession.
After you've booked an appearance in vegas, and managed to get a sold out audience.





BTW, Shirley Macleane {sp} invented it on her 60th birthday.

[yrwyddfa]

Rightyo then . . moving on . . .

[moeur]

BTW, Shirley Macleane {sp} invented it on her 60th birthday.

Actually channeling has been around a bit longer than that. At the risk of dating myself, my friends and I who were already falling for the tripe in Carlos Castaneda's books, found a book called "Seth Speaks". In this book a woman claimed to go into a trance and speak the words of a wise spirit to her husband who wrote them down so they could sell books. I believe that this was the period of the beginning of the channeling fad.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Sound like channeling is just another way to channel money out of the pockets of the gullible.