Creationism being taught in schools is a not all bad

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    You don't need a lot of background in science to detect flaws in the theory. The ability to read and some very basic critical thinking skills are all that is needed.
    So prima facia evidence will suggest you lack those very basic critical thinking skills.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    You don't need a lot of background in science to detect flaws in the theory. The ability to read and some very basic critical thinking skills are all that is needed.
    In most logical argument, that's true. For this particular discussion, the premises and axioms you base your arguments on are often simply flat out wrong because you fundamentally misunderstand and misrepresent the scientific view.

    It's like trying to convince an anti-climate-change-conspiracy-nut to accept certain premises about the world, it's near enough impossible simply because they lack the mental framework to piece together the puzzle. It will have to be based on answering "how does the mechanisms of this work?" which is based on scientific principles.

    If you don't understand them properly, you'll never be qualified to talk about it in any non-superficial way. It becomes harder if you're of an older generation, you have a lot of catching up to do.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Whether you're willing to accept the answers doesn't change that evolution does comprehensively answer the diversity of life.



    Wrong. Fossilisation is a sensitive process and only a fraction of organisms will leave fossils.




    Genetic analysis and the production of phylogenetic trees isn't conjecture.




    Reading where? From legitimate researchers or from con artists and liars like the discovery institute?

    There's not a conspiracy and organisations like the discovery institute put up plenty of funding. The real reason not much has been found is because there's not much to find - evolution by natural selection is a comprehensive, multi-discipline theory for which the basis is not in doubt, all that's left is the intricacies of it



    No, it isn't. Evolution occurs completely separately and the actual origin of life is irrelevant to whether evolution occurs.



    Again utter rubbish - the theory of evolution by natural selection is a comprehensive explanation of the diversity of life encompassing evidence from all number of disciplines, and underpins the basis of modern farming and pet breeding (although it's artificial selection in these cases). Your much vaunted critical thinking skills are either incapable of properly assessing evidence, or you've a vested interest in it being wrong if you think it's easy to point out real flaws.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If only a fraction of species leave fossils then their conclusions are even more fictitious then I thought. Thanks for the info.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    If only a fraction of species leave fossils then their conclusions are even more fictitious then I thought. Thanks for the info.
    God put fossils there to test people's faith.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    If only a fraction of species leave fossils then their conclusions are even more fictitious then I thought. Thanks for the info.
    Well no, fossilisation is a sensitive process but it's far from the only piece of evidence in favour of evolution.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    So prima facia evidence will suggest you lack those very basic critical thinking skills.
    The evidence I see suggests if you buy everything these scientists tell, you'll be changing you;er mind a lot.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    So prima facia evidence will suggest you lack those very basic critical thinking skills.
    The evidence I see suggests if you buy everything these scientists say, you'll be changing you; mind a lot.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    The evidence I see suggests if you buy everything these scientists say, you'll be changing you; mind a lot.
    The ability to change one's mind when faced with new evidence is a very valuable thing. It is what all science is founded on and what separates it from dogma.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    The evidence I see suggests if you buy everything these scientists tell, you'll be changing you;er mind a lot.
    Vicars are always a bit dubious, some of them have kids.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    A couple questions; The Cambrian Period was roughly 5-6 hundred million yrs. ago. Given the slow pace of evolution, It would seem there has not been sufficient time for life to have evolved from simple, single celled life forms, to the level of complexity of mammals and finally modern man.
    What exactly are you basing this on? Why do you not think that 545,000,000 years is enough time for that? Also, as an aside, multicellular and eukaryotic life predates the Cambrian.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    The ability to change one's mind when faced with new evidence is a very valuable thing. It is what all science is founded on and what separates it from dogma.
    Yet, they continue to pass on inconclusive evidence as fact and have it's erroneous conclusions taught as fact in our schools.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    Yet, they continue to pass on inconclusive evidence as fact and have it's erroneous conclusions taught as fact in our schools.
    I'm not sure who 'they' are meant to be nor what 'inconclusive evidence' you're referring to. The evidence for macroevolution is overwhelming (transitional forms, physical and molecular vestiges, genetic information, anatomy) and no other hypothesis accounts for that evidence. It is as 'proven' as anything could be.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    Yet, they continue to pass on inconclusive evidence as fact and have it's erroneous conclusions taught as fact in our schools.
    It took me nearly 5 seconds to look through all the evidence for Creationism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    It took me nearly 5 seconds to look through all the evidence for Creationism.
    Perhaps you are ill or have been drugged.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    The evidence I see suggests if you buy everything these scientists say, you'll be changing you; mind a lot.
    You (and the public generally) buy technological items, medicines and foodstuffs that work all the time and which are based on the scientific theories of the scientists that you denigrate. How can this be if those theories are so flaky?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Perhaps you are ill or have been drugged.
    I was both and still only took me 5 seconds to look through the entire body of evidence for creationism.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I'm not sure who 'they' are meant to be nor what 'inconclusive evidence' you're referring to. The evidence for macroevolution is overwhelming (transitional forms, physical and molecular vestiges, genetic information, anatomy) and no other hypothesis accounts for that evidence. It is as 'proven' as anything could be.
    I'm sure they are all quite satisfied with themselves
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Let's just Hitchen's Razor this, there is very little point in the dialogue. I'd imagine even if we did teach him science, he has limited/no capacity to retain or apply or appreciate any of it anyway.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    I'm sure they are all quite satisfied with themselves
    Scientists are rarely 'satisfied'. There's always more work to be done. Nonetheless the evidence for macroevolution and common ancestry is very extensive.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rather_Cynical)
    I would like to see you argue how you can separate a delusion of the mind.....
    Same could be said for your faith in evolution'ism', the biggest hoax known to mankind.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 16, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.