All Forums > SimLeague Football > NFL > Makes me sick...
2/15/2013 1:20 PM
If you want to teach religion in school, fantastic, I actually don't mind.  Teach all the religions, the main principles of each religion, etc.  If a student who isn't religious wants to jump on board with one, they can.  But make sure you teach that Hinduism teaches that the universe was always there, and always will be.  There never was a beginning.  Spend a day teaching the thoughts of each religion, in respect to the formation of the universe.

When you teach the big bang theory, evolution, and the age of the Earth? Teach that while you teach science. 
2/15/2013 1:27 PM (edited)
If you want to teach creationism, fine, but it's not science, and that's where scientists get upset.

Neither creationism or evolution is science in and of itself.

What should be taught is the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for both (or all) theories on the origin and development of life and human life. If there isn't scientific evidence for  a theory, obviously it would not be taught, but there IS scientific evidence that supports creationism.

The greatest myth purported by proponents of evolution is that other theories somehow can't be supported by any scientific evidence, and that simply isn't the case.
Make sure that these kids understand that this idea is religious in nature.

It's only "religious in nature" if it is presented that way - from a religious point of view.

As I said before, if you merely present the scientific evidence for each theory, that is all that is necessary.
The evidence that science presents supports evolution. The evidence that creationists present is that evolution is too complex, it can't happen. That isn't evidence for any other theory, it's evidence against a theory.

SOME evidence science presents suggests evolution may be a correct theory. Other evidence does indeed suggest evolution is a flawed theory and may be incorrect in part or in total.

James Coppedge wrote a book  using science and probability to show there are phenomenally startling odds against life occurring by random chance without any input from an intelligent designer (which would of course mean it wasn't random chance at all). Coppedge says he devotes at least ten chapters of the book to using "probability calculations which lead to discovery of the practical impossibility of the origin by chance of usable sequences for proteins or DNA."

Dr. Harold Morowitz
  concluded that "the probability of life occurring by chance is 1/10236". (That's supposed to say 1/10 to the 236th power). This comes despite his position against creationism.

The idea that the earth is a typical common planet within the universe (the Copernican theory) isn't held by everyone or even all scientists, and there is an alternate theory. Again, this suggests the odds are tremendously against the idea of complex or intelligent life evolving anywhere, not just here.



If the building blocks of matter and energy have existed in universes prior to this one, you can't possibly argue that they just appeared.  They were already there.  There just wasn't time.

So if there wasn't time, then there is no framework from which to say another universe existed "before" our current universe. You can't make a statement using references to time if in fact time did not exist.  The very idea that something happened "before" implies the existence of time.

Something could exist outside OUR CONCEPTION of time, but that doesn't mean it was without time of any kind.
appropriate time and emphasis should be placed on each theory according to the probability or likelihood of the validity of each theory, based on the amount of credible evidence to support it.
How about just teaching the evidence itself for each theory?

If there is less evidence for a particular theory, then less time (and by extension less emphasis) would be placed on it because of that.
2/15/2013 1:25 PM
You have scientific evidence for creation?
2/15/2013 1:29 PM
I've said it before biz, and I'll say it again.  When the evidence against creationism is "Look! There are holes in evolution!" you lose me.  You say to show the scientific evidence for each theory, and saying "evolution is wrong" isn't scientific evidence FOR creationism.
2/15/2013 1:36 PM
Life obviously exists.

The point most creationism arguments are making is if you were to remove random chance as the means to how life began (by determining that the chances are far too great for it to have occurred), there has to be some other explanation.

If life didn't come about on its own because the odds are too great against that happened, how did it get here? The only logical conclusion is that it wasn't random.

If creation of life wasn't random, then it was purposeful.  The only question after that is whose purpose was it.
2/15/2013 1:40 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 2/15/2013 1:29:00 PM (view original):
I've said it before biz, and I'll say it again.  When the evidence against creationism is "Look! There are holes in evolution!" you lose me.  You say to show the scientific evidence for each theory, and saying "evolution is wrong" isn't scientific evidence FOR creationism.
Yep.  Exactly.
2/15/2013 1:41 PM
Long odds don't equal zero odds. That isn't evidence for creation.
2/15/2013 1:41 PM
Biz -

Most creationists believe that Earth was made in 6 24-hour days.  And that the world is 10,000 years old.  Poking holes in evolution DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS VERY SPECIFIC IDEA.

I will not argue that God created life.  Evolution and the old world theory doesn't necessarily argue against it either.
2/15/2013 1:43 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 2/15/2013 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Biz -

Most creationists believe that Earth was made in 6 24-hour days.  And that the world is 10,000 years old.  Poking holes in evolution DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS VERY SPECIFIC IDEA.

I will not argue that God created life.  Evolution and the old world theory doesn't necessarily argue against it either.
Exactly. Nothing in science disproves or excludes god.
2/15/2013 1:45 PM
Posted by bistiza on 2/15/2013 1:36:00 PM (view original):
Life obviously exists.

The point most creationism arguments are making is if you were to remove random chance as the means to how life began (by determining that the chances are far too great for it to have occurred), there has to be some other explanation.

If life didn't come about on its own because the odds are too great against that happened, how did it get here? The only logical conclusion is that it wasn't random.

If creation of life wasn't random, then it was purposeful.  The only question after that is whose purpose was it.
You are again assuming that life has a beginning.  You can't make that assumption.
2/15/2013 1:48 PM
burnsy,

Some creationists believe as you have stated. Others believe parts of that information and not other parts.

My own belief is that life is incredibly complex and I am skeptical of the idea it came about randomly. If I rule out the idea of random chance, that suggests something non-random or purposeful. A deity who decides to create life sounds like the most purposeful thing I can imagine, so it fits with what I would expect absent random chance.

2/15/2013 1:49 PM
You are again assuming that life has a beginning.  You can't make that assumption.

Are you assuming life did not have a beginning?

Personally, I've never seen any evidence to suggest life didn't have a beginning and/or was somehow "always there".
2/15/2013 1:53 PM
Have you ever seen evidence of creation?
2/15/2013 1:55 PM
Most creationists believe what I stated, for which there is no scientific evidence FOR.  I'm not sure why it's a hard concept to understand.  

I won't argue with your faith, and it was never my intent to argue with anyone's faith.
2/15/2013 2:14 PM
FAITH = belief without evidence

ALL religions are based on faith.  "You'll go to heaven when you die, if you lived a certain kind of life." is the religious equivalent of "If you clean your room, you'll get a cookie."  It's behavior control by the church.
of 60
All Forums > SimLeague Football > NFL > Makes me sick...

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.