Creation vs Evolution (split from other thread)

[hbmom36]

[Theodore]

[Isikole]

[bobbinsx5]

[Isikole]

[Theodore]

[bobbinsx5]

[Mark]

And there I thought treads took odd twists and turns where I normally hang out...


lessee.... homeschooling to evolution to religion..

of course.. y'all did it with a lot less bloodletting than I would have thought.

congrats to all parties.

hmm... where to begin....

on the skool front:
I teach my kids Creation.
After all there is no real evidence for Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian evolution
to be found.

They are merely faith-based worldviews for considering the origins
of life and how it got to where it is today.

When it comes down to it, I really care not if evolution is taught, as long
as they teach the pro's and con's of that worldview.


Now there is a theory that does fit the evidence as we know it,
and I'll try to finish roughing it out later and post a link to it.

mark

[AnnetteR]

[Theodore]

There's no way to scientifically prove how the Earth began, because nobody was there and the evidence is open to more and more interpretation the further you go back. You just have to believe. However, while you can't say with scientific certainty how the Earth began, you can say that there's no evidence for it happening through x method, or that y parts of the theory have been scientifically disproven or shown to have no evidentiary basis.

For instance, "Lucy" is about 40% of a skeleton collected from an area spanning 1.5 miles. The skull is anatomically the same as that of a modern chimpanzee. Most evolutionists ignore all this and claim "Lucy" is a link between monkeys and humans. Creationists (and some evolutionists) say it's just an amalgam of monkey bones. Who is correct? If "Lucy" is in fact a monkey, does this disprove evolution? No - but it removes another piece of evidence in favor of evolution.

All Creationists want is to have the scientifically disproven parts of evolutionary theory removed, and equal weight given to both theories in the textbooks. People can decide which one sounds more plausible from there. Evolutionists, on the other hand, take the propaganda approach, and shut up anyone (or any evidence) that disagrees with them. I don't know why, if they truly believe their theory can stand up to an objective public scrutiny.

[Mark]

true enough Theodore, but having thought of it I am sorry that I responded,
there is no need for me to bring such a contentious topic back into play.

I apologize to all.


Mark
<><

[momo3boys]

Don't be sorry, a lot of us like a good debate. I just wanted someone who will debate back, it helps to gain new information and perspectives that I don't normally get exposed to.

[AnnetteR]

[momo3boys]

Creations aren't the only ones that distort or ignore the information. What about the whale that was preserved through "millions" of years of Strata, or the evidnece in the grandcanyon that tells of a very rapid and tumultous beginning, not the slow and easy way of the evolutionists. I don't feel the need to push my view but I do feel the need to defend my view from people, like my own father, who think that I am a fool, and ignorant because of what I believe. I believe that God created the world in Six days, the lagistics of that are unknown and I'm sure that when I get to Heaven, I'll ask Him who created it, until then, I really don't care what evolutionists think, as long as they don't dis my God.


"I don't know why creationist have such a problem with evolution. If they really have faith in their creator and believe in his teachings then it shouldn't matter what evolutionists think or say. Instead creationist act if they have to defend something that, by faith alone, shouldn't need defending. Creationist present distorted and inaccurate data to try and bolster their position. What does this say of their faith? "

[Mark]