Why is evolution taught in our schools?

[USincognito]

How do you "know" humans are not a separate act of creation?
Can you prove that with repeatability in a lab?

You keep using repeatability wrong.

 

[USincognito]

I heard somewhere when I was a kid that the pyramids WERE built by aliens. I forget where I heard it though. Its hogwash though. The pyramids were built by Egyptian slaves. But we know that slaves built the pyramids by history.

The pyramids were not built by slaves. We even have records of payments to the construction gangs.

 

[USincognito]

It was nonsense. I'm ashamed to admit that I believed it at one point. But yeah a lot of what I was taught has been disproven by science. Except for things like Germ Theory which has been proven by science.

Nothing is ever proven by science. There's no such thing as scientific proof.

 

[USincognito]

This notion that evolution “has to be demonstrated in a lab or I won’t believe it” is clearly misguided. And clearly so. Thinking adults cannot possibly really believe this. No reasonable person denies, for example, that the Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series.

The evidence for this is overwhelming, just as is the evidence for evolution. And neither can be replicated.

A lot of laymen don't understand what repeatability means in a scientific context.

 

[USincognito]

The same way I know that I am not a separate act of creation two weeks ago. My existence is adequately explained by the normal processes of human reproduction, and there is plenty of evidence that there was nothing unusual about my origins -- even though I cannot reproduce my own birth in the lab. Is it possible that I was created two weeks ago with all of my memories intact, along with all of the accompanying evidence of my birth and childhood? Sure. But the same kind of possibility exists for everything else we "know" too, including things we replicate in the lab.

How about you -- how do you "know" that your mother gave birth to you?

{Creationist hat}

Because, just like Genesis had a witness, your birth was witnessed by your parents and OB/GYN and we all know witnesses are superior to all other evidence.

{/Creationist mode}

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yeah you've heard it all before I'm sure. So I don't see the point in going off topic and arguing with you when you've heard it all before. Its just going to be a bunch of rehashing from Christian scientists that atheists have heard before and some scientists discredit.

Not "some scientists". But as good as all of them - be it christian, muslim, hindu, atheist,... scientists.

And also not "christian scientists". But "christian creationists".

There are plenty of scientists out there trying to prove that God created the universe so why don't their findings count as science to you?

Because they aren't doing any science...

Yet any scientist that comes up with an alternate theory and its immediately counted as science.

Because it's not science....
It's religion.

Wait I can predict your answer its because there is no God.

No. It's because that what they do, is not science.

But if there is no God why have numerous people seen him?

Plenty of people, claim to have seen plenty of things.
God(s) (not just your god, btw....), aliens, bigfoot, lochness monsters, leprechauns, angels, poltergeists, zombies, vampires,.......

They can't all be " nutjobs" like me.

But they can all be mistaken. Just like you likely assume about the people who claim to have seen aliens, poltergeists, bigfoot, sasquatch, leprechauns, unicorns, ...

Or Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson, years after they died.

People have actually seen Jesus in his glorified body. People have been legally dead for 30 minutes and have seen God. Yet people refuse to listen to these people and write them off as crazy. Why?

For the same reason you don't pay much attention to those people who claim to have seen bigfoot, leprechauns, elves, Zeus, Elvis Presley,....

Science cannot explain why.

Science can provide you with lots of plausible explanation of how people can be mistaken about what they believe to have seen. Hallucination being just one of many such reasons.

Why is it, that you are only impressed by the claims of those who claim to have seen the god you happen to believe in, but happily handwave away at face value those who claim to have seen aliens, bigfoot, Elvis Presley, etc?

Could it perhaps be some sort of confirmation bias?

Just like science will never prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God.

Or that there is no such things as golden flying unicorns.
Science doesn't waste time on trying to prove negative claims.

It'll never prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a God either. Part of believing in God is faith.

Yes. And that is exactly the reason why I can't bring myself to believe such a being exists.
Because there is literally nothing that you can't believe "on faith".
You can literally believe anything on mere faith.

I actually require good reasons to accept claims as accurate. And here you are saying quite explicitly that you require faith, because you have no such reasons.

This is also why you likely don't simply believe the claims of alien abductees at face value. You require something more then just their mere testimony.

The same goes for me and your god claims.

Right because atheists don't believe that there's a life after death.

Same as above: what reason is there, to accept such a claim as accurate?

I know I was an atheist for a good chunk of my life so I know the arguments for it.

Then likely, you will not have given it much thought. Or you'ld realise that there is no such thing as arguments "for" atheism. Atheism doesn't require any arguments "for" it. Atheism is rather what you default to, when you don't accept the arguments for theism....

But see I and other Christians do believe in a life after death. There is a Jesus. And if I want to ask him questions I have that right. There are some questions that only God can answer.

If you say so. I have no reason to believe that.

Like for example why I have schizo-affecive disorder

I'm sorry to hear that.
I have some people close to me that suffer from chronic psychosis. One of them in context of full blown schizofrenia. I know it can be quite disruptive and upsetting.

Science hasnt come even close to answering why. Its a chemical imbalance in my brain but what caused that chemical imbalance? Why does it affect so much of the population? There are plenty of bipolar and schizophenic people in the world.

In some cases, the causes can be known, when they are somatic or drug induced. But in the actual "natural" psychiatric disorder, it is still unknown, indeed.

Scientists are working on that. Just like they have worked on loads of other things. Surely you realise that all things that are scientifically known in the present, were scientifically unknown at some point in history, right?

When you don't know something, the right course of action is rolling up your sleeves and working hard to find out. Not just assume things.

I'm grateful for the medicine that has come out because without it I probably would be locked up in a mental hospital for the rest of my life

You and me both. Yes, without things like Abilify... those people close to me would not be able to live a normal life.

But science cannot answer why

...yet

Scientists can't figure it out

...yet

But God knows why because God knows everything. And its one of the first questions I'm going to ask him. You can call me ignorant and stupid all you want. Laugh at me all you want. I know its true because like other "crazy" people I have seen God too.

I'm not laughing.
I'm just saying: just because there are thing unknown in the present, doesn't mean they'll be unknown in the future.

If and when the answers come, they'll be provided by scientists, not priests or 3000 year old religious books.




But all this is besides the point of the thread, off course, which is about teaching science in schools.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Nothing is ever proven by science. There's no such thing as scientific proof.

Really? If nothing is proven by science than why do we get sick? Germ Theory says its because of germs. This can be replicated in a laboratory therefore science has proven it. Otherwise we get sick by something else. If DNA hasn't been proven by science than there are tons of innocent rapists and murderers in prison right now. Plus a lot of people are thinking that they're the father of babies when they're not really the father. I mean they say DNA tests are 99.99% accurate that's why its admissible in a court of law. If DNA wasn't proven by science it wouldn't be. So why do you claim science is not proveable beyond a reasonable doubt? Some science is. In fact most of it is.

 

[VirOptimus]

Really? If nothing is proven by science than why do we get sick? Germ Theory says its because of germs. This can be replicated in a laboratory therefore science has proven it. Otherwise we get sick by something else. If DNA hasn't been proven by science than there are tons of innocent rapists and murderers in prison right now. Plus a lot of people are thinking that they're the father of babies when they're not really the father. I mean they say DNA tests are 99.99% accurate that's why its admissible in a court of law. If DNA wasn't proven by science it wouldn't be. So why do you claim science is not proveable beyond a reasonable doubt? Some science is. In fact most of it is.

No, scientific theories can only be disproven, never proven. This is very very basic stuff.

 

[Ophiolite]

i dont think so. there is no evidence that human and banana share a common descent. its just s belief.

I get quite upset when I see Creationists using this monstrous lie.

You see, I can accept anyone challenging the precise details of the evidence. That is an essential part of science.
More than that, I can accept anyone challenging the interpretation of the evidence. That is how hypotheses are tested and developed.

What I cannot accept is anyone simply denying that such evidence exists. I see four possible explanations for such behaviour.

1. The perpetrator is a troll.
2. The perpetrator has a wicked sense of humour.
3. The perpetrator is a liar.
4. The perpetrator has restricted intelligence.

I find insufficient evidence to decide between these alternatives in this instance. Perhaps xianghua, you can tell us in which category you fit, or offer an altenative explanation for your silly post.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Not "some scientists". But as good as all of them - be it christian, muslim, hindu, atheist,... scientists.

And also not "christian scientists". But "christian creationists".



Because they aren't doing any science...




Because it's not science....
It's religion.



No. It's because that what they do, is not science.




Plenty of people, claim to have seen plenty of things.
God(s) (not just your god, btw....), aliens, bigfoot, lochness monsters, leprechauns, angels, poltergeists, zombies, vampires,.......



But they can all be mistaken. Just like you likely assume about the people who claim to have seen aliens, poltergeists, bigfoot, sasquatch, leprechauns, unicorns, ...

Or Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson, years after they died.




For the same reason you don't pay much attention to those people who claim to have seen bigfoot, leprechauns, elves, Zeus, Elvis Presley,....



Science can provide you with lots of plausible explanation of how people can be mistaken about what they believe to have seen. Hallucination being just one of many such reasons.

Why is it, that you are only impressed by the claims of those who claim to have seen the god you happen to believe in, but happily handwave away at face value those who claim to have seen aliens, bigfoot, Elvis Presley, etc?

Could it perhaps be some sort of confirmation bias?



Or that there is no such things as golden flying unicorns.
Science doesn't waste time on trying to prove negative claims.




Yes. And that is exactly the reason why I can't bring myself to believe such a being exists.
Because there is literally nothing that you can't believe "on faith".
You can literally believe anything on mere faith.

I actually require good reasons to accept claims as accurate. And here you are saying quite explicitly that you require faith, because you have no such reasons.

This is also why you likely don't simply believe the claims of alien abductees at face value. You require something more then just their mere testimony.

The same goes for me and your god claims.



Same as above: what reason is there, to accept such a claim as accurate?




Then likely, you will not have given it much thought. Or you'ld realise that there is no such thing as arguments "for" atheism. Atheism doesn't require any arguments "for" it. Atheism is rather what you default to, when you don't accept the arguments for theism....



If you say so. I have no reason to believe that.



I'm sorry to hear that.
I have some people close to me that suffer from chronic psychosis. One of them in context of full blown schizofrenia. I know it can be quite disruptive and upsetting.



In some cases, the causes can be known, when they are somatic or drug induced. But in the actual "natural" psychiatric disorder, it is still unknown, indeed.

Scientists are working on that. Just like they have worked on loads of other things. Surely you realise that all things that are scientifically known in the present, were scientifically unknown at some point in history, right?

When you don't know something, the right course of action is rolling up your sleeves and working hard to find out. Not just assume things.



You and me both. Yes, without things like Abilify... those people close to me would not be able to live a normal life.



...yet



...yet



I'm not laughing.
I'm just saying: just because there are thing unknown in the present, doesn't mean they'll be unknown in the future.

If and when the answers come, they'll be provided by scientists, not priests or 3000 year old religious books.




But all this is besides the point of the thread, off course, which is about teaching science in schools.

No they are college educated scientists who just happen to believe in God and are trying to prove that their God created the universe. Why are their findings discredited as not science?

I'm not aware of people seeing unicorns. But you're right people have died and seen Buddha and other Gods in heaven. I could offer an explanation but it can't all be Satan and devils did it. Because Satan and devils could just as easily impersonate Jesus and have.

You're right .Someday science could answer why I have a chemical imbalance in my brain. But it probably won't be in my lifetime. Science isn't really coming close as to why most of the world is depressed in some way shape or form. Or why schizophrenic people exist. Its obviously something we are born with because I had symptoms of it as a child.

Thank you for at least not laughing. I appreciate it.

Yeah let's get back on topic. I wouldn't mind it if they presented evolution as a theory to explain the origins of life but they present it as if its solid fact. And it has gaping holes in it. Like I said before most of science is prove able but you cannot prove evolution. So why is it presented as if its been proven?

 

[Ophiolite]

Really? If nothing is proven by science than why do we get sick? Germ Theory says its because of germs. This can be replicated in a laboratory therefore science has proven it. Otherwise we get sick by something else. If DNA hasn't been proven by science than there are tons of innocent rapists and murderers in prison right now. Plus a lot of people are thinking that they're the father of babies when they're not really the father. I mean they say DNA tests are 99.99% accurate that's why its admissible in a court of law. If DNA wasn't proven by science it wouldn't be. So why do you claim science is not proveable beyond a reasonable doubt? Some science is. In fact most of it is.

Listen to what those of us educated in science are telling you. We don't prove things in science.

I have highlighted part of your quote in an effort to explain why this is. In the laboratory, we can duplicate every possible situation with every known disease to demonstrate that in every instance germs are responsible. Science accepts the possibility that in some situations it might just be that a disease may emerge for some other reason than germs. Why think that way? Because, as noted, we have been unable to test every possible scenario.

Now, while not proved, some theories are so well authenticated that for practical purposes we might as well consider them as proven. However, the professional scientists always keeps in mind that there may be an exception, or an alternative explanation that is superior, but has not yet been recognised.

One of the very best authenticated theories in science, with arguably more support than any other theory we have, is the theory of evolution. I realise this notion is unattractive to you. Unfortunately, the universe doesn't really care about how you think it should be, or how you think it is. And the evidence, the unbelievable volume of evidence from two centuries of study, by hundreds of thousands of scientists, producing millions of research papers, in such diverse fields as genetics, palaeontology, botany, microbiology, developmental biology, biogeography, zoology, etc, all of it testing, probing, challenging and ultimately validating the theory. That really ought to give you pause for thought - unless your mind is closed. I do hope it is open.

 

[xianghua]

Which you are not and which is irrelevant to the science.

so you contradict your own claim.

 

[xianghua]

I'ld link all peer reviewed publications concerning evolution in actual science journals, but I don't feel like posting more then 200.000 links.

and non of them bring a real scientific evidence.

 

[xianghua]

Why do you keep making claims about science you don't understand?

why you keep talking about me rather then my claims? i already gave you a chance to show why evolution is a scientific theory, but you suddenly disappeared: Why evolution isn't scientific

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Atomic Theory, Germ Theory and the Theory of Gravitation are all repeatable in a laboratory.

Try repeating evolution.

I wonder who won the Nobel prize in chemistry this year?

 

[VirOptimus]

I wonder who won the Nobel prize in chemistry this year?

The answer is, like to all questions that we dont immediatley know how to answer, God did!

 

[xianghua]

Not any more than we should teach Maori grammar in English class.

have you checked my signature link? you can see why id is science and evolution isnt.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Really? If nothing is proven by science than why do we get sick? Germ Theory says its because of germs. This can be replicated in a laboratory therefore science has proven it.

Therefor science has supported it.

Otherwise we get sick by something else

Indeed, and if that is the case, how would you know?
Perhaps the presence of germs is just a corrolation and not causal at all. How would you know? You don't.

The thing is: there is no evidence to suggest that such is the case.
So, all the evidence (like such experiments) support the idea/theory that the germs are the causal factor.

But maybe, just maybe, we will discover evidence tomorrow that in fact will support the idea that the presence of germs is not actually the causal factor of desease.

If you consider a theory to be PROVEN, you effectively close the door of being open to such evidence. You then assume certainty. This stands in the way of learning / progress and the very real potential possibility that you will discover something tomorrow that will overthrow the idea you think is accurate today.

If DNA hasn't been proven by science than there are tons of innocent rapists and murderers in prison right now.

DNA is not a theory. It is a molecule.

Plus a lot of people are thinking that they're the father of babies when they're not really the father. I mean they say DNA tests are 99.99% accurate that's why its admissible in a court of law. If DNA wasn't proven by science it wouldn't be.

It's kind of funny that you say "99.99%".
If it were PROVEN, wouldn't that then translate into 100%?

So why do you claim science is not proveable beyond a reasonable doubt? Some science is. In fact most of it is.

"proven beyond reasonable doubt" also is a qualifier that completely changes the concept.

 

[sfs]

why you keep talking about me rather then my claims?

Because when I have engaged you about your claims, you have been unable to support them or even participate in rational discussion about them. Life is short and some things are not worth doing.

 

[xianghua]

I get quite upset when I see Creationists using this monstrous lie.

You see, I can accept anyone challenging the precise details of the evidence. That is an essential part of science.
More than that, I can accept anyone challenging the interpretation of the evidence. That is how hypotheses are tested and developed.

What I cannot accept is anyone simply denying that such evidence exists. I see four possible explanations for such behaviour.

1. The perpetrator is a troll.
2. The perpetrator has a wicked sense of humour.
3. The perpetrator is a liar.
4. The perpetrator has restricted intelligence.

I find insufficient evidence to decide between these alternatives in this instance. Perhaps xianghua, you can tell us in which category you fit, or offer an altenative explanation for your silly post.

its very easy- we need a faith to believe that all creatures share a common descent. its not a fact. where do you see anything wrong about this statement?