How has Evolution changed our culture? Will Creationism be able to be taught in schools? Why do you think people accept Evolution over Creationism?

Evolution has scientific backing, it is a well excepted theory by scientists. Creationism only has the bible to go by, so scientific backing. I hope creationism is never taught in any public school. And for how it has affected our culture, I think it makes more people reject science. Because many Christians don't want it to be true they create a riff between science and religion, causing many people not to trust science. I think this is bad for society in general.

I've got a message to all who think that Creationism should be taught seperately from science. Evolution is a THEORY!!!!! I'TS NOT A FACT!!! Why doesn't evolution get taught seperately form science? It takes faith to believe in it. Why doesn't it get taught as a religion?

[b]SmilinBob wrote:[/b] [quote]Evolution has scientific backing, it is a well excepted theory by scientists. Creationism only has the bible to go by, so scientific backing.[/quote] If evolution has scientific backing, then PROVE IT!!!!

Check out this website. It shows incredible findings in nature that can only be explained by a Creator! http://www.evolution-facts.org/nature.htm

Post edited by: Psalm84_10, at: 2006/12/20 00:12

Here is what evolution is saying that humans are basically "Lucky Mud".

[b]Psalm84_10 wrote:[/b] [quote][b]SmilinBob wrote:[/b] [quote]Evolution has scientific backing, it is a well excepted theory by scientists. Creationism only has the bible to go by, so scientific backing.[/quote] If evolution has scientific backing, then PROVE IT!!!![/quote] Vaccines....

[quote][b]Psalm84_10 wrote:[/b] Here is what evolution is saying that humans are basically "Lucky Mud".[/quote] To address this argument of your's and show what this "Lucky Mud" is allow me to demonstrate the following: Typical primordial soup argument from a creationist, how unique! Let me fill you in on a little clue on what you think that soup is and how the first cells came to be, and show you how wrong you are, abiogenesis, my old friend It all starts (for our purposes of discussion here), the thermal protein. The late [url=http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/]Dr. Sidney Fox[/url] (the true cornerstone of modern abiotic chemistry) discovered something very important - the process by which amino acids form thermal proteins - what was at the time of his innitial discovery termed proteinoid microspheres. [b]He replicated this process many many times in his lab,[/b] and discovered that different amino acids combine into different proteins naturally. It is NOT a random process, it is completely controlled (like most everything in chemistry) by valency. Meaning, the results are predictable. The mircrospheres could grow, could replicate sans DNA, responded to stimuli much like neurons do, and overall, exibit every characteristic of life as we define it in biological terms. When they form, they give off flavin as a by-product (for you non-biology folk, flavin is the basis for any metabolic system). MORE IMPORTANTLY - the oldest fossil evidence we have on planet earth goes back almost three and a half billion years. They are of microspheres that look exactly identical to the ones Dr. Fox was able to replicate. [b]Nail in coffin.[/b] The proteinoid microspheres are important, because they have the following characteristics - Protobiochemical, Esterolytic, Phosphatatic, Decarboxylatic, Peroxidatic, Synthetic, with P-O-P or ATP for peptide polynucleotides, Photodecarboxylatic, Protophysiological, Electrotactic, Protometabolic (Catalytic), Aggregative, Protomobile, Osmotic, Permselective, Fissive, Protoreproductive, Conjugative, Protocommunicative, Excitable. [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/MichaelCogar/Science/image4.gif[/img] What all this means is (especially the osmotic and fissive properties) that the thermal proteins provide the perfect 'house' for DNA to evolve in. A cell membrane, in all respects. What's more, as insinuated by the aforementioned salient properties, thermal proteins themselves are classified as "proto-life", and their discovery has pushed the definition of what we considered living. Again, there are already many models postulating DNA evolution - your local library or google can provide you with great examples. Much like mitochondria evolved as a separate system which was incorporated into early prokaryotic cells, DNA and RNA evolved from separate components that found a perfect breeding environment within the proteinoid microspheres. Now, the current theory on the jump from single-cell to multi-cell is called "endosymbiosis". There were several types of prokaryotes usually defined by their food source. Autotrophs used photosynthesis, heterotrophs ate other prokaryotes, chemotrophs used chemicals, and so on. Endosymbiosis was when a heterotroph engulfed an autotroph, but instead of digesting it the heterotroph kept it inside itself, forming a symbiotic relationship. The hetertroph provided protection, and the autotroph provided energy. 1. There are current examples of endosymbiosis in nature. 2. Mitochondria in animal cells have their own set of DNA and can self-propogate. Not only this, but their DNA is similiar to that of the archebacter prokaryotic chemotrophs. Plant cells have chloroplasts, which also contain their own DNA set and are similiar to the archebacter prokaryotic autotrophs. Now most state that evolution is jsut a theory and not a fact, but that is not the case evolution is a fact. To clarify this statement: Evolution is a fact in that we know it happens. Just like we know gravity is a fact. We have observed speciation as the result of a shift in aleles occur in both the lab and in the wild. There is no mistaking that evolution happens. It is our understanding of evolution (and gravity) that constitutes the theory. We do not have an absolute understanding of evolution. Thus we express our current understanding of it as a theory. We test the snot out of that theory and try to refute it. As long as it remains unrefuted we accept it as the best explanation currently. If we do manage to refute it we get to toss it out and have to cook up a new theory. To date the theory of evolution is one of the most evidenced and well supported theories in any realm of science we have. It really doesn't get much better than this. We have so many cross referential veficiations of evolution that it is literally ridiculous to reject it. While it may not be an absolute it is as close as we get.

Post edited by: vincent, at: 2007/01/23 16:27

[b]SmilinBob wrote:[/b] [quote]Evolution has scientific backing, it is a well excepted theory by scientists. Creationism only has the bible to go by, so scientific backing. How can some one be so ignorant of science,you have some great faith to believe that we have a single common ancestor,when your lacking millions even billions of cross fossils.Charles darwin said that this was one of his theorys greatest weakness,in the fossil record there should literaly be more half-evolved(cross fossils)than there are of the animals we see today.Theres maybe four or more highly questionable supposed cross fossils today,and theres less today than there was in Darwin time.One of the many flaws with evolution.It takes more faith to believe in evolution than to be a christan.

[quote][b]sonoftheking wrote:[/b] How can some one be so ignorant of science,you have some great faith to believe that we have a single common ancestor,when your lacking millions even billions of cross fossils.Charles darwin said that this was one of his theorys greatest weakness,in the fossil record there should literaly be more half-evolved(cross fossils)than there are of the animals we see today.Theres maybe four or more highly questionable supposed cross fossils today,and theres less today than there was in Darwin time.One of the many flaws with evolution.It takes more faith to believe in evolution than to be a christan.[/quote] 1) Paleontology was in diapers during Darwin's time, since then many of said fossils have been unearthed, problem is the creationists (fundies) keep moving the goal posts, and keep insisting that what is put forth is still gaps. It is akin to pointing out the gaps that exist in hand knit quilt. 2) Evolution doesn't require faith, science builds on doubt, if that wasn't the case then we'd still be using horse drawn carriages and candles as primary means of transportation and lighting....