Creationism can serve as a launching pad for religious supremacy, anti-intellectualism, and killing of heretics.
…wait a minute something makes me think this has happened before…
And a large portion of those “being race centric” means jack shit to them being easy to disprove. Try proving an Odinist who thinks all non-europeans should be exterminated because Odin says so wrong. How the hell would you test for the existence of Odin? Whereas with evolution, you could easily prove those who would use it to advance racial supremacist ends wrong through its own evidence, as has been done, over, and over, and over.
You can’t argue “Well, Hitler killed the Jews, he was raised Christian, SO YOU’RE A HYPOCRITE FOR SAYING EVOLUTIONISTS PROMOTED EUGENICS!” and not be a hypocrite yourself.
on the subject of evolution
i can bend my knees backward, way more than what is normal, its a family mutation that im pretty sure that while not common, its present on at least a good chunk of the human race, if that is not a prove of (macro) evolution, then i dont know what is
So let me get this straight. You define yourself as agnostic yes? Meaning, you don’t know whether or not there is a God or a Creator or whatever right? The fact that you keep saying “agnostic” as if it’s a noun speaks volume of your ignorance about the usage of the word agnostic. Also, those “romantic observations,” are nothing but fallacious argument that is used by either creationists, or pretentious people who describes themselves as “agnostic.” What you have is not an observation, it is wishful and pretentious thinking/standpoint.
Also, LOL @ “How is what I said false? I simply said that some agnostic people don’t accept evolution as the origin of life. That’s definitely not false.”
You say that some “agnostic people” don’t accept evolution as the origin of life? ROFLMAO!! It’s pretty apparent you don’t know what evolution is. Anyone who has a clear understanding of evolution, whether they choose to take the fact as evident or not, does not confuse evolution with the origin of life. You’re mistaking two different concepts here you ignoramus. Evolution has nothing to DO with the ORIGIN of life. Just take a seat dumb ass, and research what you’re talking about, because clearly you haven’t the slightest idea of what you’re talking about, from what it means to be “agnostic” to evolution to abiogenesis.
And I just gave my case for why creation should still be taught despite it also having been used for nefarious ends.
I’m also done. I’ve got enough stress to deal with already to continue arguing in a thread that will ultimately, like every thread on this subject has on [S]SRK[/S] the Internet, go nowhere.
and again, the state is responsable to teach what is common knwoledge, that is why they have a educational curriculum
the families are the responsables to teach whatever they belive, it can be them, our their religious group, not the state
I’m not saying I’m agnostic. I did misuse the form of the word, but I think that’s something willing to be overlooked. I mentioned the origin of life because I was discussing it earlier in my post. I think many other mistake evolution with the origin of life, and that is why I brought it up. I hate hearing that misconception as much as you do, sir. However, many agnostic individuals may also take up other issues with the evolutionary processes. Particularly speciation or the universal common ancestor. For the record, I do not refute natural selection, adaptation through mutation and geneflow etc. etc. As a matter of fact, I haven’t actually refuted very much at all. I’ve just been open minded, though apparently I have struck you as just the opposite.
Those romantic observations were for personal pleasure. It was not wishful thinking. Perhaps you are to dense for me to use the word observation (a word of scientific nature, that I purposely used in juxtaposition). My romanticizing was me painting a picture of what I see around me and how I can see how it can easily be perceived as too magnificent to be there by chance. That, of course, is not logical or scientific thought, and I did not intend for it to be. I was trying to give insight to the mind of a person not thinking in a scientific or calculating manner, which often how majority of minds think. I did not mention that I adhere to those statements, nor do I plan to disclose with you how I feel about this particular subject. I predicted they’d be chastised, and I was correct. Thank you for proving that the type of person you are is easy to predict.
In the end, this isn’t so important itself. It’s a stimulating thing to debate, but what matter does it have to us? (Not the South Korean dilemma or any other thing. I am speaking of our personal banter). Not everything is logical or scientific, and it takes a true education to truly understand that. This is not to say those things are unimportant. They are key to the mysteries of our world and our fellow humans. It is to say though that life should be a little more than those things.
If we are divinely created, then we have the duty to live our lives out as freely and fully as possible. As our apparent creator gave us the ability to do.
If we were a product of chance, then we owe it to that to do the same because that is a marvelous chance to be a part of.
You honestly think they are somehow on the same level? Show us some evidence that the creation story is true. There is a gigantic amount of evidence in support of evolution and even within the last century we can see the effects of evolution in lizards that have been relocated (I can’t remember the name but you could find it with some googling). At the end of the day, creationism is just based on a story in a book that is riddled with self contradictions and things that have already been disproved completely by science.
Your argument that creationism should be taught side-by-side next to evolution as a mean to give people the other side of the “debate” or “side” on an educational and scientific standpoint is flat-out ridiculous.
Science teach multiple views all the time as there are many theories on one fact. For example, there are many theories as to how space and time really works, but all of those theories have scientific backings, studies, and research behind them to accumulate more knowledge to reshape and narrow down the theories into one consensus of theory.
Your argument is ridiculous because all creationism is, is a myth. There is no scientific evidence what so ever and teaching it next to evolution would just be insulting to academia. “Here we have theory of evolution, in which many scientists over many many decades have researched and observed to collect evidence that either proved or disproved the theory and used those new-found bodies of knowledge to further change and refine the theory to fit those evidence. In fact, the theory is still being challenged and refined to this day. Oh by the way, the other side of how creatures came about is creationism! The story is that an invisible Sky Daddy one day got bored and said “VOILA!” and there were creatures.” That’s basically what you’re suggesting.
By your logic and standpoint, every time a school teaches a scientific fact, there should be another creationistic side to it don’t you think? It’s like explaining how the suns and stars are formed and right afterwards saying “it also might have been created by God.”
And I just showed why exactly Creationism(and the thousands of other creation theories, for which you have provided no legitimate basis why Christian Creationism should be taught and the other ones excluded, your attempt at the race angle being discredited for the same reason Creationism itself shouldn’t be taught as an alternate scientific theory)
It’s not a matter of morality/immorality, or the ends to which it is used, it is purely the fact that evolution can be tested, creationism can’t. You want to teach creationism in bible school, I’m all for it, in a high school bio course, absolutely not.
Now if you still have trouble with that single point, let me know, other than that I’m really done.
You keep saying “agnostic individuals” as if being an agnostic person is a standpoint on this subject when it is not. What do you mean by “agnostic individuals”? Agnostic to what?
Your “romantic observation” on how some things can easily be perceived as too magnificent to be there by chance is fine but like I said, you’re just stating the obvious and are not really contributing anything substantial. What you are doing is vaguely skimming about each side of the argument by stating the understandability and the viewpoint of both while contributing nothing of your own. You think you’re playing some wise man here but in actuality all you’re doing is equivalent to a commentator commentating exactly what’s happening without adding his or her insights or experience. In plain words, you’re just ‘that third annoying guy’ who states the obvious of both sides posing as a mediator while contributing nothing to really resolve an argument. All I did was call out this pretentiousness of your mindset.
Oh, and you didn’t predict or prove anyone, all you did was validate the fact that your pretentious statements did not go without scrutiny, which just pretty much proves that you know what you said was kinda stupid.