This thread is closed for posting.
page 1 of 1 15 total items
I'm quite curious if you see there's a debate between these two ones. And what country you are from...
Been told that the main accepted theory is evolution and well creationism isn't told except being the old archaic thing. So the main idea of the Roman Catholic Church is that the Old Testament is mainly stories to teach people and not actual facts (I was in a catholic school and I'm from France)
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1582943,00.html
Creationism... It just has absolutely no scientific basis. So in my opinion, it's not a valid scientific theory.
It's fine to say that God is responsible for the life on this earth... but to ignore the evidence is not fine by me.
EDIT: oh, forgot to add, I'm from the US.
All hail the flying spaghetti monster! We shall turn you all non-believers!
i am a darwin supporter
Indo-USA
I hate creationism ... it's not even a real 'religion'. So I don't understand why this crap should
be part of an education. If you allow creationism, you should allow all the other crap-theories and that's not what
I want.
I'm glad this creationism-thing don't even get the chance to become a part of my education in my country.
<3 Darwin !
*Belgium*
i agree with cinnamonsin...
ah good old topic :)
i find the evolutionairy approch most believable.. but don't think current scientific setup is everything.. es for
creationism not having a scientfic -basis- this would be true.. yet there is much information to be gotten from myths
and other old stories. given the fact that multiple old myths talk about a giant flood tells us something of what could
have happened in the past.. also similarities in stories about creationism could give us some information, although not
litterally or how things where to be.
an interesting topic I think, that is open too much research :)
ah location: the netherlands/europe
[short sigs yay!]
URL: http://web.expr42.net/ or http://web6.expr42.net/
-death ot the signature bunny!- :)
Creationism is totally outdated and redundant in my book. Sure it was a valid view when nobody knew better but nowadays? Furthermore, what the hell is the point anyways? Doesn't the stance that the universe developed slowly according to a plan God set up an eternity ago contain enough piety for a faithful christian? I just don't see why these creationists are so stuck up.
I have a hard time believing that creationism is teached somewhere excpt in religion class... oh wait that's the usa... even so I can't believe that some american claim it should be teached in scientific classes. Anyway that's the country where you have to swear on the Bible no matter what religion is or lack of it is.
(France)
Thanks to GothicMike for making my avatar and signature.
Member of : Renegade Fighter ~ Anime Paradise ~ Death-Note
This was discussed in "In the eyes of God" some time ago, I think
I think that those two can be the same. Evolution gets my vote, but the main difference between the two is , according
to me, time. And time is completely relative, a year can seem a day or a decade when you look back.
Quote by MainoumiI hate creationism ... it's not even a real 'religion'. So I don't understand why this crap should be part of an education. If you allow creationism, you should allow all the other crap-theories and that's not what I want.
I'm glad this creationism-thing don't even get the chance to become a part of my education in my country.
<3 Darwin !*Belgium*
No one said it was a religion. Its a theory that life was created by a superior being, most religions are creationist in nature. I listen and learn the beliefs like all theories until they are disproved they just might be true.
I myself am a evolutioninst it just makes more sense.
Im in the US.
This signature violates the signature guidelines, thus it has been removed.
I was quite upset, I was sure that the flamethrowers would be out quite quickly :(...
I'm nearing the end of my second year at uni studying science... thus my choice is obvious... However the complex
nature of things is such that I believe in evolution once DNA machenery has been established... but the way in which the
cell pulled vital proteins from its a$$.. that still gets me, I cant see where it all started... you need the ribosomes
to make the dna... but you need DNA (or at least RNA) to encode rRNA (ribosomal rna) XD (miller-uley experiment got
amino acids... but amine and carboxyl groups need a fair bit of encouragement to interact)....
Unless I have no sense of 3.5 billion years ^^.
Hopefully a more qualified MT scientist may be able to shed light?
*Australia*
'I set the timers for six minutes, the same six minutes you gave me, it was the least I could do for a
friend'
'If it's not broken, don't fix it'
To be fair, both should be taught properly. I'm from England, but I am what you would call an evolutionist.
Quote by DoggyDaddyAll hail the flying spaghetti monster! We shall turn you all non-believers!
omg, no! What about the invisible pink unicorn? ;(
Ilona, I saw the inquiry you made to Keltosh. I don't know who closed your thread or why they did, but since
there's a lively discussion going on in the other one I apologize but I will leave things as is. [The rules are no
doubt important, but I also think the forums should first and foremost be a place for discussion.. plus a mod (who are
all my seniors in the job) apparently deemed it appropriate.]
Please feel free to participate there: Evolution Verses Creationism
Hopefully errors like this will not occur in the future, and I hope you don't terribly mind.
"Faith means believing in something that will only make sense in reverse."
"When men are the most sure and arrogant they are commonly the most mistaken..."
page 1 of 1 15 total items
Back to Religion & Science | Active Threads | Forum Index
Only members can post replies, please register.
