are you creationist or evolutionist?

[TakoMan02]

Those studies tend to only be as certain or less certain then scientific theories. You do know the distinction between a popular theory and a scientific theory?

*than

I really don't care what they're called or how correct they are.  If it helps people, then it's okay. If it doesn't help people, it's a waste of time. Simple.

Keep It Simple Stupid

[maverixk]

If one desires to study the nature of our upbringing, so be it; but in my opinion, to study what we can only assume as a theory, and forever will remain a theory, is a waste of time.  To study anything that cannot be proven is a waste of time, but this does not mean all studies are bad.  Studies that contribute to informing the general public and improving the overall condition of mankind are the studies that I love, and should be encouraged.

However, if you don't study it, how can you know that it cannot be proven? Plus, if we know the past, it may help with predicting the future or continuing our understanding of our present situation. I fail to see how helping improve our knowledge of the world around us.
 

Death is a completely different story, but the same rules apply -- no one knows what happens after you die, therefore making it a waste of time to 'study' or 'predict'.

Just because someone does not know something for sure, does that make it useless to study it? If so, then the entire field of education is completely useless. If the Christians are, for sake of argument, then studying what may happen after death is very, very important.

[TakoMan02]

If one desires to study the nature of our upbringing, so be it; but in my opinion, to study what we can only assume as a theory, and forever will remain a theory, is a waste of time.  To study anything that cannot be proven is a waste of time, but this does not mean all studies are bad.  Studies that contribute to informing the general public and improving the overall condition of mankind are the studies that I love, and should be encouraged.

However, if you don't study it, how can you know that it cannot be proven? Plus, if we know the past, it may help with predicting the future or continuing our understanding of our present situation. I fail to see how helping improve our knowledge of the world around us.
 

Death is a completely different story, but the same rules apply -- no one knows what happens after you die, therefore making it a waste of time to 'study' or 'predict'.

Just because someone does not know something for sure, does that make it useless to study it? If so, then the entire field of education is completely useless. If the Christians are, for sake of argument, then studying what may happen after death is very, very important.

Read the post above yours.  I made a slight contradiction -- any study that helps mankind is fine.  However, people who are just trying to prove they're right solves absolutely nothing and is indeed a waste of time.

Concerning your second point -- it's stupid.  Use common sense, please.  What I say applies to predicting our creation/demise and our creation/demise only.  And as it just so happens, what they teach in school is fact. It is fact that 1+1=2, because it is our established law.  It is fact that every action has an equal and opposite reaction unless acted upon by an outside force.  These are laws.  I'm only concerned with things that have never been proven wrong and never will.

[maverixk]

Read the post above yours.  I made a slight contradiction -- any study that helps mankind is fine.  However, people who are just trying to prove they're right solves absolutely nothing and is indeed a waste of time.

Concerning your second point -- it's stupid.  Use common sense, please.  What I say applies to predicting our creation/demise and our creation/demise only.  And as it just so happens, what they teach in school is fact. It is fact that 1+1=2, because it is our established law.  It is fact that every action has an equal and opposite reaction unless acted upon by an outside force.  These are laws.  I'm only concerned with things that have never been proven wrong and never will.

Your first one there, I completely agree with.
In the second one, that law and that math equation have been proved right time and time again, and I'm not arguing their validity, but say some new fact came along that contradicted one of those. They're not completely infallible, right? You know, that's really just semantics and doesn't really matter, so never mind. But you last sentence says you're concerned only with things that have never been proven wrong and never will. I'm assuming you mean vice versa too. You can't possibly know that it can't be proven wrong and never will. Or can't be proven right and never will. The only way to find out if the possibility of complete ignorance on a matter is either to just not even try to dig into it, willful ignorance, or to dig so deep into it that you hit a wall, a knowledge barrier.

[Wimbledofy]

I am a creationist and not an evolutionist. But i do believe in evolution. The word eveolution has different meanings. I believe in change over time, which is one type of evolution, but not one species becoming a whole new species which is the other type of evolution. Never has been any proof of the second type and there isn't any evidence from the fossil record. Some evolutionists are so desperate for evolution to be true that they make up a link from part of a fossil that doesn't even have the parts it needs to be even considered that. There are many more reasons, but i don't have the time to share these reasons.

[maverixk]

I am a creationist and not an evolutionist. But i do believe in evolution. The word eveolution has different meanings. I believe in change over time, which is one type of evolution, but not one species becoming a whole new species which is the other type of evolution. Never has been any proof of the second type and there isn't any evidence from the fossil record. Some evolutionists are so desperate for evolution to be true that they make up a link from part of a fossil that doesn't even have the parts it needs to be even considered that. There are many more reasons, but i don't have the time to share these reasons.

If there's change over time, wouldn't it eventually get to the point of a new species? Or would it magically stop right before we would cal it a new species? And I'm 97% sure that there is quite a bit of proof in the fossil record.

[IceySammy]

I believe we evolved. Why is pretty simple for me, I believe the bible is made up, yes there may be higher powers but they don't do anything us (there's also proof that this Jesus didn't exist so doesn't that prove that this new bible isn't true?) as I see it, if there is a higher power they would have a load of better things to do than watch us or have anything to do with us. Compared to the written word of higher powers such as gods we are nothing but ants if that at the moment.
But thats just my view and opinion believe what you like and I will do the same until theres proof enough to prove otherwise. (Plus if there was a deity like the chirstians believe in wouldn't most human beings including some priests would be piles of salt by now surely?)
Anyways back to watching have fun everyone.

[Wimbledofy]

I am a creationist and not an evolutionist. But i do believe in evolution. The word eveolution has different meanings. I believe in change over time, which is one type of evolution, but not one species becoming a whole new species which is the other type of evolution. Never has been any proof of the second type and there isn't any evidence from the fossil record. Some evolutionists are so desperate for evolution to be true that they make up a link from part of a fossil that doesn't even have the parts it needs to be even considered that. There are many more reasons, but i don't have the time to share these reasons.

If there's change over time, wouldn't it eventually get to the point of a new species? Or would it magically stop right before we would cal it a new species? And I'm 97% sure that there is quite a bit of proof in the fossil record.

No, can something change and get worse? That would be devolving not evolving, so something doesn't evolve just by changing. Also, you change in ways just by getting older you grow and stuff, but do you become a new species? There is NO proof in the fossil record that has been found.

[OldTrees]

I am a creationist and not an evolutionist. But i do believe in evolution. The word eveolution has different meanings. I believe in change over time, which is one type of evolution, but not one species becoming a whole new species which is the other type of evolution. Never has been any proof of the second type and there isn't any evidence from the fossil record. Some evolutionists are so desperate for evolution to be true that they make up a link from part of a fossil that doesn't even have the parts it needs to be even considered that. There are many more reasons, but i don't have the time to share these reasons.

If there's change over time, wouldn't it eventually get to the point of a new species? Or would it magically stop right before we would cal it a new species? And I'm 97% sure that there is quite a bit of proof in the fossil record.

No, can something change and get worse? That would be devolving not evolving, so something doesn't evolve just by changing. Also, you change in ways just by getting older you grow and stuff, but do you become a new species? There is NO proof in the fossil record that has been found.

Incorrect, evolution is just a subset of change.
Evolution is not a normative term. It is descriptive therefore it does not make normative claims about better or worse. Artificial selection will make some traits more likely to be passed on. It is not making a claim about better/worse either.

Evolution is change in the allele frequencies of a population over generations.
Each bolded word has important relevance that most people will miss. Most of the misunderstanding of evolution come from not understanding the significance of one of these words.

Nor does Evolution predict 1 species becoming another. Rather it predicts 1 species splitting into 2 groups that are either phenotypically distinct or cannot produce fertile hybrids. This marks a species boundary where we now have two species.

[Wimbledofy]

I am a creationist and not an evolutionist. But i do believe in evolution. The word eveolution has different meanings. I believe in change over time, which is one type of evolution, but not one species becoming a whole new species which is the other type of evolution. Never has been any proof of the second type and there isn't any evidence from the fossil record. Some evolutionists are so desperate for evolution to be true that they make up a link from part of a fossil that doesn't even have the parts it needs to be even considered that. There are many more reasons, but i don't have the time to share these reasons.

If there's change over time, wouldn't it eventually get to the point of a new species? Or would it magically stop right before we would cal it a new species? And I'm 97% sure that there is quite a bit of proof in the fossil record.

No, can something change and get worse? That would be devolving not evolving, so something doesn't evolve just by changing. Also, you change in ways just by getting older you grow and stuff, but do you become a new species? There is NO proof in the fossil record that has been found.

Incorrect, evolution is just a subset of change.
Evolution is not a normative term. It is descriptive therefore it does not make normative claims about better or worse. Artificial selection will make some traits more likely to be passed on. It is not making a claim about better/worse either.

Evolution is change in the allele frequencies of a population over generations.
Each bolded word has important relevance that most people will miss. Most of the misunderstanding of evolution come from not understanding the significance of one of these words.

Nor does Evolution predict 1 species becoming another. Rather it predicts 1 species splitting into 2 groups that are either phenotypically distinct or cannot produce fertile hybrids. This marks a species boundary where we now have two species.

That wasn't really what i was talking about, i was trying to point out that just because something changes doesn't mean it becomes a new species. and when i said evolve, i meant in the way of becoming a new species.

[OldTrees]

I am a creationist and not an evolutionist. But i do believe in evolution. The word eveolution has different meanings. I believe in change over time, which is one type of evolution, but not one species becoming a whole new species which is the other type of evolution. Never has been any proof of the second type and there isn't any evidence from the fossil record. Some evolutionists are so desperate for evolution to be true that they make up a link from part of a fossil that doesn't even have the parts it needs to be even considered that. There are many more reasons, but i don't have the time to share these reasons.

If there's change over time, wouldn't it eventually get to the point of a new species? Or would it magically stop right before we would cal it a new species? And I'm 97% sure that there is quite a bit of proof in the fossil record.

No, can something change and get worse? That would be devolving not evolving, so something doesn't evolve just by changing. Also, you change in ways just by getting older you grow and stuff, but do you become a new species? There is NO proof in the fossil record that has been found.

Incorrect, evolution is just a subset of change.
Evolution is not a normative term. It is descriptive therefore it does not make normative claims about better or worse. Artificial selection will make some traits more likely to be passed on. It is not making a claim about better/worse either.

Evolution is change in the allele frequencies of a population over generations.
Each bolded word has important relevance that most people will miss. Most of the misunderstanding of evolution come from not understanding the significance of one of these words.

Nor does Evolution predict 1 species becoming another. Rather it predicts 1 species splitting into 2 groups that are either phenotypically distinct or cannot produce fertile hybrids. This marks a species boundary where we now have two species.

That wasn't really what i was talking about, i was trying to point out that just because something changes doesn't mean it becomes a new species. and when i said evolve, i meant in the way of becoming a new species.

Ah, see part 3 then. This does happen by change.

[maverixk]

There is NO proof in the fossil record that has been found.

Um, sir, where have you done your research. The fossil record is one of the main supporters of the theory of evolution.