Viewing Thread:
"The Chicken Or The egg?"

Surely the chicken must have come first. I feel that a creature before the chicken must have evolved slightly, creating a egg laying animal. This is because when I turn the question around I see that the egg must have come from somewhere - right?!

Really? Oh okay, well it wasn't for us.

It was taught to me when I was at school as part of my biology lessons as part of the evolution process.

Geffdof wrote:
> Anyway, the beliefe that life spontaneously came into being is
> based on faith. There is no proof at all of that, just
> extrpolation and speculation on what may have happened, so does
> that mean we should teach that in school?

Speculation on the beginning of life is not taught in school though (unless they've drastically change the biology syllabus recently) and I don't think anyone's suggested it should be... I can't see what you're getting at.

In these type of debates I'm always reminded of the simpsons episode where Judge Snyder issues a restraining order that keeps science and religion 500 yards apart at all times. :)

Oh of course you cant. I was just speaking hypothetically. Its hard to put that accross without actually hearing the tone of my voice and seeing facial expressions etc.

Anyway, the beliefe that life spontaneously came into being is based on faith. There is no proof at all of that, just extrpolation and speculation on what may have happened, so does that mean we should teach that in school?

Yes, of course. But to use that argument as if it was true now is not scientific, and therefore entirely counter productive; you can't propose a theory in a scientific arena on the basis of faith, with a caveat that 'you'll see it's real one day!'.

Cycloon wrote:
> I'm perfectly aware why people want it taught; they shouldn't be
> allowed to make it so. Evolotion is science's best theory so
> far, as such it should be taught as science.
>
> Edit; 'if it is true then it's scientifically accurate'? What?
> If this vastly complex being created the universe, it is
> accurate? A) that makes no sense, B) it's useless to use that as
> an argument - we study it to pre-empt the proof. No.
>
> Alfonse, why should neither be taught? Evolution in sicence and
> Creationism in RS is fine with me.


If God is real and did create the world in a literal 6 day period by whatever means he used then the theory of creationism would be true and therefore a part of science. Any explaination of how the world works or came into existence is science. if God set it into motion it doesnt stop it being science.

Weird, I had at least a hour a week in RS. My school still does.

We get about 4 lessons in a whole year to learn a little bit about some religions.

4 lessons is 1 week for most subjects

There is nothing wrong with wanting to know how hte grand canyon is formed. It just doesnt really have any relevance to religion. I took that reference from a tv show I saw tody in which an american man wanting creationism in schools was saying that the crang canyon was formed in days after the flood of Noah and his ark.

To me that is completely unscientific AND not religious either. It doesnt mention it in the bible so how he got to that conclusion is beyond me.

I do think that a lot of evolutionisnt try to use it as a way to disprove creationism but in the same way there are many creationists who do the same. Most of these people are not real scientists or have missed the point of religion. They either do or dont believe in God and want to try and prove that they are right, which in my mind is stupid.