Did you guys know that almost everything in science can't be absolutely proven "absolute" and alot of the supposed laws even have loopholes in them? Especially when you start to put the various laws into the contextual origin, relative to the rest of the universe.
Wow. It just blows my mind. How is that possible? With these magical scientist people who know everything about the world, how is it that some ideas escape our all-knowing grasp? Could it be because the human realm is still rather stupid, and before 100 years ago we didn't have magical objects that ran on magic water to take us to places at magic speeds!?!?
Could it be that, as a civilization, we are still rather young and new, and that our scientific endeavors reflect this? Could it be that the goal of science is the aquisition of new knowledge in an objective and pure way, to attempt to know more about the world since we are still new and young? Could it be that, currently, evolution is in this proccess of attainment of knowledge on the subject, and since that is at the very heart and foundation of science(lack of knowledge signaling us to gain knowledge) this is why the subject of evolution appears in classrooms.
Could it be that that's why evolution is more appropriate for a class room than a religous belief that has no physical evidence supporting it? Whereas evolution has an actual study going on, to prove and disprove it, by means of physical evidence and 'objective' observation. Could it be that this was my first post on the subject and preechr somehow couldn't get it :O NO!Q
It's like emu said, if you want to start talking about creationism you start talking about God. The only problem with that is there's absolutely no scientific evidence that God even exists, whereas with evolution there's evidence that there is, at the very least, change within a species and a long history of recorded creatures that are different than what you'd see recently but look similar to what we have today. Basically, there's some evidence that something like evolution exists, rather than with creationism where there's no evidence of anything related to it, in fact there's more contradictive evidence than anything(at least in the approach most creationists have submitted to me). Like I said in my first post on the subject, creationism isn't even a theory.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory
Just so you guys know. Enjoy your days.
---------------------------------
lol okay preechr I got a little experiment for you. First find a box of crayons and a piece of paper, try drawing the following in alternating colours, perhaps(maybe color code it)! In the middle of the paper draw a circle. Now draw a dot in the middle. Now draw a square around it. Now draw a triangle at the top. Now draw a hexagon around it. Now make a cross through it. Now make some triangles at the end of the crosses, and some more triangles pointing at the triangles. Now draw a big fuzzy circle around all of that. Add some more triangles and squares around it.
Tell me, does that look anything like the original circle? Does it still contain the original circle and fundamental building blocks? But does it look the same? Huh? Does it?
Now do another experiment, start with the circle and try some different shapes and colors and such, really try to mix it up! Does that circle look like the other circle you did? You don't even have to stick to normal shapes! Really use your creativity!
I developed that genius idea not long ago when I was trying to imagine how to teach the fundamental concepts of evolution to a five year old. I hope it helps.