OK this is

Chatterbox: Down to Earth

OK this is

OK this is the new spot for creation vs. evolution.  If someone else started one we will just have to pick.

submitted by Hannah R., age 13, New York
(August 20, 2008 - 11:05 am)

Alrighty. First off, as people were saying that there is proof for Evolution, there isn't! Even scientists must have reallised it because it is still called the THEORY of Evolution, which means it hasn't been proven. By the way, did anyone read my post about small e evolution?

submitted by Emily L., age 13, WA
(August 20, 2008 - 12:35 pm)

YOU NEED TO TAKE SCIENCE. This is the problem with homeschoolers. A theory is the highest level of science. 

submitted by The Man For Aeiou, age 12, Museica
(August 22, 2008 - 4:24 pm)

And who says we DON'T take science??

submitted by Hannah M., age 12, Ohio
(August 24, 2008 - 5:26 pm)

Please before reading further, go to the dictionary and look up "Science". Did you do it? Notice that the dictionary said it was an observation that is testable and repeatable. So by definition, Neither Evolution or Ceation are science. More correctly, they are history. So as a sidenote i should say, calling creation unscientific is hardly an accusation.

submitted by Emily L., age 13, WA
(August 25, 2008 - 1:35 pm)

BUT, Evolution is still happening! It's happened in a lab!

submitted by The Man For Aeiou, age 12, Museica
(August 26, 2008 - 4:20 pm)

I do. You need to know the difference between a theory, Fact, and hypothesis.

submitted by The Man For Aeiou, age 12, Museica
(August 25, 2008 - 4:29 pm)


Theory: a collection of ideas used to explain something, in this case, the theory of evolution vs. the theory of creationism.

Fact: something indisputable, and thus something that has no place on this conversation.

Hypothesis: a proposed explanation made using limited information, as a basis for further exploration.

I personally am a creationist.

However, I think that people on both sides are generally very silly and pigheaded about the whole affair. Evolutionists like to cling to what they think is right, and creationists tend to do the same. Much sniping and finger-pointing ensues.

We get sick of it after awhile.

Somebody really needs to tell the Big, Important Evolutionists/Creationists, HEY! Why don't you act like professionals and have a reasonable and calm debate?

Look, you're a great person, I like to count you as my friend, but frankly, you're being really rude and coming off as extremely pigheaded here. Get something firmly based in science and you'll get better results. Promise.

submitted by TNÖ, age 15, Deep Space
(September 1, 2008 - 12:13 am)

Got it, TNO!

submitted by The Man For Aeiou, age 12, Museica
(September 2, 2008 - 8:18 pm)

I take one of the best programs for science!!

submitted by Paige P., age 12, Gorham, Maine
(August 25, 2008 - 4:40 pm)

Hey, has anyone noticed that Simon and i, also I think Shannon, have stopped contributing to this?  That's because THIS IS GETTING REALLY STUPID!!!!!! THERE IS NO ARGUMENT AND THIS DISCUSSION WILL NEVER END. 

submitted by Hannah R., age 13, New York
(August 28, 2008 - 12:53 pm)

Hey you guys (everyone who's written in posts about creation vs. evolution) I think this arguement has gotten too heated. I mean, there's no absolute proof for either case.

In the case for creationisim we have proof from books (bible, torah, koran, ect.) and proof from people who say God, Gods have told them so. In proof agaist creationisim we have the fact that those books might be wrong, because they are (usually) based of the author's religion. The cases where people have "spoken" to God MAY have been false, but not purposely I might add, but simply because the "talk" had been a figment of their imagination .

In the case for evolution we have proof from rocks, radio carbon dating, and fossils. In the case agaist evolution we have the fact that natural disaters could have messed up the rocks, radio carbon dating, and fossils. 



submitted by lily a., age 15, portland or
(August 28, 2008 - 3:09 pm)

Carbon dating can't be "messed up" by natural disasters. They could disrupt fossil layers, but all of the fossil layers around the Earth? And the very nature of separate layers of fossils proves that all these animals didn't live together.

submitted by Vendy, age 16, Museica
(September 3, 2008 - 10:54 am)

Why certainly all of the layers around the earth. I mean they were all laid down by the flood. Oh, when I say the flood, I mean The Flood, The Great Flood, The single most devistating disaster the Earth has ever seen, the Flood that fossilised the dinosaurs.

submitted by Emily L., age 13, WA
(September 3, 2008 - 12:56 pm)

Erm. Right, the flood that we have proof of. But that's fuzzy. We could get all geological, and I don't really want to debate that, because it won't go anywhere. So:

Here's what I don't get with your idea: If this flood came and killed all these dinosaurs, then why are they buried in different layers?

And, as previously stated, carbon dating cannot be tampered with by natural disasters, because it is a measure of the amount of carbon decay that has occured.

submitted by Vendy, age 16, Museica
(September 3, 2008 - 6:26 pm)

There's one small problem with your idea.

Every heard of the Theory of Gravity? Are you saying that there isn't tons of evidence for gravity?

submitted by Cat's Meow, age 13, WA
(August 30, 2008 - 10:10 pm)