NationStates Jolt Archive

I want an answer to my question.

what i love is that when the creationists refuse to engage at all, we quickly turn our guns on each other. like for the sport of it, almost.

It's always been my belief that were it not for the presence of trolls and baiters, this forum would collapse on itself in a messy, bloody haze of in-fighting.

It's always been my belief that were it not for the presence of trolls and baiters, this forum would collapse on itself in a messy, bloody haze of in-fighting.

I have to admit, that would be interesting.

Takes 1, 000th post, adds nothing to debate - w00t!

Damnit.

It's always been my belief that were it not for the presence of trolls and baiters, this forum would collapse on itself in a messy, bloody haze of in-fighting.

A social singularity, as it were?

I have to admit, that would be interesting.

It would probably be a lot less ill will and bad blood than what we usually hold against the more contentious and obnoxious points of view on this forum, but it would probably be no less venomous in the short term. I.e. I wouldn't hold back being a sarcastic ass, but I wouldn't hold your pov against you.

A social singularity, as it were?

I suppose. To some extent it fits, but I'm thinking more along the lines of the magnification of our individual lacks and the unsightly, insigificant things we all believe in. For instance, I tend to be very left-leaning on most issues, but my stance on the death penalty (for it) would probably raise the ire of most of my fellow lefties.

I suppose. To some extent it fits, but I'm thinking more along the lines of the magnification of our individual lacks and the unsightly, insigificant things we all believe in.That's the beauty of the interwebs. The occasional allies thing of the real world is much less occasional on here.

But if he can't fit you into that mold, how can he cry oppression by the ignorant masses?

Maybe he wants to feel persecuted.

If he does, I don't blame the motive- it's easier to rally yourself and others for a cause if you feel like you're being "wronged", because that means you're out to "correct something". However, Creationists- who are so fond of this motive- need to realize it's they who are creating the image of persecution- no one else is doing that to them.

It most certainly does. Science holds that the laws of physics works the same on the other side of the universe as it does here.
Such things wouldn't be an issue if people weren't so fond of sophistry and asshattery.

If- as I understand your arguments correctly- all you guys are going after is essentially, science and religion share certain characteristics, chief among them the idea that "certain things are right if one believes they are so". I don't think either of you are that much off the mark, but I think to use the term "belief" in science is inherently incorrect. "Belief" carries with it the connotation of "blind faith", which is the real problem- a person who is so unyielding that they cannot alter their perceptions when they are successfully challened is a person who risks being left behind. The clearest example I can think of is the Jehovah Witnesses' refusal to allow blood transfusions- since they won't see the benefit of transfusions their members needlessly die, only because they take a couple of Biblical verses out of context (Acts 15:29, Genesis 9:3 and Leviticus 17:10). It's great to believe in something until it holds you back, and the Jehovah Witness' stance on blood (among other ideas) is a clear indication of blind faith holding one back.

As for science, it is true that, on a technical level, something is "believed" because science doesn't operate on the premise that something "might not be true". Science proceeds under the premise that "we're right until proven wrong"- otherwise, those needing science to perform their duties cannot perform their jobs correctly. A doctor, for example, cannot perform heart surgery if they think that everyone's hearts may all be "different"- the doctor must assume that the heart they are operating on is like the other hearts they are aware of. However, if one heart *is* in fact different than another heart, then it's important to know why and incorporate that somehow into the knowledge base of the human heart as a whole so that it can be applied in that (and future) cases. Still, that should only happen when the situation arises- otherwise, science and scientific duties might as well be a crapshoot.

"Belief" carries with it the connotation of "blind faith"

not typically

not typically

Certainly in this context it does- Creationists like to throw around the idea that "Evolutionists 'believe' their theory" only because that is a common counterargument to their theory- that the only way to accept the Creationist theory is to "believe" it (in terms of faith). By reducing the idea to that of faith, Creationists attempt to deflect any request for evidence by the "Evolutionary brigade", because it's easier to reduce "the Evolutionists" to "nonbelievers who don't understand us" than to do the work that "the Evolutionists" simply want before Creationists can get what they want- acceptance as scientists.

I think this is what is being argued in the case of "believe"- the idea that, at the very end, there's something you just "accept". However, I'm arguing that while scientists may indeed do just that, they do not do so blindly, unlike the Creationists- which is what they really mean when they use the word "believe".

I'd love to hear your POV.

Well, we can ignore for the moment the fact that the source suggests they are synonyms. Clearly - there is a difference between 'belief' and 'assumption', or there would be just one word.

To assume something, one need not think it true. What does a car weigh if there is no gravity on Earth? But earth HAS gravity.. okay, ASSUME it doesn't.

The other synonyms suggested by your source illustrate the direction of assumption... to suppose, or to posit. Both are closer than 'to believe'.

'Belief', on the other hand, suggests accepting something as true. Indeed... it carries a strong suggestion of accepting something as True. Belief isn't harmed by presence or lack of evidence, but it also isn't a contingent condition.

you most certainly do believe those patterns will go on. it is impossible to live without beliefs. utterly and totally. it would be literally inconceivable to do anything if you did not accept all sorts of cognitive content as true.

fuck, "i might be wrong about x" is an idea which you hold to be true - a belief, in other words.

It is impossible to live without beliefs? Clearly, you believe that.

It is not even remotely inconceivable. I do not think that word means what you think it means - certainly if you think it 'literally' applies. One can easily work from the basis of assumptions. Indeed, given the nature of human senses, perhaps it is best to ALWAYS 'assume' about everything.

It looks dark outside, right now. I could say I believe it IS 'dark', whatever that means. I could even say it is 'true' that it is dark. But - even though the evidence suggests darkness outside, there are a host of other answers possible. For example - it might not be as dark as it looks, and it may be internal light confusing my senses with contrast. It might not be as dark as it looks, it might just be the shadows of the trees near my house... everything else might be quite light.

My experience has told me that those two options often trick my senses. So - I 'assume' it is dark outside (based, largely, on what the clock says). But - when I went and looked outside, I see it is actually a very bright night. Not quite daylight, but bright silvery night. Looks like I was right to doubt.

Dunno. What's it like? If it smells nice, sure. If it feels like a kick in the bollox, no thanks.

I take it you're referring to this:Alright then. Consistency and perpetuity are different things. Consistency simply means the world can be understood through the application of logic. Your bit about open and closed systems, apart from not making sense, has nothing much to do with what you're presumably talking about; the assumption of science that reality is consistent.

And for the record, no laws of science claims the universe, the speed of light, or closed systems, are immutable. In fact, since the universe is a closed system, the constants within it are subject to change due to entropy, or loss of information, if you prefer.

The trouble with trying to address all you wrote, is that you're talking about spades in terms of matchsticks. Again, no offence, though you obviously took it all the same. I'd suggest you check the wiki on this, if you think I'm too obnoxious to pay attention to. Because while it isn't important to understand all scientific findings (it's not even remotely possible anyway), understanding what science is, and thus why it's worth paying attention to scientific consensus, is pretty much a basic requirement for participation in modern life.

That's funny... you claim my talk of open and closed systems makes no sense, and then continue to discuss the same concepts in terms of closed systems... ah well.

I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to make. I have a moderate grasp of science. I'm a scientist by both inclination and trade. Do I think the nonsensical statement about 'everything being the same everywhere' (or whatever it was) represents reality - and with good reason. Do I think there are constants that are basically consistent within reasonable parameters, within our observable reality? Pretty much, but even so, it should be qualified that 'reality' doesn't necessarily end at the borders of our universe, etc.


You seem, basically, to be (once again) saying again what I said... and claiming that I somehow didn't understand my own words. This time - because you think I'm not a scientist. Well... okay.

I'm having a bit of Dilbert moment... http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20071121.html

The impression I get is that Sim and NERVUN just want an acknowledgment of the fact that science is based on belief...

They can 'want' that as much as they like. It won't even begin to make it true.

Science is based on assumption. 'Belief' is practically anathema.

what i love is that when the creationists refuse to engage at all, we quickly turn our guns on each other. like for the sport of it, almost.

I want to point out the flaws in Creationist propaganda, but I'm not willing to accept lax arguments 'on my side'. Nothing to do with turning guns, sport, or the absence of creationist engagement - everything to do with not wanting 'my side' represented by error.

I want an answer to my question.Your question is too imprecise.

They can 'want' that as much as they like. It won't even begin to make it true.

Science is based on assumption. 'Belief' is practically anathema.

I'd strongly advocate replacing «assumption» with «evidence».

One can easily work from the basis of assumptions. Indeed, given the nature of human senses, perhaps it is best to ALWAYS 'assume' about everything.

ok, now i'm convinced that you just need to look up the word 'belief'. an assumption is a belief.

and yes, it is literally inconceivable to think of living without beliefs (or something very much like them). it cannot be done by beings like us. every action we take that isn't involuntary and automatic necessitates that we hold beliefs. every experience we have causes us to spontaneously create more beliefs. beliefs are fundamental to human thought.

Your question is too imprecise.

Not my fault if the terminology they use is imprecise.

Not my fault if the terminology they use is imprecise.Who they? I thought it was your question?

Who they? I thought it was your question?

Creationists use the term "kind", saying that one "kind" of animals can never change into another "kind". So, in an attempt to figure out what a "kind" is, I'm asking how many "kinds" of animals are depicted in that image. Using that, I will be able to narrow down the possibilities to what "kind" means.

Creationists use the term "kind", saying that one "kind" of animals can never change into another "kind". So, in an attempt to figure out what a "kind" is, I'm asking how many "kinds" of animals are depicted in that image. Using that, I will be able to narrow down the possibilities to what "kind" means.
Ahah.

There looked to me, though I'm no Christian Creationist, like there was at least one rodent, and one or more types of feline; a saber-tooth tiger, perhaps?

Ahah.

There looked to me, though I'm no Christian Creationist, like there was at least one rodent, and one or more types of feline; a saber-tooth tiger, perhaps?

There were no rodents.The creatures represented in the image are two machairodontine felids, one nimravid, which is a carnivoran like felids but not particularly related beyond that, and one marsupial.

Creationists use the term "kind", saying that one "kind" of animals can never change into another "kind". So, in an attempt to figure out what a "kind" is, I'm asking how many "kinds" of animals are depicted in that image. Using that, I will be able to narrow down the possibilities to what "kind" means.
Ah, see. I thought the question to be imprecise exactly because the word kind could mean anything.

There were no rodents.The creatures represented in the image are two machairodontine felids, one nimravid, which is a carnivoran like felids but not particularly related beyond that, and one marsupial.
What were they then?

What were they then?

Look at the quote.

They can 'want' that as much as they like. It won't even begin to make it true.

Science is based on assumption. 'Belief' is practically anathema.

Funny that you should use the term anathema.

In any case, let's look at the distinction you're making.

Well, we can ignore for the moment the fact that the source suggests they are synonyms. Clearly - there is a difference between 'belief' and 'assumption', or there would be just one word.

To assume something, one need not think it true. What does a car weigh if there is no gravity on Earth? But earth HAS gravity.. okay, ASSUME it doesn't.

So does the scientist who accepts the proposition "Earth has gravity" only accept it despite not thinking it is true? Or does the scientist genuinely accept the proposition "Earth has gravity" as being true?

Well, we can ignore for the moment the fact that the source suggests they are synonyms. Clearly - there is a difference between 'belief' and 'assumption', or there would be just one word.

Just for the record, that's a really bad argument. For example, there is absolutely no difference between the meanings of the words "epicaricacy" and "schadenfreude", but both of them are accepted English words.

Just for the record, that's a really bad argument. For example, there is absolutely no difference between the meanings of the words "epicaricacy" and "schadenfreude", but both of them are accepted English words.

I'm kind of with Cthulhu on this one. The fact there are some words that are synonyms suggests that redundant words don't preclude one another.

That is to say, "They are not synonyms, they have different meanings, if they meant the same, there would only be one word", I think there are a lot of words that mean the same thing, or at least such that the distinction is arbitrary and inconsistently applied.

I'm going to use the word epicaricacy today with someone.

If schools do not teach and do not help us learn then why do we have them!! We have schools to educate us, so we will not be ignorant! Do you know what happens when people are not educated on other beliefs and values then we end up with people like Hitler and then they end up doing things based off of false information! If Hitler had been educated properly about different ideas then there might not have been a holocaust.

If schools do not teach and do not help us learn then why do we have them!! We have schools to educate us, so we will not be ignorant! Do you know what happens when people are not educated on other beliefs and values then we end up with people like Hitler and then they end up doing things based off of false information! If Hitler had been educated properly about different ideas then there might not have been a holocaust.
1) While I think education is important saying a lack of it cause someone as insane as hitler may be a bit muchc

2) Reguardless of what a school is "for" there are proper places for topics

You dont teach band in math class and you dont teach gym in history class, why the hell would you want to teach creationism in a science class room? There are plenty of better classes that something like that could be addressed in

Okay... Don't really support Creationsim, or Evolution... Both have flaws... But, technically, Evolution is the only one that's even remotely scientific... Saying "God did it!" Isn't exactly a very good scientific proof...

But, on that note, why can't we teach Intelligent Design as an alternative? Some higher intelligence designed everything? Not necessarily God, but maybe something in a higher dimension, which Christians could say is God, or any other group could say is any number of things...

If schools do not teach and do not help us learn then why do we have them!! We have schools to educate us, so we will not be ignorant! Do you know what happens when people are not educated on other beliefs and values then we end up with people like Hitler and then they end up doing things based off of false information! If Hitler had been educated properly about different ideas then there might not have been a holocaust.

Unfortunately creationism as pushed by the creationist and ID movement *is* composed of lies and false information.

You believe evolution is wrong ? You believe there are decent arguments against it ? You can back those beliefs up ?
Good. We should definately include that view in classes on evolution.

And since 99,9% of all creationist arguments is basicly "evolution is wrong because..." instead of "creationism describes the observed facts because... " there exists no reason to teach it.

But, on that note, why can't we teach Intelligent Design as an alternative?
Two reasons.

1. It's not science.
2. It has no evidence whatsoever.

But, on that note, why can't we teach Intelligent Design as an alternative? Some higher intelligence designed everything? Not necessarily God, but maybe something in a higher dimension, which Christians could say is God, or any other group could say is any number of things...

For something to be considered an alternative it must be of comparable quality. ID and creationism are to evolution as a heap of fly dung is to mount everest. Both can be said to be a hill, but they are far from equal.

If schools do not teach and do not help us learn then why do we have them!! We have schools to educate us, so we will not be ignorant!
Correct. But this doesn't address that creationism really has no place in science class.
Do you know what happens when people are not educated on other beliefs and values then we end up with people like Hitler and then they end up doing things based off of false information! If Hitler had been educated properly about different ideas then there might not have been a holocaust.

So if we don't teach creationism in science classes, we're going to have a generation of Hitlers? Don't be ridiculous.

If schools do not teach and do not help us learn then why do we have them!! We have schools to educate us, so we will not be ignorant! Do you know what happens when people are not educated on other beliefs and values then we end up with people like Hitler and then they end up doing things based off of false information! If Hitler had been educated properly about different ideas then there might not have been a holocaust.What exactly are you talking about?

So if we don't teach creationism in science classes, we're going to have a generation of Hitlers?If we do, we're going to have a generation of people who would follow someone like Hitler.

If schools do not teach and do not help us learn then why do we have them!! We have schools to educate us, so we will not be ignorant! Do you know what happens when people are not educated on other beliefs and values then we end up with people like Hitler and then they end up doing things based off of false information! If Hitler had been educated properly about different ideas then there might not have been a holocaust.

Okay- so let me ask you (and other Creationists) this: if Creationism was "the mainstream science" and there was a big, vocal faction pressing for the Theory of Evolution to be given "equal time", would you do it?

Certainly in this context it does- Creationists like to throw around the idea that "Evolutionists 'believe' their theory" only because that is a common counterargument to their theory- that the only way to accept the Creationist theory is to "believe" it (in terms of faith).

the terms that they actually use are things like "evolution is a religion" and "scientists operate on faith too". belief itself is neutral.

Sometimes it upsets me that the angry volcano god with his narcissistic need for the adulation of us mere mortals and his willingness to send otherwise good people to eternal torment after their deaths is often mistaken for my own who sent His son and messenger Jesus Christ to let us know that how we live our lives and treat our fellow man are far more important than some stupid guidebook or those that would use it as a tool to lord over their fellow man.

Maybe we should number them. Angry volcano God can be God-1 and 'Love is all you need' God can be God-A.

:)

This guy, everybody, has it exactly right.

And he has a physics degree. I aspire to you (although I prefer pure mathematics).

Just on a philosophical note, we actually have no way of knowing how the universe came into being. If, for instance, it were created by a supreme being, then that being could have perfectly well created things in such a position as to point to whatever history is preferred. Discworld style really:

"How long have you had that horse?"
"Years and years"
"Yeah, but had you had it for years and years last week"
(The Last Continent, paraphrased)

So I don't bother to speculate. Evolution is undeniable, the Catholics have it right, and LG here is +500 insightful.

Given the level of scientific ignorance displayed by all creationists who have ever been on these forums, I would suggest there is a crying need for compulsory science classes in churches.

But how would we get them to teach real science and not just the contents of their bible "prettied up" with scientific-sounding words?

I want an answer to my question.

42



because the answer's always 42

... Maybe we should number them. Angry volcano God can be God-1 and 'Love is all you need' God can be God-A.


And you can be God-~ ;)

Sure, why not? But not in a FUCKING SCIENCE class. Science class is for learning about, you know, SCIENCE. You don't see students reading Charles Dickens for algebra, do you? Of course not. English has nothing to do with mathematics, just like religion has nothing to do with science. If people decide that they want schools to offer a religion course, then I'm all for creationism being taught. It's a large part of not just the Christian worldview, but religious worldviews in general (of course, this would alienate the atheist kids, but they don't HAVE to take it if it's an elective).

But don't try to combine faith and science. Faith means believing in things that you CAN'T empirically falsify/verify, while science is predicated on things that you CAN. Stop taking this to mean "religion is inferior to science;" it's NOT. It's just COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

42
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/9291/excessivequotationmt6.png

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/9291/excessivequotationmt6.png

:D

Yeah ! Lets do it ! The final could look like this : "How did the world and all living things appear ?" and if you answered "God created the world, all the animals and Adam and Eve !" yay you got an A. And the AP or IB class would be something a little bit harder : "God created the world, Adam, Eve and then the animals IN THIS EXACT ORDER !" but if you're smart enough to do it youll get 3 credits that u can transfer to your college degree ! Now thats some well deserved credit...

Oh and then you could write a PhD thesis on creationism ! And use The Holy Bible, God, Circa 4000BC, as your only source ! (now that would save time wasted reading other useless books)
And then youd become a Creationist scholar, getting funded by a university to find proof for Creationism. All you'd have to do is sit on your ass all day, reading and rereading teh Bible (tm) to try and find lines that can be badly quoted and used in twisted contexts as "evidence" for creationism ! Man that sounds like a sweeeeeeeeeeeet job... getting paid to read one book.

Yeah ! Lets do it ! The final could look like this : "How did the world and all living things appear ?" and if you answered "God created the world, all the animals and Adam and Eve !" yay you got an A. And the AP or IB class would be something a little bit harder : "God created the world, Adam, Eve and then the animals IN THIS EXACT ORDER !" but if you're smart enough to do it youll get 3 credits that u can transfer to your college degree ! Now thats some well deserved credit...

Oh and then you could write a PhD thesis on creationism ! And use The Holy Bible, God, Circa 4000BC, as your only source ! (now that would save time wasted reading other useless books)
And then youd become a Creationist scholar, getting funded by a university to find proof for Creationism. All you'd have to do is sit on your ass all day, reading and rereading teh Bible (tm) to try and find lines that can be badly quoted and used in twisted contexts as "evidence" for creationism ! Man that sounds like a sweeeeeeeeeeeet job... getting paid to read one book.

Can I pick a different book?

please?

pretty please?


pretty please with sugar (or artificial sweetener if you're diabetic :D) on top?

Can I pick a different book?

please?

pretty please?


pretty please with sugar (or artificial sweetener if you're diabetic :D) on top?

You can, but I am afraid that the committee might then require us to pull your scholarship. And send you to hell, also. Up to you.

:D

Yeah ! Lets do it ! The final could look like this : "How did the world and all living things appear ?" and if you answered "God created the world, all the animals and Adam and Eve !" yay you got an A. And the AP or IB class would be something a little bit harder : "God created the world, Adam, Eve and then the animals IN THIS EXACT ORDER !" but if you're smart enough to do it youll get 3 credits that u can transfer to your college degree ! Now thats some well deserved credit...

Oh and then you could write a PhD thesis on creationism ! And use The Holy Bible, God, Circa 4000BC, as your only source ! (now that would save time wasted reading other useless books)
And then youd become a Creationist scholar, getting funded by a university to find proof for Creationism. All you'd have to do is sit on your ass all day, reading and rereading teh Bible (tm) to try and find lines that can be badly quoted and used in twisted contexts as "evidence" for creationism ! Man that sounds like a sweeeeeeeeeeeet job... getting paid to read one book.


It's a pretty long book. Do you think I could pull it off with some sort of Spark Notes version?

Click Stand;13238670']It's a pretty long book. Do you think I could pull it off with some sort of Spark Notes version?

Genesis, the book with the creation accounts, really ain't that long. Spark Notes would be pretty unnecessary.

Well wikipedia is just as reliable of a source (or even more). You could probably use that.

the terms that they actually use are things like "evolution is a religion" and "scientists operate on faith too".

I.E., "belief".

I'm aware that, technically, "belief" can have many different meanings- however, what I've been trying to get at is that "belief" in a Creationist context is "blind faith"- which is not how a scientist "believes". A scientist "believes" based on the evidence at hand but will change that "belief" if evidence counters the "belief". Creationists will just continue "believing" regardless of whether or not the evidence contradicts them.

I.E., "belief".

I'm aware that, technically, "belief" can have many different meanings- however, what I've been trying to get at is that "belief" in a Creationist context is "blind faith"- which is not how a scientist "believes". A scientist "believes" based on the evidence at hand but will change that "belief" if evidence counters the "belief". Creationists will just continue "believing" regardless of whether or not the evidence contradicts them.

Also, creationism disappears if nobody believes in it. Science goes on whether anybody believes in it or not.

I.E., "belief".

I'm aware that, technically, "belief" can have many different meanings- however, what I've been trying to get at is that "belief" in a Creationist context is "blind faith"- which is not how a scientist "believes". A scientist "believes" based on the evidence at hand but will change that "belief" if evidence counters the "belief". Creationists will just continue "believing" regardless of whether or not the evidence contradicts them.

when have we ever let idiot creationists determine what words mean? blind faith means blind faith. a belief can be based on blind faith, but that is certainly not the dominant kind of belief forming process. hell, the distinctive set of beliefs that form creationism aren't held even just on blind faith, but are held utterly irrationally.

the scare quotes are unnecessary - really, try it, it makes perfect sense without them:
A scientist believes based on the evidence at hand but will change that belief if evidence counters the belief. Creationists will just continue believing regardless of whether or not the evidence contradicts them.

Science goes on whether anybody believes in it or not.

no it doesn't. how could it?

no it doesn't. how could it?

Seconded.
I would like to know how science sustains itself if no one practices nor believes in it.

The 'natural laws of the universe' would still function, but science as a process would not exist.

Seconded.
I would like to know how science sustains itself if no one practices nor believes in it.

The 'natural laws of the universe' would still function, but science as a process would not exist.

Does math exist if no one is aware of it? Does 1 + 1 = anything if no one is there to do the problem correctly?


Do I exist if everyone ignores me?



Hello?

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.

Sure. But not in science class, which is for the teaching of scientifically valid theories. Creationism can be taught in religion class. Or mythology.

Does math exist if no one is aware of it? Does 1 + 1 = anything if no one is there to do the problem correctly?

yes, but that has nothing to do with science, which is a social practice

I'd strongly advocate replacing «assumption» with «evidence».

Not exactly... if you are going to interpret data, you'll want evidence... but not all science deals with the actual handling of data... at least, not in an 'applied' fashion.

But you can take your evidence, and apply it to hypothetical situations... or extrapolate possible results based on obtained evidence and assumptions.

Genesis, the book with the creation accounts, really ain't that long. Spark Notes would be pretty unnecessary.

By long I mean longer than 7 pages. Roger Rabbit was a really nice and short book though...

Does math exist if no one is aware of it? Does 1 + 1 = anything if no one is there to do the problem correctly?

Do I exist if everyone ignores me?

Hello?

It was once declared "I think therefore I am"

So If I don't think.

ok, now i'm convinced that you just need to look up the word 'belief'. an assumption is a belief.


I absolutely disagree.

You and I can easily discuss the life of Jesus by 'assuming' that Jesus is more than a fictional character. Doesn't mean I believe it.


and yes, it is literally inconceivable to think of living without beliefs (or something very much like them).


I disagree. For you, this might be true. I have no problems concieving of it.


it cannot be done by beings like us.


By beings like... you?


...every action we take that isn't involuntary and automatic necessitates that we hold beliefs.


I disagree, again. Voluntary actions may require expected responses... but I don't think that entails belief. I've woken up having slept on one arm... I go to make a voluntary motion like reaching for my clock... but nothing happens. I do not sit there open mouthed as my world crumbles... I just alter my assumptions.


every experience we have causes us to spontaneously create more beliefs.


Again, I disagree. Every experience may feed us with data.. but that doesn't automatically translate into beliefs.


beliefs are fundamental to human thought.

So you say. So you believe, maybe?

when have we ever let idiot creationists determine what words mean? blind faith means blind faith. a belief can be based on blind faith, but that is certainly not the dominant kind of belief forming process. hell, the distinctive set of beliefs that form creationism aren't held even just on blind faith, but are held utterly irrationally

....

the scare quotes are unnecessary - really, try it, it makes perfect sense without them:

I brought up Creationism in this context only because we're in a Creationism thread and I think it's relevant to the discussion- if I am following your argument correctly, you're going for the angle that science truly *does* involve some form of belief, making it somewhat akin to Creationism which requires belief to be, well, "believed" (although the belief required in science isn't close to that being required for Creationism). I'm merely pointing out that the kinds of "belief" required in both fields are two different concepts (hence why I put it in quotation marks): in science, belief is required to be flexible in case reason casts doubt on previously held thoughts. In Creationism, however, it is only fueled by an unyielding belief, regardless of whether or not reason contradicts it- hence why it's more "blind faith" than just a straight-out "belief".

Funny that you should use the term anathema.


It was no accident.


In any case, let's look at the distinction you're making.

So does the scientist who accepts the proposition "Earth has gravity" only accept it despite not thinking it is true? Or does the scientist genuinely accept the proposition "Earth has gravity" as being true?

From a purely scientific viewpoint, both answers would obviously be hopelessly inaccurate. But - allowing for that - gravity is a theory. The central tenet of scientific endeavour should always be some kind of 'as far as we know' qualification.

'Mass-market science' might be okay with assuming that things are 'true', 'proved' etc... but that's not really they way science should be executed.

It was once declared "I think therefore I am"

So If I don't think.

You am not therefore?

Just for the record, that's a really bad argument. For example, there is absolutely no difference between the meanings of the words "epicaricacy" and "schadenfreude", but both of them are accepted English words.

Just for the record, that's a really bad example. Your example consists of an 'English' word and an adopted German one.

Regardless, I was being somewhat flippant.. but, clearly, 'belief' and 'assumption' are not synonyms most of the time. If they weren't exclusive, it seems unlikely both would be used in common parlance. Another flaw in your bad example.

Voluntary actions may require expected responses... but I don't think that entails belief.

yes, it does. seriously, you just aren't using words properly. go check wiki or the dictionary.

I'm merely pointing out that the kinds of "belief" required in both fields are two different concepts (hence why I put it in quotation marks): in science, belief is required to be flexible in case reason casts doubt on previously held thoughts. In Creationism, however, it is only fueled by an unyielding belief, regardless of whether or not reason contradicts it- hence why it's more "blind faith" than just a straight-out "belief".

Quite. Perfectly normal and legitimate beliefs can be held provisionally. Many are, actually.

For example, I believe that Africa exists. Should I encounter sufficient evidence to make that belief untenable, I'll drop it.

The fact that I'm willing to change my beliefs doesn't mean they're not beliefs in the first place.

Or when I perform an algebraic function, where A is equal to 8. I provisionally hold the belief that A is equal to 8 and operate with that in mind.

Easy as pi.

Just for the record, that's a really bad example. Your example consists of an 'English' word and an adopted German one.

Regardless, I was being somewhat flippant.. but, clearly, 'belief' and 'assumption' are not synonyms most of the time. If they weren't exclusive, it seems unlikely both would be used in common parlance. Another flaw in your bad example.

Then try evisceration and disembowelment. Both mean the exact same thing. Both are in common use. Both are "English" words.

yes, it does. seriously, you just aren't using words properly. go check wiki or the dictionary.

That's it... the whole arguement? I disagree with you, so I'm wrong.. and I should appeal to great god wiki for my absolution?

Expectation is not belief. Assumption is not belief.

I even showed you an example of how we could discuss 'assumed' things without either of us even having to pretend to believe them... and yet you blithely ignored it. I suspect, personally, that that was because it shot holes in your argument.

You probably 'believe' otherwise....

It was no accident.

That's kinda what I thought.

From a purely scientific viewpoint, both answers would obviously be hopelessly inaccurate. But - allowing for that - gravity is a theory.

Yes...

The central tenet of scientific endeavour should always be some kind of 'as far as we know' qualification.

Careful, now. That sounds suspiciously like a belief. It even has an absolute and dogmatic quality to it.

'Mass-market science' might be okay with assuming that things are 'true', 'proved' etc... but that's not really they way science should be executed.

I'm not really concerned (in this discussion) with how science should ideally be executed. I imagine we'd be very much agreed on that topic, anyway.

What I'd like to get at is how science is actually practiced. And in my experience with people I've known who were doing scientific research in various fields at a university, beliefs are very much a part of the process. Not generally in a harmful way, but nonetheless.

This argument... It needs...

MORE MAMMOTH TANKS

Then try evisceration and disembowelment. Both mean the exact same thing. Both are in common use. Both are "English" words.

That would have been a (much) better example.

The problem lies in the multiple meanings of each word... 'believe' is used in different ways, and 'assume' is used in different ways. There are a few areas where the words can overlap, but for the most part they serve different functions.

'Believe' has as it's central premise... 'trust'. Assume has 'conjecture'.

You can use the words as synonyms, but to do so is to ignore almost all of their everyday usage - and that's the problem I have with the inaccuracy debate. Those arguing that scientists 'believe' do so using the synonym argument, but they don't use the same definition of 'belief' when they talk about their faith. Anyone who buys into their 'scientists believe' argument is therefore buying into their little trick of changing the goalposts.

That's it... the whole arguement? I disagree with you, so I'm wrong.. and I should appeal to great god wiki for my absolution?

Well I'm enjoying how after a number of pages you didn't find something to answer my dictionary definition that shows how close those two words are except to say "No it's not!" and then try to use a secondary meaning of assumption.

Careful, now. That sounds suspiciously like a belief. It even has an absolute and dogmatic quality to it.


Yes. "Always expect the unexpected" sounds absolute and dogmatic too... and "nothing ever stays the same"... etc.

The central tenets of science are not mine... they are part of the scientific method. A methodology is not a believe, statement of faith, or set of insturctions as to how, or what, to believe. Just a mechanism for executing the practise.


I'm not really concerned (in this discussion) with how science should ideally be executed. I imagine we'd be very much agreed on that topic, anyway.


I thought 'should' was what you were asking? If we are talking about how Scientists bop around in their everyday lives... well, the answer is probably going to be as different as the number of people. I certainly can't answer for any scientist but this one.. so the question becomes unanswerable.


What I'd like to get at is how science is actually practiced. And in my experience with people I've known who were doing scientific research in various fields at a university, beliefs are very much a part of the process. Not generally in a harmful way, but nonetheless.

I am a career scientist. I can't say what others 'believe'... only what I do. Or don't.

Well I'm enjoying how after a number of pages you didn't find something to answer my dictionary definition that shows how close those two words are except to say "No it's not!" and then try to use a secondary meaning of assumption.

This strikes me as a little dishonest.

You didn't present a dictionary definition - you presented a catalogue of definitions which - as I'm sure you realised - express a series of permutations of usage, not a unified codex of meanings one word will have in every case. You ignored (obviously - in citing wholesale, rather than specifying) the finesse in meaning. And yet, you find conflict when I show that your battery approach also doesn't actually yield a unified meaning.

Language is fluid. What truly defines words is usage. 'Belief' is used to suggest 'trust', 'assume' is used to suggest 'conjecture'.

I'm sure I can easily find situations where the word 'belief' is used when 'assume' would have been more appropriate, and vice versa. I'm sure I could find occassions where someone has used the words entirely interchangably. But that doesn't make the two words the same.

Yes. "Always expect the unexpected" sounds absolute and dogmatic too... and "nothing ever stays the same"... etc.

Yes, because they are.

The central tenets of science are not mine... they are part of the scientific method. A methodology is not a believe, statement of faith, or set of insturctions as to how, or what, to believe. Just a mechanism for executing the practise.

Ok, so now you're saying that you, the scientist, do not hold beliefs. But apparently, by your own admission, science has them, methodology or no.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tenets

I thought 'should' was what you were asking? If we are talking about how Scientists bop around in their everyday lives... well, the answer is probably going to be as different as the number of people. I certainly can't answer for any scientist but this one.. so the question becomes unanswerable.

I am a career scientist. I can't say what others 'believe'... only what I do. Or don't.

Your perspective certainly seems unusual. Ironically, it's one I've encountered more frequently in non-scientists than in scientists.

Ok, so now you're saying that you, the scientist, do not hold beliefs. But apparently, by your own admission, science has them, methodology or no.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tenets


How is a tenet a belief?

A principle is not the same as a belief.


Your perspective certainly seems unusual. Ironically, it's one I've encountered more frequently in non-scientists than in scientists.

Okay. I can't argue with how many people you've met that act in way x versus way z. Most scientists I know accept that science is fluid, that we are working on theory, and that everything we 'know' could turn out to have been deceptive tomorrow. On the other hand, those who adhere to a 'it was written, so ever shall it be' tend more to the non-scientific... again, in my experience.

Of course - where I live, both the 'scientists' and the non-scientists are bible-belt fundies anyway, so the lines might get a little blurred...

I accept, however, that my perspective may be unusual. Even among scientists, I don't know how many people are as globally skeptical as I am on a continual basis. (If you've been around for some of my other near on 20,000 posts, you'll have seen my skepticism arguments before... especially on religion).

I do believe creationism should be taught side-by-side with evolution. If the damn school system wants my children to learn evolution, well then I cry foul! We should be exposing the children to two different ideas (one scientific and one religious) and let them come up with their own solution. Right now they are discriminating against our religion. So, here's my idea: a science class teaches both creationism and evolution! Half the year could be used teaching evolution, and the other half could be about how our dear great big flying turtle named Jeff landed in the sea and became the earth on which we walk and we hatched from mystical seagull eggs!

I do believe creationism should be taught side-by-side with evolution. If the damn school system wants my children to learn evolution, well then I cry foul! We should be exposing the children to two different ideas (one scientific and one religious) and let them come up with their own solution. Right now they are discriminating against our religion. So, here's my idea: a science class teaches both creationism and evolution! Half the year could be used teaching evolution, and the other half could be about how our dear great big flying turtle named Jeff landed in the sea and became the earth on which we walk and we hatched from mystical seagull eggs!

A comparative religion class could teach ID.
And what is wrong, pray tell, with parents teaching their religion to their kids and not relying on the public schools to do it?

There are more religions than just Christianity in the schools. Should we teach all of them with equal emphasis, or only the "right" one, Jeffism?

What about atheists? Why should they have to answer on a test that God created the universe when they don't believe that God exists and there is no tangible, reproducible proof that He does?

So, here's my idea: a science class teaches both creationism and evolution! Half the year could be used teaching evolution, and the other half could be about how our dear great big flying turtle named Jeff landed in the sea and became the earth on which we walk and we hatched from mystical seagull eggs!

I was so ready to just sigh and go at it again until I read that last part.

Kudos sir, you had me going.

How is a tenet a belief?

A principle is not the same as a belief.

An opinion held to be true is a belief. A doctrine held to be true is a belief. A principle held to be true is a belief.

Okay. I can't argue with how many people you've met that act in way x versus way z. Most scientists I know accept that science is fluid, that we are working on theory, and that everything we 'know' could turn out to have been deceptive tomorrow. On the other hand, those who adhere to a 'it was written, so ever shall it be' tend more to the non-scientific... again, in my experience.

It's interesting. Your hangup seems to be the same distinction RomeW was making, about science being more open to changing and other belief systems being reluctant to change.

I'll make the same point to you that I did to Rome. That it's perfectly normal and legitimate to hold beliefs provisionally (which is what you call assumption). There's nothing inherently unchanging about beliefs, in fact people tend to change their beliefs quite frequently.

Of course - where I live, both the 'scientists' and the non-scientists are bible-belt fundies anyway, so the lines might get a little blurred...

I accept, however, that my perspective may be unusual. Even among scientists, I don't know how many people are as globally skeptical as I am on a continual basis. (If you've been around for some of my other near on 20,000 posts, you'll have seen my skepticism arguments before... especially on religion).

I'm familiar with your skepticism on religion, which is why I think it's especially funny that you seem so inclined to hold to a more religious understanding of what belief is.

There are more religions than just Christianity in the schools. Should we teach all of them with equal emphasis, or only the "right" one, Jeffism?

What about atheists? Why should they have to answer on a test that God created the universe when they don't believe that God exists and there is no tangible, reproducible proof that He does?

We have a working system. People of religions get their own classes. I think all Protestant Christian denominations (and Catholicism) get one and the same set about Christianity, IIRC, while Orthodox Christians, Moslems and so forth get their own (separate ones). Just that these alternative religions aren't taught at every village school, because that wouldn't be practical, and because a huge majority of people are Christian, and why would anyone wanna immigrate to some shithole in the middle of nowhere?

For Atheists there's some kind of class about ideologies where they talk about stuff, but probably not about religions. I wouldn't know what exactly do they talk about due to me being Christian and I never took part in those back when I was in school. But anyway, it works just fine for everyone. Why there's not a similar system in the US, I dunno, but that's just how things are.

And you know, this thread REALLY needs...

MORE MAMMOTH TANKS!

We have a working system. People of religions get their own classes. I think all Protestant Christian denominations (and Catholicism) get one and the same set about Christianity, IIRC, while Orthodox Christians, Moslems and so forth get their own (separate ones).

It seems really odd to me that Catholics and Orthodox would be separated. They're a lot closer to each other than are Catholics and Protestants.

It seems really odd to me that Catholics and Orthodox would be separated. They're a lot closer to each other than are Catholics and Protestants.

The reason why they would separate Orthodox Christians from Catholics is that they don't like each other. And the reason why Catholics are put in the same group with Protestants is, IIRC, that there are often too few Catholics to actually have their own group.

Of course I could remember wrong. It could be that even Catholics got their own group, but bah, since when has my memory actually served me well? By the powers of rationalization, I'd say that Catholics would get their own groups in areas where there's enough of them, just like Orthodox Christians get theirs when there's enough of them... I think otherwise they're all cramped in the same set with the Protestants. Luckily for them, however, the class doesn't really force Protestantism down their throats.

(What did just happen? I could swear you had a part about wondering why the Orthodox Christians would be in the same class with moslems when that wasn't what I meant. O_o Am I just too flu-y and tired or was it really there?)

And the reason why Catholics are put in the same group with Protestants is, IIRC, that there are often too few Catholics to actually have their own group.

Ontario (where I live) has a publicly-funded, Catholic school system. It was a source of contention during the provincial elections when the Progressive Conservatives (Ontario's second party) wanted to extend public funding to other religious schools, but the Liberals (Ontario's current controlling party) objected, saying that "it's great Ontario's students learn together". Of course, they didn't seem to realize that Ontario's education system is already divided and that our students are not "learning together", but sadly, too few people in our province seemed to realize that.

Just thought I'd throw that in there.

Quite. Perfectly normal and legitimate beliefs can be held provisionally. Many are, actually.

For example, I believe that Africa exists. Should I encounter sufficient evidence to make that belief untenable, I'll drop it.

The fact that I'm willing to change my beliefs doesn't mean they're not beliefs in the first place.

Or when I perform an algebraic function, where A is equal to 8. I provisionally hold the belief that A is equal to 8 and operate with that in mind.

Easy as pi.

Yeah, but what I've been trying to get at is that when a scientist uses the word "believe" they use it differently than a Creationist does. Take this, for example:

Say a scientist and a Creationist say "I believe Lagos is the capital of Nigeria." The evidence suggests that Lagos is indeed *not* the capital of Nigeria- the planned city of Abuja is (and has been since 1991). The scientist would change their belief to that of "Abuja is the capital of Nigeria". The Creationist would refuse to acknowledge the switch and just continue to believe that Lagos is the capital of Nigeria.

It seems really odd to me that Catholics and Orthodox would be separated. They're a lot closer to each other than are Catholics and Protestants.
Well, the Catholic Church is an orthodox church. However, the various branches of orthodoxy lack affection for each other. The Protestants, who stepped out of Christ's community in the 16th century, of course, should indeed be set separate.

A comparative religion class could teach ID.But it should not. And what is there to teach really? There are no homogeneous official teachings in ID. "Comparative" implies that there is something to compare. But while many religions have their creation myths, what does ID really have to show except philosophical arbitrariness?

And what is wrong, pray tell, with parents teaching their religion to their kids and not relying on the public schools to do it?Parents will only teach their own ideologies to kids. This one-dimensional information flow is more indoctrination than it could be called teaching. And who wants that except the usual religious nutjobs?

Ontario (where I live) has a publicly-funded, Catholic school system.

Ah, that's a bit different. In this school system, all the kids go to the same schools (well, except one minority group that INSISTS having its own schools). All other classes are the same except the one about one's religion, where there's diversity depending on the school. Well, then there's foreign languages one can choose from... Most kids choose English (kind of an obvious choice in the modern world), but there are other languages you can choose from, such as German, French or Russian. But anyway, I'm getting sidetracked here. The way it's done everyone gets taught the same regular stuff, while everyone also gets their own religion taught as well. And everyone is seemingly happy.

The Creationist would refuse to acknowledge the switch and just continue to believe that Lagos is the capital of Nigeria.

No, that's not what would happen. If a Creationist was proven without a shadow of a doubt that Lagos is not the capital of Nigeria, he would have to accept it. Same goes with the Creation itself. If someone built a time machine, went back in time and found out what really happened, the Creationist would have to believe and accept whatever it was that was found as truth.

Even the scientific theories are just unprovable theories until someone actually goes and finds out what happened. For what we know, there could've been flying pink hippos flying in the sky who dropped magical Easter eggs on the planet, and somewhere along the line we came along.

Almost forgot!

MORE MAMMOTH TANKS!

Even the scientific theories are just unprovable theories until someone actually goes and finds out what happened. For what we know, there could've been flying pink hippos flying in the sky who dropped magical Easter eggs on the planet, and somewhere along the line we came along.So fossils give no hints to past circumstances?

So fossils give no hints to past circumstances?

They do. But it still does not remove the chance of there having been flying pink hippos which dropped magical Easter eggs on the planet with all kinds of nasty things in 'em and then we eventually came along.

The fossils are just hints. They don't give you an ultimate guide of 100% certaintyness as to what was. And a Creationist could shrug them off by claiming that God has a sense of humor, or that those fossils are his test for mankind to see who embraces Him when their faith is being tested. Thus, the core of the belief will remain the same, and nothing can hurt it except knowing the full truth.

Human rationalization is a wonderful thing. :p

It seems really odd to me that Catholics and Orthodox would be separated. They're a lot closer to each other than are Catholics and Protestants.Depends. Catholics and Protestants, at least in Germany, aren't particularly different.

They do. But it still does not remove the chance of there having been flying pink hippos which dropped magical Easter eggs on the planet with all kinds of nasty things in 'em and then we eventually came along.

The fossils are just hints. They don't give you an ultimate guide of 100% certaintyness as to what was. And a Creationist could shrug them off by claiming that God has a sense of humor, or that those fossils are his test for mankind to see who embraces Him when their faith is being tested. Thus, the core of the belief will remain the same, and nothing can hurt it except knowing the full truth.

Human rationalization is a wonderful thing. :pBut the starting point is the fossils. Then one tries to think about how they ended up where they were found. But what is your starting point for claims about flying pink hippos? Or for the biblical god?

Depends. Catholics and Protestants, at least in Germany, aren't particularly different.Oh yes they are.

Oh yes they are.Really?

No, not really.



From my personal experience, the average Catholic and average Protestant differed only in what they did at church, and the occasional holiday. The orthodox aren't that well represented in Germany, so the little I know comes from the Eastern European orthodox christians. What I do know about them is that they use a different calendar, which does make it a bit harder to celebrate things together like the Ecumenicals do.

Really?
No, not really.
From my personal experience, the average Catholic and average Protestant differed only in what they did at church, and the occasional holiday. The orthodox aren't that well represented in Germany, so the little I know comes from the Eastern European orthodox christians. What I do know about them is that they use a different calendar, which does make it a bit harder to celebrate things together like the Ecumenicals do.Listening to Huber is very different from listening to Lehmann. And in schools Protestant RE is very different from Catholic RE.
What's funny about German protestants is that most don't even know which branch of protestantism they belong to.

Listening to Huber is very different from listening to Lehmann. And in schools Protestant RE is very different from Catholic RE.Huber and Lehmann are but two men. And I disagree with your statement on Religious education. I've been through Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish religious class in school, and Protestant and Catholic weren't all that different.

But the starting point is the fossils. Then one tries to think about how they ended up where they were found. But what is your starting point for claims about flying pink hippos? Or for the biblical god?

Flying pink hippos was just an example of how precious little we really know about the beginnings of life on this planet. They're all just theories with no other basis than educated guesses. Fossils are a beginning where you can go many ways - one of them is the one I described a Creationist could use ("it's a test by God for us!"), another is the one you describe. As long as theories cannot be ascertained... Their plausibility and truthfulness is questionable. Believing in them without being a scientist who has a vested interest in the theories is indeed faith. You believe them without hesitation, although there is a very real possibility that they could be wrong. How is Science-ism any better a religion than Christianity, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or whatever?

What good comes from setting science in the place of God?

And what I was saying was that you can't prove these theories right, and you can't make a Creationist think otherwise UNLESS s/he is shown evidence which leaves no doubt. Note that I do not personally find Creationism (God created the Earth in 7 days) to be more plausible than evolution, but I also think that it is entirely possible that the entire concept of evolution might be revamped some time in the future.

Why did he suppose that? Reality is a strange place. Weird shit happens all the time. Imagine, for example, reality once existed as a perfect singularity.

If that was the case, the physics of the really big (relativity; something the dead Greek never imagined) states such a thing won't change. It is, for all intents and purposes, static. Frozen. Beyond time. But then apply the physics of the really tiny (quantum mechanics; another thing the dead guy never imagined), and suddenly shit happens. On the quantum level, the universe is probabilistic. That means that as time approaches the infinite, the probability of a significant perturbance of the singularity, approaches 1. As soon as that happens, the physics of the really big states shit will happen to the singularity.

That's one explanation that doesn't involve weird magical creatures from beyond reality, or anything else we don't know of. It's not necessarily the right one, it's just one possibility. But the point is that it isn't necessary to invent fantasy monsters. There's tons of ways in which reality could come to be what it is, which doesn't defy what we know of it. 100 years from now, there'll probably bee a ton more, simply because people then will know a lot more about what reality is. Right now, we're groping in darkness. Your dead Greek, alas, didn't even have the tools to grope with. And the same is, of course, true for the authors of various ancient holy scripture.

Don't get me wrong. Religion is unquestionably important for some people, and some aspects of religion can teach valuable insights into human beings, our thoughts and our social constructs. But fuck mate, the dead old Abrahamites couldn't even imagine the existence of parasites. Sure, they could figure out there was some sort of causal relationship between eating pigs and dying, but they were so fucking ignorant their imaginations couldn't even conceive of the real explanation. And even today, there's people so fucking ignorant they can't either - though of course those would probably have been the scripture-author killing loons back then.

First thing: I repeat that I don't believe in Creationism; I try to explain why, in my opinion, it should be named when explaining how we got to our science. This is just a precisation.
Second: on the religious front, people don't need logical explanation, as Kierkegaard said.

Now, coming to your own post: as you noticed, we are groping in darkness, exactly like Aristotles and Jews. This, I think (but the fact that I think so doesn't mean that it's true, I know) a reason because of which we should teach as "more probable" our modern science, and then, as "old tales" the old sciences, informing people that our own science will, sooner or later, become another "old tale".
I don't say that Creationism should be taught as a modern and , therefore, for us liable science because of Galileo's words: "The Bible is the book that shows us how to reach Heaven, not how heavens are built". But it should be named in a "history of science" class.

The topic is whether creationism should be taught in schools. So do not get off the topic as some people are trying to do. It should be taught in schools so that children will be able to choose what they want to believe you should not try to conform a child’s mind to your our one belief. If a child is given a taught one position then that is what they will believe, so in all fairness to the child it should be taught so that they can choose what they want to believe, which will educate them. And if they are given two choices it will open new path ways to another world in their brain.

By the way, if the argument is that we're supposed to teach different ideas, why not teach alternative ideas about night and day and the blue sky? I mean, the idea that molecules in the air scatter blue light more so than other light and as the earth rotates our area of the earth rotates away from being shone on by the sun's rays and rotates into it again, is just one point of view, right? How about we teach alternatively that the sky is a thick layer of cyan paint suspended in the air by invisible dragons blowing on it such that the force applied by the blowing cancels out the force of gravity on the paint, and that night and day are caused by microscopic fairies (surrounding the invisible dragons) lighting the cyan paint by glowing more or less in a sinusodal pattern depending on their position above the earth's surface and the time of the year, and that the stars are just a few of the fairies glowing (brightly) when others don't?

See, creationists, there's a time to look at different ideas and there's a time to consider that some ideas just don't belong in a science class, even if they sound kinda scientific. I can't help but think that for the most part creationists are just people who were brainwashed by churches and are trying to rationalize the brainwashing. I remember when I was a little kid in summer school, the books the churches gave out refuted questions like "what about other religions, what if they're right?" with blatant scare-tactics like "these are only doubts the DEVIL fills your mind with"; obviously trying to scare people out of doubting, stifling skepticism, and I'm glad I saw through it, and knew that what was to really be feared was not some make-believe "devil" but the churches. They don't seem to want people to think about other religions. Schools, on the other hand, teach about different religions, such as doing comparisons of them in grade 8 social studies class, for example. Just an example of knowledge that churches seem to want to hide from people whereas schools want to give people, and want people to take. With differences like these, I don't want churches to poison schools. When priests start preaching evolution, maybe then I'll be a little more open to the idea of science teachers teaching creationism. Until then, let's spare the schools of the church choke chain.

The topic is whether creationism should be taught in schools. So do not get off the topic as some people are trying to do. It should be taught in schools so that children will be able to choose what they want to believe you should not try to conform a child’s mind to your our one belief. If a child is given a taught one position then that is what they will believe, so in all fairness to the child it should be taught so that they can choose what they want to believe, which will educate them. And if they are given two choices it will open new path ways to another world in their brain.


We're playing whackamole again.

Non-science should not be taught in a science class. If they want religion in school, they can make a non-required religious studies class.

Would you accept astrology or phrenology in science class? Which version of creationism will you teach? Will you cover every single religion in the world?

That's it... the whole arguement? I disagree with you, so I'm wrong.. and I should appeal to great god wiki for my absolution?

yes, because you are just that wrong. belief hasn't been primarily used the way you are using it for a ridiculously long time, and that usage was itself a metaphorical extension of a more general concept of belief in a person. to quote the oed on the subject,

"(Belief was the earlier word for what is now commonly called faith. The latter originally meant in Eng. (as in OFrench) ‘loyalty to a person to whom one is bound by promise or duty, or to one's promise or duty itself,’ as in ‘to keep faith, to break faith,’ and the derivatives faithful, faithless, in which there is no reference to ‘belief’; i.e. ‘faith’ was = fidelity, fealty. But the word faith being, through OF. fei, feith, the etymological representative of the L. fides, it began in the 14th c. to be used to translate the latter, and in course of time almost superseded ‘belief,’ esp. in theological language, leaving ‘belief’ in great measure to the merely intellectual process or state in sense 2."

and what is sense 2?

"2. Mental acceptance of a proposition, statement, or fact, as true, on the ground of authority or evidence; assent of the mind to a statement, or to the truth of a fact beyond observation, on the testimony of another, or to a fact or truth on the evidence of consciousness; the mental condition involved in this assent. Constr. of a statement, or (obs.) a speaker; that...; belief in (a thing); persuasion of its existence."

I even showed you an example of how we could discuss 'assumed' things without either of us even having to pretend to believe them... and yet you blithely ignored it. I suspect, personally, that that was because it shot holes in your argument.

of course it is possible to discuss things without believing those things. nobody ever denied this. what i denied was that you could live without holding any beliefs.

The topic is whether creationism should be taught in schools. So do not get off the topic as some people are trying to do. It should be taught in schools so that children will be able to choose what they want to believe you should not try to conform a child’s mind to your our one belief. If a child is given a taught one position then that is what they will believe, so in all fairness to the child it should be taught so that they can choose what they want to believe, which will educate them. And if they are given two choices it will open new path ways to another world in their brain.

why should we offer kids an officially endorsed 'new path' that is demonstrably wrong?

the closest thing to what you are after that would be acceptable to put in schools (and, in fact, ought be done) is training in critical thinking and logic. of course, this would be bad for creationism, as the only thing that allows creationism to exist is a lack of critical thinking...

of course it is possible to discuss things without believing those things. nobody ever denied this. what i denied was that you could live without holding any beliefs.

Missed the point again? Deliberately or accidentally I wonder.

We can 'assume' something for the sake of conversation. We can't 'believe' something for the sake of conversation.

See the difference?

Yeah, but what I've been trying to get at is that when a scientist uses the word "believe" they use it differently than a Creationist does. Take this, for example:

Say a scientist and a Creationist say "I believe Lagos is the capital of Nigeria." The evidence suggests that Lagos is indeed *not* the capital of Nigeria- the planned city of Abuja is (and has been since 1991). The scientist would change their belief to that of "Abuja is the capital of Nigeria". The Creationist would refuse to acknowledge the switch and just continue to believe that Lagos is the capital of Nigeria.

their use of belief is the same. their standards of justification for beliefs vary - particularly in a small subset of their total beliefs. in the lagos example, i think all but the craziest creationists would be willing to modify their belief when shown that it is wrong. it is only when the wrongness of their beliefs implies the wrongness of other beliefs that they are particularly committed to that they start going utterly retarded about the whole thing. otherwise we'd have to believe that conversations like the following would happen all the time;

person a: "what time is it?"
person b: "i believe its 1:30"
a: "no, i just checked the clock, and it's actually 3"
b: "no it isn't"
a: "no seriously, look at your watch"
b: "clearly it has been tampered with"
etc.

They teach evoloution and there is no proof for that either. So why don't you support creationism being taught? However if you don't support either being taught, I apologize.

No proof? Are you blind as well as dumb? There is tones of proof. If you haven't figured that out yet your one stupiud person.

No proof? Are you blind as well as dumb? There is tones of proof. If you haven't figured that out yet your one stupiud person.

There's tons of circumstantial evidence, but no hard evidence. This is because it's impossible for us to know what exactly happened in the past. We can only wonder what happened, and make educated guesses based on the evidence we do have.

That, however, does not make evolution as we now know it a proven fact.

It's more than you can say about literal Creationism, however. The said circumstantial evidence is against a 7 day creation and mere 6 000 year age of Earth.

Missed the point again? Deliberately or accidentally I wonder.

We can 'assume' something for the sake of conversation. We can't 'believe' something for the sake of conversation.

See the difference?

we totally can believe something for the sake of conversation. in fact, we have to, all the time - i am doing it right now. it just means that that sort of belief is particularly provisional.

There's tons of circumstantial evidence, but no hard evidence. This is because it's impossible for us to know what exactly happened in the past. We can only wonder what happened, and make educated guesses based on the evidence we do have.

what makes the evidence any less hard than any other sort of evidence we have about anything? it is certainly more than mere circumstantial evidence.

That, however, does not make evolution as we now know it a proven fact.

yeah, we really need to get people off this proof kick. the method of science doesn't allow for proof of theories, and we've never needed to prove something in order to know it or for it to be factually true.

we totally can believe something for the sake of conversation. in fact, we have to, all the time - i am doing it right now. it just means that that sort of belief is particularly provisional.

Then the problem here is actually shown to be your lack of understanding as to what 'belief' is.

If we debate Jesus as though he were a real person, I can assume his reality for the sake of debate.... it's a condition... just a framework. There is no way in which I 'believe' his life is anything but a fiction.

we totally can believe something for the sake of conversation. in fact, we have to, all the time - i am doing it right now. it just means that that sort of belief is particularly provisional.
But this would seem to be a rather strange conception of the word 'belief'

I may well, for the sake of argument or for a thought experiment, accept a premise that I would not normally hold to be true. However, it would be very strange to say I 'believed' said premise.

Belief is inexorably linked to truth; what we believe we hold to be true. Now, our beliefs obviously aren't, by warrant of them being our beliefs, necessarily true, but I can't think of a situation in which I believed a proposition, yet didn't think it was true.

The reason why they would separate Orthodox Christians from Catholics is that they don't like each other. And the reason why Catholics are put in the same group with Protestants is, IIRC, that there are often too few Catholics to actually have their own group.

That makes sense, I guess.

(What did just happen? I could swear you had a part about wondering why the Orthodox Christians would be in the same class with moslems when that wasn't what I meant. O_o Am I just too flu-y and tired or was it really there?)

I did a quick edit because I re-read your statements and got your intended meaning.

Yeah, but what I've been trying to get at is that when a scientist uses the word "believe" they use it differently than a Creationist does. Take this, for example:

No, they really don't use the word differently. What they do is treat their beliefs differently in the case you described. When a scientist has a belief, he or she may often treat their belief as being more provisional. A creationist might treat their beliefs as being less provisional.

In the same way, most people are more willing to change ancillary beliefs than they are core beliefs. For example, it might take a lot more to get a person to believe that God exists than it would to get them to believe that peanuts exist. Show them a description and a picture of a peanut in a book, and suddenly they believe in peanuts. Show them a description and a picture of God in a book, and they probably won't be convinced. That's because we have different standards for altering our beliefs in different cases.

Depends. Catholics and Protestants, at least in Germany, aren't particularly different.

In public practice or in theology? I wouldn't be surprised if there were little difference in practice.

what makes the evidence any less hard than any other sort of evidence we have about anything? it is certainly more than mere circumstantial evidence.

You can prove that someone did commit a crime with hard evidence. You can prove that a city exists by going there. You can prove the existence of gravity. And so on. My problem with science-oriented people is that they seem to fail to realize that you can't prove that This Is How Things Were With 100% Certainty (tm) with what we have.

That's why I keep saying it. If people take all scientific theories as Truth, they are turning the whole thing into something which smells and feels the same as a religion. And how is "lowering" their selves to "our" level going to help their cause? :p

yeah, we really need to get people off this proof kick. the method of science doesn't allow for proof of theories, and we've never needed to prove something in order to know it or for it to be factually true.

But the thing is, we DON'T know that something is factually true unless it's plainly obvious like the gravity of Earth or friction and such things anyone can confirm without any knowledge about much of anything. I think that people go down the wrong path when they begin proclaiming theories, which may have several opposing theories with actual followings in the scientific community, as The Truth. The more complex the theories are, the bigger the chances of them being wrong, and the more theoretical they become.

If having faith relating to God, gods or other supernatural beings is bad, then how is similar faith relating to scientific theories which cannot be proven any better?

If having faith relating to God, gods or other supernatural beings is bad, then how is similar faith relating to scientific theories which cannot be proven any better?

In practice having faith in scientific theories tends to be a safer bet.
In theory however you are quite correct.

But this would seem to be a rather strange conception of the word 'belief'

I may well, for the sake of argument or for a thought experiment, accept a premise that I would not normally hold to be true. However, it would be very strange to say I 'believed' said premise.

yeah, the belief in question would be more like saying "for the purpose of this particular argument, i believe 'x is true' is true".

You can prove that someone did commit a crime with hard evidence. You can prove that a city exists by going there. You can prove the existence of gravity.

no, you can't. it may, after all, be a trick or a dream or a hallucination or something. proof is for math and pure deductive logic.

If people take all scientific theories as Truth, they are turning the whole thing into something which smells and feels the same as a religion.

except that science has what seems like a reasonable truth-generating method, unlike religion which just has a bullshit spinning method.

we should believe things to be true when they are justified by certain justificatory processes. science is one of them.

Its time for teh ownage!

I have black hair, using this forum only, can one prove or disprove that I have black hair? Also, if monkeys went "Moo" what sound would cows make?

Your logic is flawed and you are all delusional.

But this would seem to be a rather strange conception of the word 'belief'

I may well, for the sake of argument or for a thought experiment, accept a premise that I would not normally hold to be true. However, it would be very strange to say I 'believed' said premise.

Belief is inexorably linked to truth; what we believe we hold to be true. Now, our beliefs obviously aren't, by warrant of them being our beliefs, necessarily true, but I can't think of a situation in which I believed a proposition, yet didn't think it was true.

You do know that humans are very capable of holding blatantly contradictory beliefs, yes?

When a person accepts as true that A is equal to 8 to work an equation, they have generally already accepted as true that A is not equal to 8. They hold both beliefs simultaneously for a short period of time, knowing damn well that the former proposition isn't going to become a part of their more stable belief set, so why worry about the temporary contradiction?

yeah, the belief in question would be more like saying "for the purpose of this particular argument, i believe 'x is true' is true".
To be pedantic, I think it would more accurately be stated: "I'll assume, for the purposes for the argument that x is true." With the implicit statement "I don't necessarily believe x is true" tagged on.

As I said, belief in x necessitates holding x as true.

Anyhoo, I realise you pretty much accept the point. Pedantic epistemological rant over.

You do know that humans are very capable of holding blatantly contradictory beliefs, yes?
Of course, but it would be hard to do so, or at least intellectually dishonest, once our contradictory beliefs are examined together.

I'm not denying that humans are capable of holding contradictory beliefs, or denying that we can hold beliefs that aren't factually true. What I'm saying is that it would be strange to say we believed in x and at the same time didn't hold x to be true. How can I say that I believe Paris is the capital of France if I don't hold the statement 'Paris is the capital of France' as a truth?

Moreover, it would be very strange (once we examine our beliefs) to hold that x and ¬x are true at the same time, or that two contradictory beliefs -- x and y -- are both true. What person would, after presenting and examining their views, hold that either: 'Paris is the capital of France' and 'Paris is not the capital of France'; or hold that 'Paris is the capital of France' and 'Marseilles is the capital of France'?

With more complex sets of beliefs, more chances for contradictory beliefs crop up. But, I submit that, once those contradictions have been highlighted and examined, only a young child or someone incapable or unwilling to defer to logic would continue to maintain that they can hold contradictory beliefs to be true.

When a person accepts as true that A is equal to 8 to work an equation, they have generally already accepted as true that A is not equal to 8. They hold both beliefs simultaneously for a short period of time, knowing damn well that the former proposition isn't going to become a part of their more stable belief set, so why worry about the temporary contradiction?
That's not a (fatal) contradiction.

The beliefs "in this particular equation A = 8" and "in general A =/= 8" do not directly contradict one another

no, you can't. it may, after all, be a trick or a dream or a hallucination or something. proof is for math and pure deductive logic.

What stops the math and pure deductive logic (whatever that might be, as humans don't really possess it) from being as much hallucinatory or dreamed up as what I brought up? Nothing. One can make the grandest mathematical equations, and they can still be false. And that's the thing - maths without knowing other particulars of the equation can falsify entire theories which have been considered true.

we should believe things to be true when they are justified by certain justificatory processes. science is one of them.

It seems science gets the kind of leeway religion is not given, then. Some guy comes up with stuff that could possibly be right or wrong, since who knows how the hell those things really work beyond the theory, and we should believe it without questioning it.

So because it may be a transitory form of blind faith applied in religion (the theory may get refuted sometime in the future), it somehow makes it all better? :confused:

It seems science gets the kind of leeway religion is not given, then. Some guy comes up with stuff that could possibly be right or wrong, since who knows how the hell those things really work beyond the theory, and we should believe it without questioning it.

*raises eyebrow*
Science in fact demands that you question it. Test, test, test, reject. That is what one does with hypotheses. Until you find a stubborn one that does not wish to be disproven, despite being subjected to every test you can think of. Which is when you let others think up some more tests.

Questioning it is fundamental. But every survived test of course adds to the credibility of the idea. Or at least makes the idea useful as an approximation ;)

Questioning it is fundamental.

Eeeeexactly!

The problem are the people who simply take scientific theories (people outside the scientific community), no matter how new and so forth they are, believe them outright without any criticism and proclaim them as the Truth.

That's when you turn science from science into a religion, and scientists into unwilling/unwitting priests.

And I think this is a good point to quit posting into this thing for me, I think I've talked about this issue thoroughly enough. ;p This is a slight difference in opinion kinda thing now.

That's when you turn science from science into a religion, and scientists into unwilling/unwitting priests.

True that.
Then again, as I said, believing in something that has been shown over and over and over again to at least provide a reasonable description of reality could in practice be wiser than believing in something that has and can never be tested. Even though that untestable thing in theory could be far closer to the truth ;)

Flying pink hippos was just an example of how precious little we really know about the beginnings of life on this planet. They're all just theories with no other basis than educated guesses. Fossils are a beginning where you can go many ways - one of them is the one I described a Creationist could use ("it's a test by God for us!"), another is the one you describe. As long as theories cannot be ascertained... Their plausibility and truthfulness is questionable. Believing in them without being a scientist who has a vested interest in the theories is indeed faith. You believe them without hesitation, although there is a very real possibility that they could be wrong. How is Science-ism any better a religion than Christianity, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or whatever?

What good comes from setting science in the place of God?

And what I was saying was that you can't prove these theories right, and you can't make a Creationist think otherwise UNLESS s/he is shown evidence which leaves no doubt. Note that I do not personally find Creationism (God created the Earth in 7 days) to be more plausible than evolution, but I also think that it is entirely possible that the entire concept of evolution might be revamped some time in the future.

That is only because you know nothing about evolution and the material that exists to constitute its validity as a theory, in sharp contrast to creationism which has only holy books as sources but nothing out of the real world. Creationists have only funny words on paper and nothing else. Scientists on the other hand have abundance of evidence. Only a type of creationism that incorporates what research has brought to daylight has any justification of existence. Other creationists are just religious retards who spread their ideological dirt.

Does math exist if no one is aware of it? Does 1 + 1 = anything if no one is there to do the problem correctly?


1+1 may very well exist on some creepy ideological level, but for all intents and purposes, if no one believes it, it doesn't exist.

Same with, for example, a rock.
There is a rock on the ground in front of me. No one believes it is there.
It exists, but that doesn't matter because no one believes it exists anyway.

So, whether or not "Creationism" is how we got here..well, if we believe it its all well and good, and if we don't believe it, it still doesn't change how we got here.(however it is we got here)

1+1 may very well exist on some creepy ideological level, but for all intents and purposes, if no one believes it, it doesn't exist.

Same with, for example, a rock.
There is a rock on the ground in front of me. No one believes it is there.
It exists, but that doesn't matter because no one believes it exists anyway
I'd say the rock and the equation are very different things.

The rock exists mind-independently; if no-one is there to perceive it then it's still there. In answer to the pop-philosophy question "if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?", I'd say, yes it very much does; the tree causes vibrations and waves in the air, that create what we know as 'sound'. Moreover the tree very much exist independently of any observor. Of course, there are those who take the stance that the external world is mind-dependent, but it's not a very popular stance.

Now the equation, and numbers in general, I don't believe exist independent of people perceiving it. I haven't done a great deal of the philsophy of mathematics, but I know there's a great deal; of contention over this point. I know at least one of my philosophy lecturers holds that numbers 'exist' in a similar way to the Platonic forms.

I'd say the rock and the equation are very different things.

Quite so.
The rock exists mind-independently; if no-one is there to perceive it then it's still there. In answer to the pop-philosophy question "if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?", I'd say, yes it very much does; the tree causes vibrations and waves in the air, that create what we know as 'sound'. Moreover the tree very much exist independently of any observor. Of course, there are those who take the stance that the external world is mind-dependent, but it's not a very popular stance.
It may exist, but if we do not know it exists, we can never be sure.
It is true that if we have knowledge of there already being a rock in a room and we all leave the room, it most certainly exists even though we can no longer percieve it.
Those who believe the external world is mind-dependent must think of themselves as a sort of minor diety. :p
*cuts down tree*

Now the equation, and numbers in general, I don't believe exist independent of people perceiving it. I haven't done a great deal of the philsophy of mathematics, but I know there's a great deal; of contention over this point. I know at least one of my philosophy lecturers holds that numbers 'exist' in a similar way to the Platonic forms.
True. We invented numbers to represent concepts that we also created, so without us they wouldn't exist whatsoever.
I disagree with those numbers existing independent of the tangible world..simply because I do not like mathematics.:p

Ah, that's a bit different. In this school system, all the kids go to the same schools (well, except one minority group that INSISTS having its own schools). All other classes are the same except the one about one's religion, where there's diversity depending on the school. Well, then there's foreign languages one can choose from... Most kids choose English (kind of an obvious choice in the modern world), but there are other languages you can choose from, such as German, French or Russian. But anyway, I'm getting sidetracked here. The way it's done everyone gets taught the same regular stuff, while everyone also gets their own religion taught as well. And everyone is seemingly happy.

Catholics are indeed a minority in Ontario. What you are describing is- essentially- is Ontario's school system: everyone goes to the same school except Catholics, who get public money to have their own school system. There is a difference in that Ontario's public school system doesn't teach different religions, but that's probably more because there's no way a public school effectively can- there are hundreds (if not thousands) of different religions and religious interpretations in the world (even in the U.S. and Canada) and accommodating them all is like dealing with a Gordian knot. Besides, if Catholics (or any other minority) gets "their own school", what's to stop the others from asking for schools of their own (as is the case here in Ontario)? Either you fund them all or you fund none of them- there can't be a middle ground.

No, that's not what would happen. If a Creationist was proven without a shadow of a doubt that Lagos is not the capital of Nigeria, he would have to accept it. Same goes with the Creation itself. If someone built a time machine, went back in time and found out what really happened, the Creationist would have to believe and accept whatever it was that was found as truth.

Even the scientific theories are just unprovable theories until someone actually goes and finds out what happened. For what we know, there could've been flying pink hippos flying in the sky who dropped magical Easter eggs on the planet, and somewhere along the line we came along.

That's not my experiences with Creationists. They continue to believe their theory regardless of how much evidence contradicts their claim. Hence there should be no difference in their views if they just as fervently believed Lagos is the capital of Nigeria.

As far as the flying pink hippos are concerned- you are technically right that yes, Evolution is "unproven" considering it hasn't been "seen". However, considering all the evidence supporting it- the fossil record, microevolution, the observable evolutions of fruit flies and nylon-eating bacteria, etc.- it would be unreasonable to think it didn't happen in the past. This isn't to say that the Theory of Evolution is infalliable and can't be replaced- far from it, actually- but considering that science operates on the principle of "the best answer possible", "Evolution" *is* the best answer possible for our own origins until another, more reasonable answer comes along (meaning, only if you've got proof of those pink hippos can we support it as an origins theory).

their use of belief is the same. their standards of justification for beliefs vary - particularly in a small subset of their total beliefs. in the lagos example, i think all but the craziest creationists would be willing to modify their belief when shown that it is wrong. it is only when the wrongness of their beliefs implies the wrongness of other beliefs that they are particularly committed to that they start going utterly retarded about the whole thing.

What difference is there with my example and the fact that Creationists refuse to accept that the Earth isn't "just" 6,000 years old? I'm aware that in reality only the foolish would go on believing that Lagos is the capital of Nigeria (because very few would realistically argue against it today)- but considering that (just about) the same amount of evidence suggests that the Earth isn't 6,000 years old as there is suggesting that Lagos is not the capital of Nigeria, there's no reason to believe Creationists wouldn't hold that Lagos is the capital of Nigeria if they held that view as fervently as they hold the view that the Earth is just 6,000 years old.

otherwise we'd have to believe that conversations like the following would happen all the time;

person a: "what time is it?"
person b: "i believe its 1:30"
a: "no, i just checked the clock, and it's actually 3"
b: "no it isn't"
a: "no seriously, look at your watch"
b: "clearly it has been tampered with"
etc.

I *have* had a conversation just like that with a Creationist, who kept on trying to tell me that the only reason why I thought that radiometric dating proved the Earth is billions of years old is because I "assumed" it did and that the radiometric daters "wanted the results to come out reading that it is." No matter how many times I told him that, no, radiometric daters didn't arrive at those dates simply because "they wanted them to", the conversation kept coming back to some inherently unprovable "conspiracy theory" to suppress "the truth" regarding Creationism. There really was no difference in that conversation than the one you provided regarding different views on what time it is.

No, they really don't use the word differently. What they do is treat their beliefs differently in the case you described. When a scientist has a belief, he or she may often treat their belief as being more provisional. A creationist might treat their beliefs as being less provisional.

In the same way, most people are more willing to change ancillary beliefs than they are core beliefs. For example, it might take a lot more to get a person to believe that God exists than it would to get them to believe that peanuts exist. Show them a description and a picture of a peanut in a book, and suddenly they believe in peanuts. Show them a description and a picture of God in a book, and they probably won't be convinced. That's because we have different standards for altering our beliefs in different cases.

Sounds like they use the word differently. A scientist uses the word in the context of "that's the way it is until I'm shown otherwise". Creationists use the word in the context of "that's the way it is no matter what anyone else says".

It's here where I go back to my original point- that Creationists use, as an argument, that the only way Evolution can be true is if it's "believed", much the same way that critics of Creationism hold that Creationism can only be true if it's "believed". However, while it may be true that scientists do, in fact, "believe" their theories true to conduct their work, "scientific belief" is open to change, whereas "Creationist belief" isn't. Thus, a Creationist cannot argue that Evolution "needs to be believed in order for it to be true", because they're trying to suggest that scientists "believe" in the same manner as they do- in an unyielding form that won't allow contradictory evidence to change their beliefs- when scientists just don't do that.

The topic is whether creationism should be taught in schools. So do not get off the topic as some people are trying to do. It should be taught in schools so that children will be able to choose what they want to believe you should not try to conform a child’s mind to your our one belief. If a child is given a taught one position then that is what they will believe, so in all fairness to the child it should be taught so that they can choose what they want to believe, which will educate them. And if they are given two choices it will open new path ways to another world in their brain.

Well, in order to determine if Creationism is to be taught alongside Evolution, one needs to determine if there is any merit behind teaching Creationism as a whole- hence the discussion of Creationism's merits, especially as a "science" (of which Evolution is a firm part of).

By the way, you have yet to answer this post:

Okay- so let me ask you (and other Creationists) this: if Creationism was "the mainstream science" and there was a big, vocal faction pressing for the Theory of Evolution to be given "equal time", would you do it?

Creationism in schools… *shivers*

Of course, but it would be hard to do so, or at least intellectually dishonest, once our contradictory beliefs are examined together.

I'm not denying that humans are capable of holding contradictory beliefs, or denying that we can hold beliefs that aren't factually true. What I'm saying is that it would be strange to say we believed in x and at the same time didn't hold x to be true. How can I say that I believe Paris is the capital of France if I don't hold the statement 'Paris is the capital of France' as a truth?

Moreover, it would be very strange (once we examine our beliefs) to hold that x and ¬x are true at the same time, or that two contradictory beliefs -- x and y -- are both true. What person would, after presenting and examining their views, hold that either: 'Paris is the capital of France' and 'Paris is not the capital of France'; or hold that 'Paris is the capital of France' and 'Marseilles is the capital of France'?

With more complex sets of beliefs, more chances for contradictory beliefs crop up. But, I submit that, once those contradictions have been highlighted and examined, only a young child or someone incapable or unwilling to defer to logic would continue to maintain that they can hold contradictory beliefs to be true.

That's not a (fatal) contradiction.

The beliefs "in this particular equation A = 8" and "in general A =/= 8" do not directly contradict one another

Yeah, they do.

But you're illustrating nicely how most people manage to hold contradictory beliefs. Compartmentalization and rationalization.

That's how suspension of disbelief works, it's how a lot of people can ignore their own hypocrisy, and it's how most of us function to a surprisingly large degree. It's a wonderfully normal thing, but most people seem to miss it a lot, probably because it's such a common and automatic process.

The topic is whether creationism should be taught in schools. So do not get off the topic as some people are trying to do. It should be taught in schools so that children will be able to choose what they want to believe you should not try to conform a child’s mind to your our one belief. If a child is given a taught one position then that is what they will believe, so in all fairness to the child it should be taught so that they can choose what they want to believe, which will educate them. And if they are given two choices it will open new path ways to another world in their brain.

I believe there was rather a good comic posted already that addressed precisely this argument.

Since, however, I doubt you've bothered to read your own thread, let me restate its general point: School is about teaching facts, not nonsensical and discredited ideas. If we are to teach science AND non-science in science class, what's to stop us presenting "alternatives" in every other class? From now on, school could sound like this:

Psychology: "Now, some people believe that one's personality is determined by a mixture of genetics and experience, and some people believe it is determined by how bumpy your skull is. You decide!"

English literature: "Now, some people believe that Hamlet is a play about a Danish prince struggling with his father's murder, and some people believe it's about a small side of pork. You decide!"

Geography: "Some people believe that France is northeast of Spain, while some others think it is located to the southwest. You decide!"

World history: "Some people are pretty convinced that the Holocaust occurred, but some neo-Nazis maintain that it didn't, and anyway that if it had it'd be perfectly justified since all Jews should die. You decide!"

Math: "Some people think that 12 squared is 144, while some people think that it's 2. Or it might also be 17. or 2,571. Or purple. We can't tell you, since that wouldn't 'open new pathways' for you. In fact, in future, we've decided to stop telling you anything at all. You can just make up your own reality - 'another world in your brain,' as it were - and ignore the reality we actually live in, thus making you eminently unqualified to vote, hold office, have any sort of adult job, or raise children of your own!"

Sounds like they use the word differently. A scientist uses the word in the context of "that's the way it is until I'm shown otherwise". Creationists use the word in the context of "that's the way it is no matter what anyone else says".

It's here where I go back to my original point- that Creationists use, as an argument, that the only way Evolution can be true is if it's "believed", much the same way that critics of Creationism hold that Creationism can only be true if it's "believed". However, while it may be true that scientists do, in fact, "believe" their theories true to conduct their work, "scientific belief" is open to change, whereas "Creationist belief" isn't. Thus, a Creationist cannot argue that Evolution "needs to be believed in order for it to be true", because they're trying to suggest that scientists "believe" in the same manner as they do- in an unyielding form that won't allow contradictory evidence to change their beliefs- when scientists just don't do that.

Why do you keep insisting that the way Creationists treat their beliefs is the default position? That fascinates me.

Snip.

Ouch.

Yeah, so much for this thread. Poli finished the guy and cast him aside.

Evolution and many forms of creationism should be all taught in schools, as all equally believable theory. I don't see what is so difficult about that. If you don't think one of them is correct, there is another person who doesn't think what you believe is correct. Students should be given the chance to ponder these huge schools of thought.

Evolution and many forms of creationism should be all taught in schools, as all equally believable theory. I don't see what is so difficult about that. If you don't think one of them is correct, there is another person who doesn't think what you believe is correct. Students should be given the chance to ponder these huge schools of thought.

Should it be taught in science classes though?

Evolution and many forms of creationism should be all taught in schools, as all equally believable theory.
You probably don't know what the word theory means if you say that. A theory is not a guess, but a falsifiable scientific explanation that takes into account a large body of evidence that fails to contradict said theory's predictions.

I don't see what is so difficult about that.
That's because you don't understand how science works.

If you don't think one of them is correct, there is another person who doesn't think what you believe is correct.


Ah, but my view has mountains of evidence to support it, while the creationist view has mountains of evidence that contradicts it.


Students should be given the chance to ponder these huge schools of thought.

:rolleyes: Right, and they should learn Alchemy in addition to chemistry, too.

Evolution and many forms of creationism should be all taught in schools, as all equally believable theory. I don't see what is so difficult about that. If you don't think one of them is correct, there is another person who doesn't think what you believe is correct. Students should be given the chance to ponder these huge schools of thought.

Sheesh, didn't I just answer this exact same argument no more than three or four posts ago? *sigh*

As long as we're on the talk of science, I feel it should be necessary to point out the importance of exposing our children to as many different viewpoints as possible. For example, teach Intelligent Design beside evolution. Teach Intelligent Falling (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512) beside gravity.

After all, gravity and evolution are only theories

LMFAO! Intelligent Falling.

That's laughable. :p

This is a great idea. There is as much scientific evidence for creation as evolution. It is another view point.

This is a great idea. There is as much scientific evidence for creation as evolution. It is another view point.

Please show us this evidence. Or at least one example thereof.

Please show us this evidence. Or at least one example thereof.

One has to wonder how many of these posters are 1-post puppets of the same troll.

So are we gonna teach magic too in science classes?

This is a great idea. There is as much scientific evidence for creation as evolution. It is another view point.Creationism is no point of view. It's a point of ideology. There is no reviewing of evidence involved in creationism.

Sheesh, didn't I just answer this exact same argument no more than three or four posts ago? *sigh*

It's like playing Whack-a-mole (http://www.molepro.com/products/game.htm).

:rolleyes: Right, and they should learn Alchemy in addition to chemistry, too.
*turns paperclip into solid gold*
Don't be jealous.

Can you show us some scientific evidence for creation?

The Earth was created.
That much is evident.

This is a great idea. There is as much scientific evidence for creation as evolution. It is another view point.

Can you show us some scientific evidence for creation?

The earth exists. That much is evident. There is no evidence that it was created.

Whoa now.. I thought the whole theory was that the Earth was formed a good number of years ago after the Big Bang, what with all the condensing gasses cooling into molten liquids and slowly swirling and cooling into a solid mass that is the planet Earth.

I never suggested how it was created.;)

1+1 may very well exist on some creepy ideological level, but for all intents and purposes, if no one believes it, it doesn't exist.

Same with, for example, a rock.
There is a rock on the ground in front of me. No one believes it is there.
It exists, but that doesn't matter because no one believes it exists anyway.

However, this is an excellent example of why we shouldn't teach creationism as science.

You can go ahead and disbelieve in the rock, but if someone else hits you on the head with it, not only could you not have prevented your injury, you can't even respond to it. You can take it as nothing more than God's wrath, because of course no human power can smite you with invisible force.

The Earth was created.
That much is evident.

The earth exists. That much is evident. There is no evidence that it was created.

However, this is an excellent example of why we shouldn't teach creationism as science.

You can go ahead and disbelieve in the rock, but if someone else hits you on the head with it, not only could you not have prevented your injury, you can't even respond to it. You can take it as nothing more than God's wrath, because of course no human power can smite you with invisible force.

Hehe.
The idea is that no one believes the rock exists. Which makes it unlikely that anyone would pick it up and use it to hit someone else, even if they saw it.

Hehe.
The idea is that no one believes the rock exists. Which makes it unlikely that anyone would pick it up and use it to hit someone else, even if they saw it.

Except there is the everpresent possibility someone will stumble over the rock. It is still there, whether it is believed or not.

Except there is the everpresent possibility someone will stumble over the rock. It is still there, whether it is believed or not.

But I fear that even if one (un)fortunate soul did stumble upon the rock, even glance at its granite wonder, perhaps peer at the quartz embedded in the side....the individual would merely dismiss it as blasphemy. :(

Why do you keep insisting that the way Creationists treat their beliefs is the default position? That fascinates me.

Simply put, we're in a thread about Creationism. That, and I also think the "belief" argument originally started from this position in the first place.

Quotes from the bible stating that the earth is in a stationary, unmoving, fixed position:

1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

Psalms 93:1
The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.

Psalms 96:10
Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved"

Then again there is this:

Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

The miracle performed is that the sun did not move, except, relative to the earth, the sun never moves at all. Clearly indicating the belief that it is the sun that is moving and the earth stationary, the only way such a miracle would be a miracle, and not a simple truism of "the sun does not move"

another:

Psalms 19:6
Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them




Pascal's wager is a flawed and weak argument, and vague allusions to it get you nowhere. "find out whenever we die" presumes that after death there will be some conciousness to find out things.

We'll find out nothing after death, as, by definition, after death leaves no ability to learn anything. You're dead.

Wuv you :fluffle:
I'll be ... erm, abroad for a bit, so enjoy the argument!

Reading that, somehow South Park comes to mind...

One of LG's favourite links?

It's like playing Whack-a-mole (http://www.molepro.com/products/game.htm).

Man, now I want to create a Whack-A-Creationist computer game, and I totally don't have time. I can just picture the little heads popping up and yelling, "If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?!" "It's just a theory!" "Where's the missing link?!" over and over... :p

This is a great idea. There is as much scientific evidence for creation as evolution. It is another view point.

Then why after teaching creationism for hundreds of years, has evolution been accepted as scientific and creationism discarded?

One of LG's favourite links?

Actually, with that post I was going more along the lines of "Mr. Hanky"...unless that's what LG also referred to...

Learning religion is what churches are for, so it should stay out of the science room.

Learning about religions, however, is exactly what social or religious studies is for.

Learning religion is what churches are for, so it should stay out of the science room.Churches indoctrinate. That's not what learning is supposed to be.

Learning about religions, however, is exactly what social or religious studies is for.But that's not what Christians creationists pursue. They want to have their ideological dirt to be taught as (the only) reality.

Churches indoctrinate. That's not what learning is supposed to be.Depends on the church.

Yeah, they do.
I don’t see how they do if we correctly separate the contexts of where ‘A’ is being used.

Just like how when talking about myself ‘I = me’, yet when reading a monologue from a play ‘I = the character’. The two definitions of ‘I’ aren’t contradictory because they're used in different contexts.

A lot of language, I believe, works like this.

But you’re illustrating nicely how most people manage to hold contradictory beliefs. Compartmentalization and rationalization.

That’s how suspension of disbelief works, it’s how a lot of people can ignore their own hypocrisy, and it’s how most of us function to a surprisingly large degree. It’s a wonderfully normal thing, but most people seem to miss it a lot, probably because it’s such a common and automatic process.
I suppose that’s a fair statement, but I still hold it would be an unusual person who — once their contradictory views are highlighted, examined and understood to be contradictory — would continue to hold blatantly contradictory beliefs.

At least on the relatively simple level of ‘Paris is the capital of France’ and ‘Paris is not the capital of France’.

Omissis...
Close the school doors to people like Dr. Melvin A. Cook who won the E. G. Murphee Award in Industrial and Engineering Chemistry from the American Chemical Society and Dmitri Kouznetsov, M.D, Ph.D., D.Sc., won the Komsomol Lenin Prize in 1983,
...Omissis

Yes, we should close the school doors to people like Dmitri Kouznetsov.
And here's why.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kouznetsov.html
http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Kouznetsov_Is_No_Scientist.html
http://meneame.net/story/fraudes-cientificos-dmitri-kouznetsov

I personally believe that Erich Anton Paul von Däniken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Däniken) has more credibility than Kouznetsov.

Teach creationism, evolution and any other popular beliefs. However teach them in RE (Religious Education) classes as all are down to what you believe.

Teaching and understanding different beliefs encourages tolerance and appreciation of different people and as people of different cultures mix more in the modern world this has to be a good thing. Admittedly when I got to choose my options for GCSEs I dropped RE but that was more to do with me not being very good at it. :D

Teach creationism, evolution and any other popular beliefs. However teach them in RE (Religious Education) classes as all are down to what you believe.

Teaching and understanding different beliefs encourages tolerance and appreciation of different people and as people of different cultures mix more in the modern world this has to be a good thing. Admittedly when I got to choose my options for GCSEs I dropped RE but that was more to do with me not being very good at it. :DWhy would the Theory of Evolution fit into Religious Education?

It's an alternative to Creationism, therefore as ideas which each give different answers to similar questions the only fair way to compare them is to look at them in a similar manner, looking at the motives for such beliefs and at similarites and differences. Rather than teaching one in one class saying "some people think this" and another in another class saying "this is what happened."

Public education shouldn't just about telling students things. It should encourage students to think for themselves and come up with their own answers.

It's an alternative to Creationism, therefore as ideas which each give different answers to similar questions the only fair way to compare them is to look at them in a similar manner, looking at the motives for such beliefs and at similarites and differences. Rather than teaching one in one class saying "some people think this" and another in another class saying "this is what happened."

Public education shouldn't just about telling students things. It should encourage students to think for themselves and come up with their own answers.Your plan is a formula for creating a generation of lazy people.

Don't see where you get that idea, it encourages people to look at their own beliefs, rather than either extreme which tells them what to believe, otherwise they fail the class. Taking what you're told and accepting that as definite fact is surely being lazy?

People complained that creationism was taught as fact, in the same way though teaching evolution as fact is no better, just the opposite. Very much a case of double standards and people just wanting what they believed to be acknowledged. And as always these p

Solution is to teach neither as definite fact but explain the the theory behind both ideas and other ideas that are widely believed. Let everyone come up with their own answers to such questions.

Don't see where you get that idea,...Let me show you:
Let everyone come up with their own answers to such questions.

It's not being lazy, it just means that instead of giving out one idea as fact it would be several ideas explained and analysed. In some ways it takes more thinking to understand different ideas and make your own mind up.

It's not being lazy, it just means that instead of giving out one idea as fact it would be several ideas explained and analysed. In some ways it takes more thinking to understand different ideas and make your own mind up.If you can opt out of giving a correct answer by writing "God did it" on an exam, you're being lazy. It's not so much a difference in opinions as it is a difference in methodology: Evolution is based on observations and Creationism is based on the Bible.

I'm not saying someone should just be able to write "God did it", the equivalent for evolution would be "we came from blobs of jelly".

What I'm saying is if someone can argue their own point accurately and explain such a belief then surely that is better than just quoting something given to them in class. If that's the case then it doesn't matter what you tell them, just drive it into their brain untill they accept it.

Besides, a better exam question would be to describe and discuss a specific theory which is given on the exam paper, however as they don't know which belief they will have to explain and discuss they would have to understand each belief on the syllabus, in the same way you don't tend to know exactly what will be on an exam paperbefore you take said exam.

You can, but I am afraid that the committee might then require us to pull your scholarship.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!! And send you to hell, also. Up to you.

:D

OK

Do I exist if everyone ignores me?


Possibly

Don't see where you get that idea, it encourages people to look at their own beliefs, rather than either extreme which tells them what to believe, otherwise they fail the class. Taking what you're told and accepting that as definite fact is surely being lazy?

People complained that creationism was taught as fact, in the same way though teaching evolution as fact is no better, just the opposite. Very much a case of double standards and people just wanting what they believed to be acknowledged. And as always these p

Solution is to teach neither as definite fact but explain the the theory behind both ideas and other ideas that are widely believed. Let everyone come up with their own answers to such questions.

It's a stupid idea because evolution is not a religion, and therefore does not belong in a religious studies class. The Theory of Evolution is science, and therefore belongs in a science class. It has mountains of evidence supporting it, and has, in every case when it was tested, either passed the test or been adjusted to meet the new data.

Creationism, on the other hand, has as its only evidence, "read the Bible." When new evidence contradicts it, they still say "but that's not what the Bible says, therefore, you must be wrong." Creationism is not science at all-- it's religion. So if it's taught, it should be in a comparative religion class.

The topic is whether creationism should be taught in schools. So do not get off the topic as some people are trying to do. It should be taught in schools so that children will be able to choose what they want to believe you should not try to conform a child’s mind to your our one belief. If a child is given a taught one position then that is what they will believe, so in all fairness to the child it should be taught so that they can choose what they want to believe, which will educate them. And if they are given two choices it will open new path ways to another world in their brain.

So just to your belief?

I'm not saying someone should just be able to write "God did it", the equivalent for evolution would be "we came from blobs of jelly".

What I'm saying is if someone can argue their own point accurately and explain such a belief then surely that is better than just quoting something given to them in class. If that's the case then it doesn't matter what you tell them, just drive it into their brain untill they accept it.

Besides, a better exam question would be to describe and discuss a specific theory which is given on the exam paper, however as they don't know which belief they will have to explain and discuss they would have to understand each belief on the syllabus, in the same way you don't tend to know exactly what will be on an exam paperbefore you take said exam.

The problem here lies in the fact that creationism cannot be argued accurately in a science class. It is not science.

No matter how well versed students might become in the creationist hypothesis, it would be a disservice to them if we taught it in a science class and lead them to believe that it is science.

No matter how well versed students might become in the creationist hypothesis, it would be a disservice to them if we taught it in a science class and lead them to believe that it is science.

Since when was compulsory education for the benefit of the students? :p

Since when was compulsory education for the benefit of the students? :p
Unfortunately, that’s all too true.

All the main parties here in the UK have stated that the point of education is to serve the economy, to train children how to contribute and consume in the marketplace.

Unfortunately, that’s all too true.

All the main parties here in the UK have stated that the point of education is to serve the economy, to train children how to contribute and consume in the marketplace.Well, then such idiocy as creationism in science classes can be prevented. Good thing.

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.

No, school is about learning about science, math, literature, the arts, that kind of thing. Not something some megalomaniacal guy came up with 2000 years ago.

No, school is about learning about science, math, literature, the arts, that kind of thing. Not something some megalomaniacal guy came up with 2000 years ago.

School is about whatever the school happens to be teaching.
I think you are describing what school should be about.

School is about whatever the school happens to be teaching.
I think you are describing what school should be about.

:p

It's an alternative to Creationism...

Nope.

The Theory of Evolution is what is left when you study the data. The fact that it contradicts the Genesis account is an unfortunate side-effect. It is no more an 'alternative to Creationism' than it is an 'alternative to jam'.

The fact that it contradicts the Genesis account is an unfortunate side-effect. It is no more an 'alternative to Creationism' than it is an 'alternative to jam'.

I put the Theory of Evolution on my toast occasionally...but usually as an alternative to butter, not jam. So I guess you have a valid point there.

I put the Theory of Evolution on my toast occasionally...but usually as an alternative to butter, not jam. So I guess you have a valid point there.

ROFLMAO

creationism is a definate part of science and a fact. just because a religion backs it up doesn't mean we shouldn't teach it. it just makes it more valid. if you really look at the world it is obvious that it was crated by an intelligent creator.

How is it a part of science? There is zero verifiable proof.



crated?

creationism is a definate part of science and a fact. just because a religion backs it up doesn't mean we shouldn't teach it. it just makes it more valid. if you really look at the world it is obvious that it was crated by an intelligent creator.

You forgot to pay at the troll-booth.

creationism is a definate part of science and a fact. just because a religion backs it up doesn't mean we shouldn't teach it. it just makes it more valid. if you really look at the world it is obvious that it was crated by an intelligent creator.

the only reason you people hate it and dont think it is science is because the only point and purpose of evolution is to try to discredit creation and the truth. our schools have bought into this lie and have brainwashed all the kids making them think that evolution is a fact. if you really study the facts with no bias then you come to the conclusion that creationism is a fact.
and by the way that creator has some rules he has set in place and you might want to find out what they are cuz it wont be fun for ppl who break them

Do you actually know anything about the ToE?

And what "facts" are there that prove creationism?

the only reason you people hate it and dont think it is science is because the only point and purpose of evolution is to try to discredit creation and the truth. our schools have bought into this lie and have brainwashed all the kids making them think that evolution is a fact. if you really study the facts with no bias then you come to the conclusion that creationism is a fact.
and by the way that creator has some rules he has set in place and you might want to find out what they are cuz it wont be fun for ppl who break them

Even though I have a strong and robust suspicion you are a troll and a puppet, I invite you to lay out some of the 'facts' of creationism with some sources plzkthxbai.

the only reason you people hate it and dont think it is science is because the only point and purpose of evolution is to try to discredit creation and the truth. our schools have bought into this lie and have brainwashed all the kids making them think that evolution is a fact. if you really study the facts with no bias then you come to the conclusion that creationism is a fact.
and by the way that creator has some rules he has set in place and you might want to find out what they are cuz it wont be fun for ppl who break them

i am sorry i have never heart of ToE you will have to tell me about it.
no im not a troll or a pupet. i am a very open minded person who looks at all sides of all subjects and weighs all facts carefully.
i regret that insult.
ok first off you give me ur strongest evidence of evolution and then i will tell you how it isn't true. then ill give you the creation answer how that thing happened.
one big thing is that all those animals taht we find fosilized in the ground had to have died and been burried quickly otherwise they would have rotted. evolution says that they sat there exposed to the air and everything for years waiting for another layer of dirt to cover them. they would have rotted. fossils are an obvious proof of a huge flood as described in teh bible.

ToE=Theory of Evolution

Also where is your proof of creationism?

i am sorry i have never heart of ToE you will have to tell me about it.
no im not a troll or a pupet. i am a very open minded person who looks at all sides of all subjects and weighs all facts carefully.
i regret that insult.
ok first off you give me ur strongest evidence of evolution and then i will tell you how it isn't true. then ill give you the creation answer how that thing happened.
one big thing is that all those animals taht we find fosilized in the ground had to have died and been burried quickly otherwise they would have rotted. evolution says that they sat there exposed to the air and everything for years waiting for another layer of dirt to cover them. they would have rotted. fossils are an obvious proof of a huge flood as described in teh bible.

oh i am sorry i didn't realize that ToE stood for Theory of Evolution. i dont do these blog things much so i dont know many abreviations. yes i know all about it. i have studied it for years and i have gone through the public school system and have heard everything you have about it. and i am even more convinced that it is false.

Obviously not

i am sorry i have never heart of ToE you will have to tell me about it.
no im not a troll or a pupet. i am a very open minded person who looks at all sides of all subjects and weighs all facts carefully.
i regret that insult.
ok first off you give me ur strongest evidence of evolution and then i will tell you how it isn't true. then ill give you the creation answer how that thing happened.
one big thing is that all those animals taht we find fosilized in the ground had to have died and been burried quickly otherwise they would have rotted. evolution says that they sat there exposed to the air and everything for years waiting for another layer of dirt to cover them. they would have rotted. fossils are an obvious proof of a huge flood as described in teh bible.
:eek:
It's....it's......so clear now.
Everything.
Everything makes sense!

Anyway... If you do not believe evolution, why believe the statement about the dinosaurs lying on the ground exposed to air for years waiting to be buried? Ever hear of flash floods? Tar pits?

oh i am sorry i didn't realize that ToE stood for Theory of Evolution. i dont do these blog things much so i dont know many abreviations. yes i know all about it. i have studied it for years and i have gone through the public school system and have heard everything you have about it. and i am even more convinced that it is false.

did u not read the whole thing about the fossils? it couldn't have happened as evolution says it did. the animals would have rotted.

They obviously didn't rot. Also, if it was the "Great Flood" where are the other animal fossils from animals living that long ago that were not taken on the Ark? Why were no dinosaurs taken onto the Ark?

did u not read the whole thing about the fossils? it couldn't have happened as evolution says it did. the animals would have rotted.

So the only animals in the world are the ones on the Ark? Do you have any idea at all how big the boat would have to be to hold two of every creature?

And please explain to me exactly what the Theory of Evoltuion says about the formation of fossils.

did u not read the whole thing about the fossils? it couldn't have happened as evolution says it did. the animals would have rotted.

LOL

They did. That's how the fossils got there.

TIMEWARP

did u not read the whole thing about the fossils? it couldn't have happened as evolution says it did. the animals would have rotted.

did u not read the whole thing about the fossils? it couldn't have happened as evolution says it did. the animals would have rotted.

:rolleyes: Right, because there's no such things as tar pits, smaller (local) floods, or any other method of quick burial. The only possible explanation is a global flood that just so happened to sort all the fossils into the order that scientific theory says that they should be in, with the older species lower in the ground, and the newer ones higher up.

oh i am sorry i didn't realize that ToE stood for Theory of Evolution. i dont do these blog things much so i dont know many abreviations. yes i know all about it. i have studied it for years and i have gone through the public school system and have heard everything you have about it. and i am even more convinced that it is false.

What a shining example of the public school system you are lol

What a shining example of the public school system you are lol

Yep. Taking high school biology fully qualifies you to understand the Theory of Evolution, just like taking high school physics fully qualifies you to build an atomic bomb. ;)

Yep. Taking high school biology fully qualifies you to understand the Theory of Evolution, just like taking high school physics fully qualifies you to build an atomic bomb. ;)

Which is why I'm building one in my backyard :D

the only reason you people hate it and dont think it is science is because the only point and purpose of evolution is to try to discredit creation and the truth. our schools have bought into this lie and have brainwashed all the kids making them think that evolution is a fact. if you really study the facts with no bias then you come to the conclusion that creationism is a fact.
and by the way that creator has some rules he has set in place and you might want to find out what they are cuz it wont be fun for ppl who break them

I don't agree with your opinion in the slightest, but I am really interested in how you came to that conclusion. So far you have claimed that there is proof of creationism, but other than saying "look around and it's obvious" (which - no offence - doesn't make the slightest bit of sense, and I'll get to why in a moment).

I also don't understand why you think that evolution is designed to brainwash children into disbelieving creationism. I'm sure you have your reasons, but I can't think of any myself. What purpose would it serve? Why would Charles Darwin come up with the theory in a time when he would have been - and was - ridiculed for even suggesting it, if he knew it wasn't true?

I see no reason as to why evolution and creationism have to oppose each other. I was a Christian for years and the issue never had any bearing on me changing my beliefs. If you believe that God (or another creator) made everything, what prevents those things that he / she / it has made from changing over time? Or how do you know that he / she / it didn't "program" the things that he / she / it made to change over time? It seems similar to suggesting that humans don't have any say in the creation of cars, only the creator does. If you believe in a creator you could say he / she / it programmed humans to create cars, and that doesn't seem to go against either belief.

I can honestly say that I have studied the facts with no bias and have come out believing that evolution is fact. It sounds like many people have told you "evolution is fact, there is too much evidence for it for it not to be" without explaining any of that evidence to you properly, so I will attempt to do so now.

It is obvious enough that children have characteristics of their biological parents, and other previous generations in some cases. If you try to deny this then there's not much point in you entering the debate, as it is much more obvious than you seem to think the existence of a sentient creator of everything is. So it is clear enough that children inherit these characteristics from their parents.

It is also obvious that certain characteristics would be more advantageous than others in a 'natural' environment, for example, stronger leg muscles would allow the owner of these leg muscles (let's call it G1) to run faster, which would increase their chances of escaping a predator should they ever be attacked, and thus increases their chances of surviving in such situations. If they survive longer they have more time in which to stand a chance of breeding, which would provide the opportunity for the strong-leg-muscle characteristic (or gene, but if you don't believe in evolution you might not believe in them either, for all I know) to be passed on to the offspring (G2), which would then also potentially have strong leg muscles, and thus a higher chance of escaping from predators, and thus a higher chance of survival than others of its species without strong leg muscles, and a longer life in which it has the opportunity to pass the characteristic on to its own offspring (G3).

Now, as two individuals are required to produce offspring, obviously characteristics from both will be passed on to it. Both individuals will likely have some advantageous characteristics seeing as they have survived long enough to breed, so it is possible that specific advantageous characteristics from both will be passed on. So G2 may inherit strong leg muscles from its father and good eye-sight from its mother, and it will later have the opportunity to pass both of these on to G3, assuming it survives long enough to breed, the chances of which may be increased by its strong leg muscles and good eyesight. As it competes for resources with other members of its own species, it may have an advantage over individuals that can't run as fast or see as well, so they are more likely to die, and as a result, not pass their characteristics on to the next generation.

Sometimes there may be certain characteristics that may only be advantageous in a certain environment - good eyesight for example is only useful in areas with enough light for it to work, and dark skin or fur will only help hide individuals from predators in dark environments. Because of this populations living in different areas will gradually accumulate a large amount of characteristics that are only advantageous in those environments, and so are less likely to leave those environments and mix with populations from others, and so are unlikely to breed with populations adapted to other environments. Because the prevalence of different characteristics in these populations is gradually changing over time, eventually they will be so different to each other that their genes are incompatible, and even if they could attempt to breed with each other no offspring could be produced.

A major point of the theory of evolution is that genes randomly mutate, and so can cause slightly different characteristics in offspring than they would had they not mutated. It is generally accepted that this is random, and this is what I believe, but if you really do believe in a creator I see nothing that could prevent you from believing that he / she / it decides which genes mutate and when, and so decides how an individual turns out. There's no evidence saying that a creator does this, but as far as I know there's no evidence against it either.

Like I said, I can't see how evolution disproves the existence of a creator. It doesn't need one in order for it to work, but the existence of one wouldn't prevent it from working either. To me that seems to be the only actual evidence against a creator's existence - the fact that there is no evidence for it in the first place. The only reason why eco-systems seem to work so well within themselves is that if they didn't none of the species within them would exist at all - they'd die out almost instantly. Which is also a reason why introduced species can damage them so much.

I have a feeling that I explained all of that really really badly, but hopefully you can understand it a little at least. The only way in which evolution hasn't been proven is the way in that nothing has been proven - for all we know everything that we sense is a trick of the mind. The whole theory is a complicated chain of common sense, and if you trust your senses and still don't believe it, I can't imagine that you actually understand it properly.

Anyone else want to have a better attempt than me at explaining it?

EDIT: It appears I took so long typing that that a lot more has been said since I started.

Basically the reason why what you said about the giant flood doesn't make sense is that the dead animals which rotted are the ones which aren't fossils. Pirated Corsairs more or less said everything you can say on it in his first sentence.

*snip*
:(
I feel very bad for you having typed that entire explanation up. I don't think he will read it, let alone take those points into consideration.

:(
I feel very bad for you having typed that entire explanation up. I don't think he will read it, let alone take those points into consideration.

Thank you, but at the very least he has the opportunity to read it and can't say no-one tried ;)

I might as well give my opinion on the actual topic..

Seeing as there is no actual evidence for creationism I don't believe it should be taught in schools. However, I don't think everything in science should be taught as fact, either. I remember getting very confused at various points around the age of thirteen when I realised there were multiple theories for many things, having always assumed that what was taught in school was pure fact with no chance of things being otherwise. Children should be taught that the theories they are told about in school are just considered the most likely at that time, and there are other possibilities that should be taken into account.

Thank you, but at the very least he has the opportunity to read it and can't say no-one tried ;)

Alas, you do not know creationists. He will continue to say "nobody has refuted my point!!!11111" and ignore everybody who points him towards your post. Most unfortunate, really, since it is a very good one.

They obviously didn't rot. Also, if it was the "Great Flood" where are the other animal fossils from animals living that long ago that were not taken on the Ark? Why were no dinosaurs taken onto the Ark?

Oh, Oh, I know that one. Dinosaurs are really just crocodile-like reptiles that didn't stop growing so there really was no such thing.

[Yes, I've been told that before]

ok first off you give me ur strongest evidence of evolution and then i will tell you how it isn't true. then ill give you the creation answer how that thing happened.

the strongest evidence for the theory of evolution is the observed fact of evolution. populations evolve. we see it in the present and we see it in the evidence of the past. and as long as there are still things that make imperfect copies of themselves, we'll see it in the future.

go!

one big thing is that all those animals taht we find fosilized in the ground had to have died and been burried quickly otherwise they would have rotted. evolution says that they sat there exposed to the air and everything for years waiting for another layer of dirt to cover them.

no, it doesn't

Alas, you do not know creationists. He will continue to say "nobody has refuted my point!!!11111" and ignore everybody who points him towards your post. Most unfortunate, really, since it is a very good one.

He'll also ignore each and every request for evidence for biblical creationism.

the only reason you people hate it and dont think it is science is because the only point and purpose of evolution is to try to discredit creation and the truth. our schools have bought into this lie and have brainwashed all the kids making them think that evolution is a fact. if you really study the facts with no bias then you come to the conclusion that creationism is a fact.
and by the way that creator has some rules he has set in place and you might want to find out what they are cuz it wont be fun for ppl who break themProve that your creator exists. Then we'll talk...
Until then I wish there were a kind of Inquisition to send obstinate religious nutjobs to the stake...

Oh, Oh, I know that one. Dinosaurs are really just crocodile-like reptiles that didn't stop growing so there really was no such thing.

well, that's just common sense

Most of the world is creationist. We should teach that instead of trying to convert children to the minority's veiw. Just becuase your athiest, doesn't mean you should ignore those facts.

Most of the world is creationist. We should teach that instead of trying to convert children to the minority's veiw. Just becuase your athiest, doesn't mean you should ignore those facts.

Believing doesn't make it so. Once Creationism can put forward concrete evidence for its beliefs, it can come play with the big boys. As long as it fails to do so, it is unworthy of even being considered worthy of being taught in science classes.

Most of the world also believes in funny men in robes running the show behind the scenes. Should we also teach Intelligent Falling instead of Newton's/Einstein's Theories of Gravity?

Most of the world is creationist. We should teach that instead of trying to convert children to the minority's veiw. Just becuase your athiest, doesn't mean you should ignore those facts.It is? What makes you think that?

Look it up. Most of the world is either Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or one of many other religions. I'm not sure if Hindu's would be considered creationist. I don't know that much about hinduism, buddism, elc.

Look it up. Most of the world is either Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or one of many other religions. I'm not sure if Hindu's would be considered creationist. I don't know that much about hinduism, buddism, elc.So? What makes you think they all believe in Creationism?

the only reason you people hate it and dont think it is science is because the only point and purpose of evolution is to try to discredit creation and the truth. our schools have bought into this lie and have brainwashed all the kids making them think that evolution is a fact. if you really study the facts with no bias then you come to the conclusion that creationism is a fact.
and by the way that creator has some rules he has set in place and you might want to find out what they are cuz it wont be fun for ppl who break them

Actually, I quite like the Biblical version of Creationism.

I'm sure you are aware, however, that the biblical account is FAR from being the only Creation story? To me - the old egyptian one, where the goddess jerks off the god, and he ejaculates the world into existence... is a much better story... or the old far eastern version where the thunder-god shits the world... By comparison, the bible story is pretty tame and unexciting.

On the other hand... it does make quite a nice story. Not entirely consistent, which is one of it's big problems, but not a bad little read. The problem is - the scientific evidence completely fails to support it at almost every turn.

And therein lies the problem - even if you LIKE the story, it just doesn't hold up to an honest analysis of the facts. And I'm not saying the theory of evolution is necessarily right either, but it least it is based ON what is observed, rather than attempting to cram the observed data into a pre-constructed ideological mould.

So? What makes you think they all believe in Creationism?

:rolleyes: Because, Laerod, it's OBVIOUS. All right-thinking people believe it whether there is any credible support for it or not..

Look it up. Most of the world is either Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or one of many other religions. I'm not sure if Hindu's would be considered creationist. I don't know that much about hinduism, buddism, elc.

What if the stories don't match... do we teach ALL creation stories?

Most of the world is creationist. We should teach that instead of trying to convert children to the minority's veiw. Just becuase your athiest, doesn't mean you should ignore those facts.
I was going to reply point by point but I doubt you will reply if I do and doubt you will be able to understand it if you do reply

So I will simply say you are very clearly wrong for a number of reasons and you may want to do some research as to why

:rolleyes: Because, Laerod, it's OBVIOUS. All right-thinking people believe it whether there is any credible support for it or not..I'm a bit disappointed that I can't let loose my "Half of those Christians are Catholics" of fury... :(

Look it up. Most of the world is either Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or one of many other religions. I'm not sure if Hindu's would be considered creationist. I don't know that much about hinduism, buddism, elc.

They are religious

Thankfully Religious != Creationist

I'm a bit disappointed that I can't let loose my "Half of those Christians are Catholics" of fury... :(

Sure you can. Psssst, I white-texted -- check my whole post. :cool:

Sure you can. Psssst, I white-texted -- check my whole post. :cool:I know. It shows up when you quote it. =P

easier then explaining the definition of "theory" and "law" as it applies to the sciences.

im going to walk away. from you.

you would say earth is not spherical, nor is the sky blue, the sun is not a star, and earth is the center of the solar system.

and only later would you give it away you were playing with me.

instead of honestly, humbly wanting to learn.

in this modern age, its impossilbe to not know of these things, or even have doubt; the only exception being home-schooled *perhaps*.

i do not, and will not, tolerate the willfully ignorant.
-Rafe

They teach evoloution and there is no proof for that either. So why don't you support creationism being taught? However if you don't support either being taught, I apologize.

Most of the world is creationist.

so?

so?

So anyone who disagrees should just submit to the collective majority.

I realise it's hard, and I expect I've been guilty of not doing it even in this thread, but I think that in this kind of debate it is important to show respect for the other side's opinion. Even though it's easy to say the creationist theory isn't deserving of respect, and that arguably it isn't even a real theory, if you want to have a serious discussion and stand a chance of influencing the opinion of those who believe it then you have to give all points of view a chance, and this means taking their beliefs into account, rather than instinctively dismissing them, and calmly explaining why you disagree, giving logical reasons.

Of course this is true of both sides of the discussion, but if you really want people of the opposing view to seriously consider and respect what you think, you have to do the same towards them, at least to get them to listen. It might seem that creationists are a small enough minority who aren't taken seriously enough in scientific circles to count, but the fact that the debate even exists shows that they are a big enough group to make a difference, and so they must be taken seriously, even if you think they don't deserve it. I think one of the reasons there seems to have been so little progress on the issue since it arose is that a lot of the time neither side shows any respect for the other, so of course they don't listen to each other or explain themselves properly, they just try to force their own opinions through.

It seems kind of like the situation is the complete opposite to when Darwin first publicly proposed the theory of evolution - now when creationists suggest their theory, they are the ones who are ridiculed. I realise there are vast differences in the level of actual evidence, but the issue of respect still stands.

I realise it's hard, and I expect I've been guilty of not doing it even in this thread, but I think that in this kind of debate it is important to show respect for the other side's opinion. Even though it's easy to say the creationist theory isn't deserving of respect, and that arguably it isn't even a real theory, if you want to have a serious discussion and stand a chance of influencing the opinion of those who believe it then you have to give all points of view a chance, and this means taking their beliefs into account, rather than instinctively dismissing them, and calmly explaining why you disagree, giving logical reasons.

Of course this is true of both sides of the discussion, but if you really want people of the opposing view to seriously consider and respect what you think, you have to do the same towards them, at least to get them to listen. It might seem that creationists are a small enough minority who aren't taken seriously enough in scientific circles to count, but the fact that the debate even exists shows that they are a big enough group to make a difference, and so they must be taken seriously, even if you think they don't deserve it. I think one of the reasons there seems to have been so little progress on the issue since it arose is that a lot of the time neither side shows any respect for the other, so of course they don't listen to each other or explain themselves properly, they just try to force their own opinions through.

It seems kind of like the situation is the complete opposite to when Darwin first publicly proposed the theory of evolution - now when creationists suggest their theory, they are the ones who are ridiculed. I realise there are vast differences in the level of actual evidence, but the issue of respect still stands.

Totally missing the point.

There is no prejudice against Christian Creationists and their cute little idea of how the elephant got his trunk. The contention is - Creationism is NOT science, so why the hell is it being edged into science classrooms to appease the Christian majority?

I'm a scientist, and I'm perfectly happy for evolution to never even be mentioned in church, if that's how they want it. Keep it out of Religious Education, for all I care. Why? Because it's not religion, and has no place on the religious syllabus.

Is it really too much to ask that mythology should be treated equally? That's all I ask. Just keep your religion's stories out of my Chemistry lectures, and I'll be sure to do my best to avoid talking about science in your church.

I realise it's hard, and I expect I've been guilty of not doing it even in this thread, but I think that in this kind of debate it is important to show respect for the other side's opinion.


Respect is something earned; not given.

Even though it's easy to say the creationist theory isn't deserving of respect, and that arguably it isn't even a real theory, if you want to have a serious discussion and stand a chance of influencing the opinion of those who believe it then you have to give all points of view a chance, and this means taking their beliefs into account, rather than instinctively dismissing them, and calmly explaining why you disagree, giving logical reasons.


The people who preach creationism while denouncing evolution will most likely not be convinced of anything other then their faith.

Of course this is true of both sides of the discussion, but if you really want people of the opposing view to seriously consider and respect what you think, you have to do the same towards them, at least to get them to listen.
To question Creationism is to question their religion and thus they will probably never listen to the evidence presented.

It might seem that creationists are a small enough minority who aren't taken seriously enough in scientific circles to count, but the fact that the debate even exists shows that they are a big enough group to make a difference, and so they must be taken seriously, even if you think they don't deserve it.

Oh they are taken seriously. That is why there is always a watch to make sure the creationists don't pollute the science classroom.

I think one of the reasons there seems to have been so little progress on the issue since it arose is that a lot of the time neither side shows any respect for the other, so of course they don't listen to each other or explain themselves properly, they just try to force their own opinions through.


The creationists are the ones trying to force their way into the science classrooms.

You don't have evolutionists trying to force their way into the religious classroom.

It seems kind of like the situation is the complete opposite to when Darwin first publicly proposed the theory of evolution - now when creationists suggest their theory, they are the ones who are ridiculed. I realise there are vast differences in the level of actual evidence, but the issue of respect still stands.

Darwin was not readily accepted. If Huxley had not been around, he probably would have been squashed as he was a rather timid man.

Creationists are ridiculed because they try to force their way into the science classroom. Nobody said they can't offer their hypothesis of creation.

Yes, we should close the school doors to people like Dmitri Kouznetsov.
And here's why.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kouznetsov.html
http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Kouznetsov_Is_No_Scientist.html
http://meneame.net/story/fraudes-cientificos-dmitri-kouznetsov

I personally believe that Erich Anton Paul von Däniken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Däniken) has more credibility than Kouznetsov.

*sniff*...that's the first time I've ever seen the University of Toronto quoted in a place like this. It's moving, really.

As for Dmitri Kouznetsov- I find it funny he was ostracized by the Creationist camp for "dishonesty" when Creationist scientists do that all the time (as their experiments always try to "fit" a pre-determined conclusion, instead of letting the evidence determine the conclusion as it should). Hypocritical, no?

I realise it's hard, and I expect I've been guilty of not doing it even in this thread, but I think that in this kind of debate it is important to show respect for the other side's opinion

....

I think one of the reasons there seems to have been so little progress on the issue since it arose is that a lot of the time neither side shows any respect for the other, so of course they don't listen to each other or explain themselves properly, they just try to force their own opinions through.

I don't mean to be flippant, but the reason why Creationism isn't "considered" is the fact that there's nothing to consider. The idea has no supporting evidence (just misquoted Biblical passages) and provides no "alternative theory", being just a rouse for Creationists to badmouth an opposing theory they so desperately want to destroy simply because "they don't like it". I would have no issues with Creationism being taught in science classes- provided it becomes a science first.

As for the reason "why" the controversy exists- you might as well look at where Creationism originates: the Evangelical (i.e. "Fundamentalist") Christian community. Like the rest of their ideas, they're quite vocal about Creationism and stop at nothing to get it "accepted" in the mainstream, because they possess a holier-than-thou mindset that insists everyone who disagrees with them is wrong and that they must be "corrected" (which is in of itself wrong- and hypocritical as well (see Matthew 7:1, 23:1-36 and 24:5-14)). Most are content with letting even the most absurd ideas and groups float around as long as no one tries to force their views onto anyone else. It is this last part that Creationists violate- they're not content with holding the view amongst themselves (and maybe even merely expressing it): they have to make sure everyone else holds it too, providing no justification other than an unsubstantiated claim of "we're right, you're wrong". So it should be no surprise that no one wants to listen to them, considering they're not going to provide any reason for us to do so.

They obviously didn't rot. Also, if it was the "Great Flood" where are the other animal fossils from animals living that long ago that were not taken on the Ark? Why were no dinosaurs taken onto the Ark?

HA! I'd love to see that answer- especially considering this:

"The LORD then said to Noah, 'Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.'" (Genesis 7:2-3)

Thus, according to a literalist interpretation of the Bible, every animal- clean or unclean- were called to be saved, leaving no justification for the fact I don't have a pet Tyrannosaurus Rex.

HA! I'd love to see that answer- especially considering this:

"The LORD then said to Noah, 'Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.'" (Genesis 7:2-3)

Thus, according to a literalist interpretation of the Bible, every animal- clean or unclean- were called to be saved, leaving no justification for the fact I don't have a pet Tyrannosaurus Rex.Hovind uses the smash-tastic "They're just oversized crocodiles" and "It says kinds of animals" combo.

Mereselt, yes it's true, most of the world is stupid.

Oh, Oh, I know that one. Dinosaurs are really just crocodile-like reptiles that didn't stop growing so there really was no such thing.

[Yes, I've been told that before]

I find that level of ignorance rather disturbibg

What if the stories don't match... do we teach ALL creation stories?

It would only be fair, if we have to teach one fairy tale, we should teach them all

... leaving no justification for the fact I don't have a pet Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Its just that you haven't earned one :p

It would only be fair, if we have to teach one fairy tale, we should teach them all

That could take quite a while.

That could take quite a while.

So we just make the school day 14 hours long, 6 days a week and no summer vacation :rolleyes:

So we just make the school day 14 hours long, 6 days a week and no summer vacation :rolleyes:

Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster I'm out of school.

I think Creationism should be taught in school. If you give two points of view it will force kids to think and form an opinion. I think that that is the most important part of school, the chance to form your own opinions. I am not against Evolution per-say, but believe in a middle ground.

Sure it should be taught. In the RE lesson.

Thus, according to a literalist interpretation of the Bible, every animal- clean or unclean- were called to be saved, leaving no justification for the fact I don't have a pet Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Reminds me of when I figured out the volume of food needed to sustain two Tyrannosaurus rex for one year. Using conservative estimates, it took up most of the ark, IIRC.