NationStates Jolt Archive

'Tis the job of the parents to teach their kids of ID/creationism. School is for science, and evolution is science. If parents want to teach their kids what their religion says, then go for it. Do not waste my taxes teaching kids intelligent design.

Also, if you're going to go the way of "we should teach our kids the other ideas of how we all got here", then what about teaching them how the Flying Spaghetti Monster created us? Or how bout the pink unicorn in the sky? My personal diety is the magical flying uberness tree branch, creating everything in a single second. Please teach this in our schools, as the kids should know there are more than two beliefs of how we got here.

'Tis the job of the parents to teach their kids of ID/creationism. School is for science, and evolution is science. If parents want to teach their kids what their religion says, then go for it. Do not waste my taxes teaching kids intelligent design.

Ohh I don't know, I guess it is the parents job t teach lots of things to their children, including the ability to make up their own minds. Both of my kids go to a C of E school, where the amount of indoctrination into that particular sect of Christianity is quite high,yet they are both still avowed atheists.

Peep, I'm having a hard time telling if you agree or disagree with my quote there. Anyway, I dunno what a C of E school is, but I would imagine it would be hard for any atheist to stay sane with many Christians around. I'm having enough of a hard time with these Intervarsity guys crowding my campus.

Peep, I'm having a hard time telling if you agree or disagree with my quote there. Anyway, I dunno what a C of E school is, but I would imagine it would be hard for any atheist to stay sane with many Christians around. I'm having enough of a hard time with these Intervarsity guys crowding my campus.

Church of England. I haven't been to one myself, but I imagine it wouldn't be too heavy - probably hymns in assembly and the like, but not (I wouldn't think) fire and brimstone preaching or the like.

You have to remember that the Church of England is basically a social institution, not a religious one.

Peep, I'm having a hard time telling if you agree or disagree with my quote there. Anyway, I dunno what a C of E school is, but I would imagine it would be hard for any atheist to stay sane with many Christians around. I'm having enough of a hard time with these Intervarsity guys crowding my campus.

Heh yeah I get that quite a lot, I guess my usage of the English language can seem a bit odd at times. In essence I disagree. I think it better to teach your kids to think for them selves and make ther own minds up, is what I was saying.

C of E. Church of England, or the Anglican church, or good old English proternism if you prefer.

Church of England. I haven't been to one myself, but I imagine it wouldn't be too heavy - probably hymns in assembly and the like, but not (I wouldn't think) fire and brimstone preaching or the like.

You have to remember that the Church of England is basically a social institution, not a religious one.

Heh and I disagree with that also. Yeah the C of E is not 'hardcore' as the catholic church, but church it is, and the members and the clergy I know of said church would say it is a religious institution.

Heh and I disagree with that also. Yeah the C of E is not 'hardcore' as the catholic church, but church it is, and the members and the clergy I know of said church would say it is a religious institution.

Heh, I know. It was a bit of a joke. (You know, I should really start indicating my humour).

More seriously though, how overtly religious are CofE schools anyway? I wouldn't think that anything beyond hymns in assembly and a focus on Christianity in RE would be tolerated by the parents, but I may be wrong.

Heh, I know. It was a bit of a joke. (You know, I should really start indicating my humour).

More seriously though, how overtly religious are CofE schools anyway? I wouldn't think that anything beyond hymns in assembly and a focus on Christianity in RE would be tolerated by the parents, but I may be wrong.


Naaa I think you have it about right. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that they taught about the major religions in RE, although they of course taught, 'this is what misguided people believe'.


I don't know if that has to do with the law, or the user friendliness of modern C of E.

... I don't know if that has to do with the law, or the user friendliness of modern C of E.

CAKE OR DEATH!:p

We should teach creationism in schools as well as the theory of evolution so that people can learn to have a choice in the matter. It doesn't have to be mandatory, but it should be offered, because that way we can learn about one or the other, or both if we like. As for people that only want one or the other, and limit the agency that people have to them, this is what i have to say:


:mp5::sniper::gundge::mad:

Agency is our most valued gift, so we should respect it.

We should teach creationism in schools as well as the theory of evolution so that people can learn to have a choice in the matter. It doesn't have to be mandatory, but it should be offered, because that way we can learn about one or the other, or both if we like. As for people that only want one or the other, and limit the agency that people have to them, this is what i have to say:


:mp5::sniper::gundge::mad:

Agency is our most valued gift, so we should respect it.

Yea another puppet!

Agency is our most valued gift, so we should respect it.

Huh? :confused:

We should teach creationism in schools as well as the theory of evolution so that people can learn to have a choice in the matter. Yep, it should be taught what Brahmā did, so folks have a choice in the matter.

Yea another puppet!

Intruiging that creationists tend to fear honesty, is it not ?

'Tis the job of the parents to teach their kids of ID/creationism.

no, it isn't. it is never anyone's job to teach children dangerous falsehoods.

no, it isn't. it is never anyone's job to teach children dangerous falsehoods.but what if the parents aren't bright enough to know what's a dangerous falsehood and do it anyway? should they be kept from teaching?

Yep, it should be taught what Brahmā did, so folks have a choice in the matter.

Oh no you don't. Let the Abrahmics try and corrupt the children. Keep the Dharmic religions out of it.

Oh no you don't. Let the Abrahmics try and corrupt the children. Keep the Dharmic religions out of it.Why? I thought we were talking about creationism.

Why? I thought we were talking about creationism.

We are. That doesn't mean the Dharmic religions are interested. It's like how you should consult with a representative of the Navajo before you go and teach their creation myths.

We should teach creationism in schools as well as the theory of evolution so that people can learn to have a choice in the matter. It doesn't have to be mandatory, but it should be offered, because that way we can learn about one or the other, or both if we like. As for people that only want one or the other, and limit the agency that people have to them, this is what i have to say:


:mp5::sniper::gundge::mad:

Agency is our most valued gift, so we should respect it.

Repeat after me.
Evolution. Has evidence.
Creationism. Does not have evidence.
Evolution .... science.
Creationism... religion.

We are. That doesn't mean the Dharmic religions are interested. It's like how you should consult with a representative of the Navajo before you go and teach their creation myths.Are you implying there is more than one creation myth that should be taught? :eek:

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?

With all the Creationists (or puppets) floating around the thread still, I'm still waiting for an answer to the above quote.

Hovind uses the smash-tastic "They're just oversized crocodiles" and "It says kinds of animals" combo.

Hmmnnn...that is good. Except for the fact I don't see how a Brontosaurus is a crocodile and where the Bible specifically calls for exclusion- I mean, *all* animals, "clean or unclean", were meant to be on the Ark.

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.

Can you point me to that? I'd like to read it.

Its just that you haven't earned one :p

*cries*...*puppy eyes*...but I really want one!

but what if the parents aren't bright enough to know what's a dangerous falsehood and do it anyway? should they be kept from teaching?

no, but they should be kept out of the schools. i merely dispute that they have some sort of duty to teach bullshit.

of course, if they home-school the kids, they ought be required to teach reasonable things.

of course, if they home-school the kids, they ought be required to teach reasonable things.how to control this? why allow home schooling at all? shouldn't all have the same opportunities, i.e. not be dependent on the intellect and understanding of parents?

how to control this?

college entrance requirements, high school diploma tests, etc.

why allow home schooling at all?

because the prison/industrial/education system sucks - i wouldn't want my kid subjected to it full-time if i could get them out of it.

Creationism in school? Sure.
In comparative religions.

In science? Don't be a moron. It's as much science as the ten commandments.

*cries*...*puppy eyes*...but I really want one!

Okay, but you're going to have to wait until my two have a baby

(unfortunately they're both male)

college entrance requirements, high school diploma tests, etc.is this how it is controlled?

because the prison/industrial/education system sucks - i wouldn't want my kid subjected to it full-time if i could get them out of it.I wouldn't trust any parent to be expert enough in all subjects to home school a kid that should have a future. And I would never trust a parent to teach without conveying the own views.

Hitler was a Christian? Excuse me, but I think you will find he employed his experimentation on humans as a direct result of his belief in and propagation of Darwinian theory. He believed in developing a superior 'race" (that's an evolutionary term, not a creationist one), and this belief is a common thread in the development of evolutionary philosophy. Even recently an eminent evolutionist suggested the human race was going to evolve into a two tier structure with a strong athletic, intellectual breed over ruling a lower class of dim witted hobbits. Now, who really believes in fairy tales?

BTW the people I mentioned are not religious figures, they are science figures.

Yes but Hitler was a catholic. This is not in dispute.

Nah. Atum is pornographic and not suited for children under 30 ;)Ptah would be an alternative...

...or Enki, the real Yah...

Are you implying there is more than one creation myth that should be taught? :eek:

Nah. Atum is pornographic and not suited for children under 30 ;)

I agree with butch kid its religion ot science so it shouldn't be taught in science class but it can be taught in something like social studies. Its just not science those who think it (creationism) is science need to understand the word theory and how that relates to science in general:

I agree with butch kid its religion ot science so it shouldn't be taught in science class but it can be taught in something like social studies. Its just not science those who think it (creationism) is science need to understand the word theory and how that relates to science in general:We don't like one-post puppets. Go away.

Actually they can, though this is a common misconception. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. Creationism does.

Maybe we should advocate for equal time. Force religious classes to teach evolution. (As an alternative of course!)

Sure, let them elect it. But it is just plain irresponsible to teach it in a science class as an "alternative".We don't like one-post puppets. Go away.

can i ask is there any Europeans who believe in this myth

Maybe we should advocate for equal time. Force religious classes to teach evolution. (As an alternative of course!)Alternative to what? Buddhism?

can i ask is there any Europeans who believe in this mythUnfortunately there are. Those who have fallen victim to American-rooted sects and cults.

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, let them elect it. But it is just plain irresponsible to teach it in a science class as an "alternative".

When i was young not even the clergy denied Darwin they interpreted the bible more as a simplified way of looking at creation. Do these people also want children taught that the Earth is flat.

I agree with black amida its not science as I said before
it can be a thing in history class

How is it history?

Unfortunately there are. Those who have fallen victim to American-rooted sects and cults.

because we all know the CoE, which was started after America was founded, never taught the story of creation. :rolleyes: ;)

because we all know the CoE, which was started after America was founded, never taught the story of creation. :rolleyes: ;)The what?

I agree with black amida its not science as I said before
it can be a thing in history class

How is it history?It's a mindset of the past. ;)

It's a mindset of the past. ;)

* sigged *

The proof is Gods word, here's a thought try reading the scriptures.

I just read a great new book. It has chapters and verses as well! It says life came from a head of lettuce and it has quotations about it and claims to be written by the spaghetti monster himself. It must be true!

How is it history?

its taught as part of a social studies course social studies includes history and religion. often important events in a religion that influence the world are discussed, as well as the beleifs behind those events

... social studies includes religion...

Fortunately not in any of the SS classes I took in school.

Can you prove it's not true?

Can you prove the spaghetti monster won't be here at 10pm?

Can you prove the spaghetti monster won't be here at 10pm?

At 10:01 I can provide evidence against it ;)

I have faith that neither you nor Narnian Council will provide any actual evidence.

Soon, I'll have evidence to support my faith.

Welcome to 1 pinebox rd

CoE = Church of England.Is England in Europe? ;) Does it count?
Btw the American WASP retards are those folks that the English expelled, right?
Those folks who evolved (ha ha) into dimwits like Mormons, Scientologists, Baptists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, etc...

The what?

CoE = Church of England. :p

My eye doctor has substantiated my claims as you call it. But I doubt that you would even believe him if I choose to give you his name.

Better buy a lottery ticket now.

If you want to learn about religion, read up on it during your own time or go to a private school. But public schools should be teaching science during science class, not fanciful fairy-tales.

FIRST OF ALL:

Right here, there is a logical falsehood. Normally, people want to avoid these in arguments, but people who know they're wrong almost always tend to make their argument full of them.

First of all, perception. Perception is your thought of something through your filters, in a manner of speaking.

Fact > Perception > Opinion.


Anyway, to put it simple, you have a total logical falsehood in your statement, and you only say what you said because it goes against what you already thought, because you decided to start off your opinion and then build on it, rather than to take the facts and build up to an opinion like so many imbeciles do.


NEXT PART:

It is your idiotic opinion that creationism is a fairy-tale. Whether or not that is true is subject to opinion, but it is an opinion, and for one thing, it is not proved to be false. Evolution is already taught in public schools, and it is not provable either. They both have evidence, and regardless of which you decide to put your faith in, you cannot deny either one in light of plain logic.

THEREFORE:

Creationism should be able to be taught in Federally-funded schools, not just the hogwash they want the American population to believe, therefore making us out to just be a more evolved version of animals. Guess what? Since evolution became popular, humans have lost all dignity and have begun to act more like animals.

ENDING:

If you want to prove to me, or more likely yourself, that you are right, then PM me. I'll know you're just bsing yourself and everyone that believes you if you choose not to, and it won't surprise me. Either way, maybe we'll meet in each other's inboxes if you dare to try me.

It is your idiotic opinion that creationism is a fairy-tale.That's not the opinion. That's the fact.

NEXT PART:

It is your idiotic opinion that creationism is a fairy-tale. Whether or not that is true is subject to opinion, but it is an opinion, and for one thing, it is not proved to be false. Evolution is already taught in public schools, and it is not provable either. They both have evidence, and regardless of which you decide to put your faith in, you cannot deny either one in light of plain logic.

THEREFORE:

Creationism should be able to be taught in Federally-funded schools, not just the hogwash they want the American population to believe, therefore making us out to just be a more evolved version of animals. Guess what? Since evolution became popular, humans have lost all dignity and have begun to act more like animals.

ENDING:

If you want to prove to me, or more likely yourself, that you are right, then PM me. I'll know you're just bsing yourself and everyone that believes you if you choose not to, and it won't surprise me. Either way, maybe we'll meet in each other's inboxes if you dare to try me.

Fine. Like we've asked every other mole here, show your evidence for biblical creationism.

As for "humans acting like animals", why don't you read up on the various inquisitions and crusades and then tell me how much more humane people were during the dark ages.

Fine. Like we've asked every other mole here, show your evidence for biblical creationism.

As for "humans acting like animals", why don't you read up on the various inquisitions and crusades and then tell me how much more humane people were during the dark ages.Oh please, animals have never believed in something as insubstantial as the bible.

Fortunately not in any of the SS classes I took in school.

If your social studies classes didn't cover religion at all, they were woefully deficient.

Fine. Like we've asked every other mole here, show your evidence for biblical creationism. the evidence? why its shown in the Theory of Evolution. One does not discount the other... but then I'm not a hardcore Creationist nor Evolutionist either. ;)

Creationism should not be taught in school because it is paying respect to one religion while ignoring the rest. If schools are going to give biblical creation as an alternative to Evolution they better provide the mythology of all other religions as well, in the interest of fairness.

If your social studies classes didn't cover religion at all, they were woefully deficient.

Meh

Yea yet another puppet!

FIRST OF ALL:

Right here, there is a logical falsehood. Normally, people want to avoid these in arguments, but people who know they're wrong almost always tend to make their argument full of them.

First of all, perception. Perception is your thought of something through your filters, in a manner of speaking.

Fact > Perception > Opinion.


Future perceptions can't change facts?

Anyway, to put it simple, you have a total logical falsehood in your statement, and you only say what you said because it goes against what you already thought, because you decided to start off your opinion and then build on it, rather than to take the facts and build up to an opinion like so many imbeciles do.

Hmmmm you seem to be doing the same thing.


NEXT PART:

It is your idiotic opinion that creationism is a fairy-tale. Whether or not that is true is subject to opinion, but it is an opinion, and for one thing, it is not proved to be false.


Until tests are offered; it's pretty much a "fairy-tale"

Evolution is already taught in public schools, and it is not provable either. They both have evidence, and regardless of which you decide to put your faith in, you cannot deny either one in light of plain logic.


There is evidence to suggest evolution. Where is this evidence for creationism and ID?


THEREFORE:

Creationism should be able to be taught in Federally-funded schools, not just the hogwash they want the American population to believe, therefore making us out to just be a more evolved version of animals. Guess what? Since evolution became popular, humans have lost all dignity and have begun to act more like animals.

ENDING:

If you want to prove to me, or more likely yourself, that you are right, then PM me. I'll know you're just bsing yourself and everyone that believes you if you choose not to, and it won't surprise me. Either way, maybe we'll meet in each other's inboxes if you dare to try me.

Creationism can be taught. Just not in the science classroom.

If you are so tough, why hide in the inbox? Put it here so all may be edumacated properly.

Fine. Like we've asked every other mole here, show your evidence for biblical creationism.

As for "humans acting like animals", why don't you read up on the various inquisitions and crusades and then tell me how much more humane people were during the dark ages.

Whoa there cowboy. Doing Gods work is not being an animal!

Time to start cleaning them erasers!

FIRST OF ALL:

Right here, there is a logical falsehood. Normally, people want to avoid these in arguments, but people who know they're wrong almost always tend to make their argument full of them.

First of all, perception. Perception is your thought of something through your filters, in a manner of speaking.

Fact > Perception > Opinion.


Anyway, to put it simple, you have a total logical falsehood in your statement, and you only say what you said because it goes against what you already thought, because you decided to start off your opinion and then build on it, rather than to take the facts and build up to an opinion like so many imbeciles do.

Okay, let's see your facts.


NEXT PART:

It is your idiotic opinion that creationism is a fairy-tale. Whether or not that is true is subject to opinion, but it is an opinion, and for one thing, it is not proved to be false. Evolution is already taught in public schools, and it is not provable either.
Gravity isn't provable. No theory in science is. Learn how science works or shut up.


They both have evidence, and regardless of which you decide to put your faith in, you cannot deny either one in light of plain logic.

Okay. Present some of your evidence for Creationism. I'll wait.


THEREFORE:

Creationism should be able to be taught in Federally-funded schools, not just the hogwash they want the American population to believe, therefore making us out to just be a more evolved version of animals.

But only the biblical account, I presume? Not the various creation myths of every other religion?


Guess what? Since evolution became popular, humans have lost all dignity and have begun to act more like animals.

:rolleyes:
Right, because Christianity was so benevolent when it had total hegemony. The Crusades and Inquisitions were good, moral things.


ENDING:

If you want to prove to me, or more likely yourself, that you are right, then PM me. I'll know you're just bsing yourself and everyone that believes you if you choose not to, and it won't surprise me. Either way, maybe we'll meet in each other's inboxes if you dare to try me.
Or you could debate it here in the thread. You know, that's the entire purpose of having one.

...The Crusades and Inquisitions were good, moral things..Well, the Inquisition was a relatively good thing. It saved many from the mob.

They both have evidence

name this evidence that creationism has. go!

Well, the Inquisition was a relatively good thing. It saved many from the mob.

And the barbecues were fun too!

And don't forget, the bible isn't evidence...:eek: oh now you're antisemitic...

Or you could debate it here in the thread. You know, that's the entire purpose of having one.

That seems to be the current trend. Get people off the board and away from supporting evidence.

I've left a message for the puppet. Let's see what he says.

My bet: A few old points against some minor part of the TOE, followed by "Goddidit" w/o presenting any evidence for his cause again.

name this evidence that creationism has. go!

And don't forget, the bible isn't evidence...
now go!

the evidence? why its shown in the Theory of Evolution. One does not discount the other... but then I'm not a hardcore Creationist nor Evolutionist either. ;)

this relies on equivocation about the meaning of terms. creationism is incompatible with evolution. shit, even the theoretically most evolution-friendly creationism (wishy washy big tent IDiocy) explicitly denies evolution - and has to if it is to have any pull in the creationist movement at all.

No of course not, not in a science class at least: it's simply not a scientific theory, teach it objectively in religious studies but only along with creationism stories from at least the 5 biggest religions on earth. Oh and there is no evidence for creationism, whereas examples for evidence of evolution are numerous every person on earth is evidence of evolution, and ok evolution cant be 100% proven but there is no other option, creationism is not a viable theory, oh yea its also ridiculous, if we teach creationism in schools we may aswell teach that the world is flat and only 10,000 years old...come on even the pope believes in evolution.

My bet: A few old points against some minor part of the TOE, followed by "Goddidit" w/o presenting any evidence for his cause again.Well, it's a common misconception among creationists that one argument against ToE would automatically be one for creationism.

Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.

We should therefore teach about the awesomeness of the pink unicorns in Science class!

Bravo! Bravo!

Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.

We should therefore teach about the awesomeness of the pink unicorns in Science class!Wow indeed. :D

The only difference between Creation and Evolution is that creation ASSUMES that there is God whereas evolution ASSUMES that there is no God.

No, actually it doesn't. As far as I know, there's no part of the origin of species that says "Oh, by the way, God doesn't exist if I'm right."

It IS possible for evolution to coexist with the idea of God.

this relies on equivocation about the meaning of terms. creationism is incompatible with evolution. shit, even the theoretically most evolution-friendly creationism (wishy washy big tent IDiocy) explicitly denies evolution - and has to if it is to have any pull in the creationist movement at all.
which brings up couple of personal points.

Creationism (the hardcore/Bible literalist) still does not disprove evolution. they can choose to ignore the findings and evidence, but that's their choice.

Evolution (the hardcore/science only) does not disprove Creationism. after all, it doesn't prove that a superior being was or was not involved.

and those who need support from others and will tailor their views to gain such support are placing more importance on what others think and not their beliefs or they want something from that group and thus probably won't follow their beliefs anyway.

Even God said in the bible, that time is meaningless to him. and that a day is a thousand years and vice versa.

so a creation day could vary between a couple of million years or a couple of billion years.

The only difference between Creation and Evolution is that creation ASSUMES that there is God whereas evolution ASSUMES that there is no God.


*buzzer sound*

Thank you for playing.

Evolution doesn't even raise the question of God(s).


To solve this problem we need to start with the FACTS and then build our theories not the other way around as what both creationists and evolutionists do.

Facts?

You might want to read up on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The only difference between Creation and Evolution is that creation ASSUMES that there is God whereas evolution ASSUMES that there is no God.

To solve this problem we need to start with the FACTS and then build our theories not the other way around as what both creationists and evolutionists do.

Incorrect.

This may be hard to grasp, but: Science doesn't care about God. Let me repeat. Science doesn't give a flying fuck about God, whether he exists or not. Science is merely a tool for us to observe the natural world and make predictions based on these observations. Whether there's a funny man in a robe behind the scenes calling the shots, carefully out of view of any of our ability to observe him, doesn't really matter to the scientist. Nor should it.

The only difference between Creation and Evolution is that creation ASSUMES that there is God whereas evolution ASSUMES that there is no God.

To solve this problem we need to start with the FACTS and then build our theories not the other way around as what both creationists and evolutionists do.

Alternative to what? Buddhism?

Yes or spaghetti monsters, or heads of lettuce, or hari krishna ....

this relies on equivocation about the meaning of terms. creationism is incompatible with evolution. shit, even the theoretically most evolution-friendly creationism (wishy washy big tent IDiocy) explicitly denies evolution - and has to if it is to have any pull in the creationist movement at all.

Old Earth Creationism is quite compatible with evolution. And you don't generally see OECs running around trying to get their beliefs taught as science, oddly enough.

The only difference between Creation and Evolution is that creation ASSUMES that there is God whereas evolution ASSUMES that there is no God.Utter rubbish. Evolution has NOTHING to do with assumptions about any gods AT ALL.

The only difference between Creation and Evolution is that creation ASSUMES that there is God whereas evolution ASSUMES that there is no God.

To solve this problem we need to start with the FACTS and then build our theories not the other way around as what both creationists and evolutionists do.

http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v105/169/94/600945980/n600945980_421432_2396.jpg

Evolution is based on observable evidence, and Creationism is based on a holy book. Evolution does not assume that there is no God; it does, however, imply that a literal reading of Genesis is incorrect.

Indeed, if evolution required the assumptions that Creationists claim it does, it never would have become accepted scientific theory, because the people of the time never would have been willing to make those assumptions. As it is, it was resisted quite fiercely.

At 10:01 I can provide evidence against it ;)

Yes, and the biblical theory of the "2nd coming" (provided there was ever a first) expired already so we have proof the bible is hokey.

Utter rubbish. Evolution has NOTHING to do with assumptions about any gods AT ALL.

Wrong, evolution does start with the assumption of no God, I suggest you read up more on Charles Darwin.

There being no god was a conclusion drawn by Darwin when he looked at the facts that evolution was based on, the theory itself says nothing about god, it is assumed that evolutionists assume their is no god because Darwin was an atheist, David Hume and Karl Marx were atheists, doesn't mean that the theory of free markets, communism or the Federal republic form of government assumes there is no god.

You have some evidence of this alleged conclusion by Darwin?

Wrong, evolution does start with the assumption of no God, I suggest you read up more on Charles Darwin.

I suggest you do the same, but with sources other than Kent Hovind.

There being no god was a conclusion drawn by Darwin when he looked at the facts that evolution was based on, the theory itself says nothing about god, it is assumed that evolutionists assume their is no god because Darwin was an atheist, David Hume and Karl Marx were atheists, doesn't mean that the theory of free markets, communism or the Federal republic form of government assumes there is no god.

Wrong, evolution does start with the assumption of no God, I suggest you read up more on Charles Darwin.

I've read Origin of the Species. It says nothing about there being "no god".

Provide some evidence for your claims.

Wrong, evolution does start with the assumption of no God, I suggest you read up more on Charles Darwin.Charles Darwin is not Evolution.
Evolution happens by genetics and environment, not by Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin's opinions are irrelevant to the process of evolution.

Origin of the Species is not where you'll find it as it discusses the science of it not his personal diaries, unless I'm mistaken.

In a documentary I watches, Darwin explored evolution upon becoming an atheist wondering how life came about.

And just who produced this alleged documentary?

There being no god was a conclusion drawn by Darwin when he looked at the facts that evolution was based on, the theory itself says nothing about god, it is assumed that evolutionists assume their is no god because Darwin was an atheist, David Hume and Karl Marx were atheists, doesn't mean that the theory of free markets, communism or the Federal republic form of government assumes there is no god.

How many times do I have to say it? Charles Darwin started his theories on the basis there was no God first. Otherwsie, he would have gone with the argument "with all this complexity around us, one must assume a creator". No, he went with "if no one made this complexity, who did, obviously it did not happen all at once..."

I suggest you do the same, but with sources other than Kent Hovind.

I never mentioned Kent Hovind. Unfortunately Kent Hovind is in prison now. He does have some good ideas, but sometimes they are a little stretched if you know what I mean, overall though he is not one to be called a dumbarse, and neither is Darwin.

Fine. Like we've asked every other mole here, show your evidence for biblical creationism.

As for "humans acting like animals", why don't you read up on the various inquisitions and crusades and then tell me how much more humane people were during the dark ages.

I was in Prague last weekend, and went to the Museum of Mediaeval Torture Instruments. Interesting stuff, let me tell you. Thumbscrews, racks, and a lot of much much more gruesome and vicious stuff.

Probably quite a bit of it that wouldn't be postable on these fine fora. And almost all of it was use by the various inquisitions and the like. As I commented at the time "Well, now that we've totally destroyed our faith in humanity, why don't we go have dinner?".

I've read Origin of the Species. It says nothing about there being "no god".

Provide some evidence for your claims.

Origin of the Species is not where you'll find it as it discusses the science of it not his personal diaries, unless I'm mistaken.

In a documentary I watches, Darwin explored evolution upon becoming an atheist wondering how life came about.

I've made my point, bye!

That's after he'd already come up with the theory of evolution a public report of a theory has hindsight, it's also pretty rhetoric to get some people fired up.

I've made my point, bye!

Translation:

I've got nothing so I'll leave now and return w/ the exact same arguments in a few pages.

Here ya' go puppet, a present for you:

"What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. … In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."

† Addressed to Mr. J. Fordyce, and published by him in his 'Aspects of Scepticism,' 1883.

The only difference between Creation and Evolution is that creation ASSUMES that there is God whereas evolution ASSUMES that there is no God.

To solve this problem we need to start with the FACTS and then build our theories not the other way around as what both creationists and evolutionists do.

Evolution does not assume there is no God Most Anglicans and Catholics can happily resolve the issues without denying God.
Anglicans and Lutherans, reject reading the Bible as though it could shed light on the physics of creation instead of the spiritual meaning of creation.
.Leaders of the Anglican[15] and Catholic [16][17] churches have made statements in favour of evolutionary theory . Both quotes from wikipedia
.Several states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in public schools, as upheld in the Scopes Trial. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in much of the United States until the 1960s.
This is shocking for people from the UK and real censorship.

Old Earth Creationism is quite compatible with evolution. And you don't generally see OECs running around trying to get their beliefs taught as science, oddly enough.

nah, OECers explicitly reject evolution, they just make allowances for there to be more time involved than the YECers. its all still a bunch of special creations of kinds. its the theistic evolution guys that have at least basic compatibility (in principle, though they like to add incompatible stuff when they aren't being watched)

How many times do I have to say it? Charles Darwin started his theories on the basis there was no God first. Otherwsie, he would have gone with the argument "with all this complexity around us, one must assume a creator". No, he went with "if no one made this complexity, who did, obviously it did not happen all at once..."

You shouldn't lie, you know, or you'll get called out.
Charles Darwin was going to go into the clergy-- but before he did that, he went on a little cruise on the HMS Beagle. It wasn't until 1851--at least a decade after he had began work on his theory-- when his daughter died that he lost all faith in God.

I never mentioned Kent Hovind. Unfortunately Kent Hovind is in prison now. He does have some good ideas, but sometimes they are a little stretched if you know what I mean, overall though he is not one to be called a dumbarse, and neither is Darwin.

Kent Hovind certainly is an idiot. His arguments are entirely based on pseudo-science. Even AiG admits that he's a dumbass and you shouldn't use the arguments that he uses. (Not that their arguments are significantly better)

Evolution (the hardcore/science only) does not disprove Creationism. after all, it doesn't prove that a superior being was or was not involved.

but creationism isn't "...and a magic man was involved somehow". creationism holds that the genesis accounts are true. they aren't. creationism is disproven. you can sorta kinda hold on to an extremely watered down, bible-is-false creationism. maybe. but nobody attached to creationism would recognize such a position as being like theirs at all.

Origin of the Species is not where you'll find it as it discusses the science of it not his personal diaries, unless I'm mistaken.

In a documentary I watches, Darwin explored evolution upon becoming an atheist wondering how life came about.

Which documentary was that?

You should provide your book references too.

There are more then a few that still talk about the myth of his death bead confession.....

I never mentioned Kent Hovind. Unfortunately Kent Hovind is in prison now. He does have some good ideas, but sometimes they are a little stretched if you know what I mean, overall though he is not one to be called a dumbarse, and neither is Darwin.

Hovind???? :rolleyes:

You shouldn't lie, you know, or you'll get called out.
Charles Darwin was going to go into the clergy-- but before he did that, he went on a little cruise on the HMS Beagle. It wasn't until 1851--at least a decade after he had began work on his theory-- when his daughter died that he lost all faith in God.

Indeed. In fact, Origin of the Species has quite a few religious references itself, IIRC. The idea that Darwin was an atheist when he wrote it is rather laughable.

It is not necessary to hate George W. Bush to think he's a bad president. Grown-ups can do that, you know -- decide someone's policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred. Poor Bush is in way over his head, and the country is in bad shape because of his stupid economic policies. If that make me a Bush-hater, then sign me up.

-- Molly Ivins

Where was molly in the 90's?

It is not necessary to hate Bill Clinton to know he was a bad president. Grown-ups can do that, you know -- decide someone's policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred. Poor Clinton was in way over his head, and the country is in bad shape because of his stupid economic policies. If that make me a Clinton-hater, then sign me up.

-- Molly Ivins (If she had the guts to say the same in the 90's)

but creationism isn't "...and a magic man was involved somehow". creationism holds that the genesis accounts are true. they aren't. creationism is disproven. you can sorta kinda hold on to an extremely watered down, bible-is-false creationism. maybe. but nobody attached to creationism would recognize such a position as being like theirs at all.
not all those who believe in Creation believe it to be bible literal. hence my specification (the Hardcore/Bible literalist)

And my view is not "Bible is Fale" but "Bible is a guide, not literal."

It is not necessary to hate George W. Bush to think he's a bad president. Grown-ups can do that, you know -- decide someone's policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred. Poor Bush is in way over his head, and the country is in bad shape because of his stupid economic policies. If that make me a Bush-hater, then sign me up.

-- Molly Ivins

Where was molly in the 90's?

It is not necessary to hate Bill Clinton to know he was a bad president. Grown-ups can do that, you know -- decide someone's policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred. Poor Clinton was in way over his head, and the country is in bad shape because of his stupid economic policies. If that make me a Clinton-hater, then sign me up.

-- Molly Ivins (If she had the guts to say the same in the 90's)

Start a new thread if you like.

That doesn't belong here.

Lol

Couldn't agree more

not all those who believe in Creation believe it to be bible literal.They believe what the bible claims. How literal that may be is irrelevant.

This thread has officially passed critical mass

EXPLOSION IMPENDING!!!!You mean IMPLOSION PENDING!!!!

This thread has officially passed critical mass

EXPLOSION IMPENDING!!!!

'believing in creation' isn't creationism

and seriously, the bible gets it so wrong that it isn't even a guide on this point.

Really? You think lessons in charity and forgiveness are wrong? :p

'believing in creation' isn't creationismUm, yes it is?

and seriously, the bible gets it so wrong that it isn't even a guide on this point.Well, the bible is only a failed Jewish attempt to steal/copy other ancient peoples' myths. What do you expect?

Really? You think lessons in charity and forgiveness are wrong? :pThe Torah gives no lessons in charity and forgiveness. It teaches how to slaughter those who don't believe what you believe.

This thread has officially passed critical mass

EXPLOSION IMPENDING!!!!

Prepare to eject the Core! :p

not all those who believe in Creation believe it to be bible literal. hence my specification (the Hardcore/Bible literalist)

And my view is not "Bible is Fale" but "Bible is a guide, not literal."

'believing in creation' isn't creationism

and seriously, the bible gets it so wrong that it isn't even a guide on this point.

'believing in creation' isn't creationism

and seriously, the bible gets it so wrong that it isn't even a guide on this point.

Half the people who believe in the crap never read the book.

Jeez... I checked this thread (it must have been just yesterday) and it was only 4 pages long.

Those who say that the Torah or Old Testament is all about killing those who don't believe what you believe are sadly(though actually, I could say happily) mistaken. No where in the Torah or Old Testament are the Israelites commanded to wage war against pagans just because they don't believe in God. Whenever Israel was commanded to go to war against a heathen nation, there was a distinct reason. For example, the Midianites and the Amalekites were the oppressors of the Israelites, while the Canaanites were so wicked and abominable that God commanded Israel to destroy them(Canaanite religion was based on human sacrifice of children and ritualized prostitution, both abhorrent practices worthy of God's judgement).

The Torah and Old Testament is the story of God's loving provision for his chosen people, the Jews, even during times when they had turned from him. The focus of the Old Testament is, just like the rest of the Bible, the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ, the Savior of all.

Those who say that the Torah or Old Testament is all about killing those who don't believe what you believe are sadly(though actually, I could say happily) mistaken. No where in the Torah or Old Testament are the Israelites commanded to wage war against pagans just because they don't believe in God. Whenever Israel was commanded to go to war against a heathen nation, there was a distinct reason. For example, the Midianites and the Amalekites were the oppressors of the Israelites, while the Canaanites were so wicked and abominable that God commanded Israel to destroy them(Canaanite religion was based on human sacrifice of children and ritualized prostitution, both abhorrent practices worthy of God's judgement).

The Torah and Old Testament is the story of God's loving provision for his chosen people, the Jews, even during times when they had turned from him. The focus of the Old Testament is, just like the rest of the Bible, the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ, the Savior of all.

So, the part where God says to kill an entire village if any people worship other gods, He was just kidding, right?

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)

Really? You think lessons in charity and forgiveness are wrong? :p

the 'this point' i mentioned was fairly obviously about origins

Those who say that the Torah or Old Testament is all about killing those who don't believe what you believe are sadly(though actually, I could say happily) mistaken. No where in the Torah or Old Testament are the Israelites commanded to wage war against pagans just because they don't believe in God. Whenever Israel was commanded to go to war against a heathen nation, there was a distinct reason. For example, the Midianites and the Amalekites were the oppressors of the Israelites, while the Canaanites were so wicked and abominable that God commanded Israel to destroy them(Canaanite religion was based on human sacrifice of children and ritualized prostitution, both abhorrent practices worthy of God's judgement).

The Torah and Old Testament is the story of God's loving provision for his chosen people, the Jews, even during times when they had turned from him. The focus of the Old Testament is, just like the rest of the Bible, the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ, the Savior of all.

Numbers 31
31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
31:3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
31:4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
31:5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
-
|
-
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Exodus 12
12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
12:30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.


(and so on)

Um, yes it is?

no, it isn't. creationism is a specific christian movement based around a certain set of beliefs which are distinct from those of non-creationist christians.

Well, the bible is only a failed Jewish attempt to steal/copy other ancient peoples' myths.

how did it fail? they seem to be the only ones left still believing that silly old crap. what would success look like?

Half the people who believe in the crap never read the book.

;) hence the idea of an 'athiest' quoting scripture to 'Christians' :p

;) hence the idea of an 'athiest' quoting scripture to 'Christians' :p

Problem is, if an Atheist doesn't point out their errors, they may never actually read the text and discover they had been lied to.

Those who say that the Torah or Old Testament is all about killing those who don't believe what you believe are sadly(though actually, I could say happily) mistaken. No where in the Torah or Old Testament are the Israelites commanded to wage war against pagans just because they don't believe in God. Whenever Israel was commanded to go to war against a heathen nation, there was a distinct reason. For example, the Midianites and the Amalekites were the oppressors of the Israelites, while the Canaanites were so wicked and abominable that God commanded Israel to destroy them (Canaanite religion was based on human sacrifice of children and ritualized prostitution, both abhorrent practices worthy of God's judgement).
"the Canaanites were so wicked and abominable that God commanded Israel to destroy them"

Complete and utter rubbish. Go back to real history classes instead of spreading religious drooling.

the 'this point' i mentioned was fairly obviously about origins
and you also mentioned it's use 'as a guide'.

how did it fail? they seem to be the only ones left still believing that silly old crap. what would success look like?Christians believe in the biblical stories too. And Muslims as well, to an extent.
And it is a failed attempt because they just couldn't get the stories right as the originator had told them. The copying failed and what came out was an arbitrary puzzle of foreign tradition snippets.

And it is a failed attempt because they just couldn't get the stories right as the originator had told them. The copying failed and what came out was an arbitrary puzzle of foreign tradition snippets.

evidence that they were trying to provide exact copies of some other tradition, rather than recording their own oral tradition which naturally branched off from older sources as human culture is want to do?

evidence that they were trying to provide exact copies of some other tradition, rather than recording their own oral tradition which naturally branched off from older sources as human culture is want to do?oh yeah, the old story of the oral tradition. very convenient, that. but if you have read mesopotamian texts/epics you know that the torah/bereshit is no original work but the envy-driven attempt to put a creation story together from other sources and then streamlining it a little towards monotheism.

oh yeah, the old story of the oral tradition. very convenient, that.

what, you think that there wasn't an oral tradition?

what, you think that there wasn't an oral tradition?yep. not for a second. i have no cause or reason to.

yep. not for a second. i have no cause or reason to.

so instead we should believe that...what? one day somebody just made something up out of whole cloth that had absolutely nothing to do with the previous oral traditions of the people and they just went along with it?

I'm strongly against creationism being taught in schools. religion has no place in education or in public life.

so instead we should believe that...what? one day somebody just made something up out of whole cloth that had absolutely nothing to do with the previous oral traditions of the people and they just went along with it?Why not? What did the common pastoralist Jew know about ancient creation stories? People are always ready to believe stories they think to have heard before in one or another form. And they have heard of those stories from Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Indo-Europeans (such as Hittites and Pelasgians), and the yehudized versions of these stories were told to them by their 'learnéd' religious leaders. I know (elderly) Christians who'd just believe everything their priest would tell them, they just have no means (intellectually and practically) to verify what they are told.

nah, OECers explicitly reject evolution, they just make allowances for there to be more time involved than the YECers. its all still a bunch of special creations of kinds. its the theistic evolution guys that have at least basic compatibility (in principle, though they like to add incompatible stuff when they aren't being watched)

I haven't yet met an OEC who explicitly rejected evolution wholesale. They usually cherry-pick from both evolution and creationism, in my experience. Probably because the OEC position is usually the product of a person who wants to hold both to scientific findings and a more literal interpretation of the creation accounts, so they end up having to sacrifice the integrity of both.

but if you have read mesopotamian texts/epics you know that the torah/bereshit is no original work but the envy-driven attempt to put a creation story together from other sources and then streamlining it a little towards monotheism.

the first part, sure. the second part, not so much. what is your evidence for 'envy'? and why would they want to 'put together' a creation story from other sources in the first place? why is your idea to be preferred over standard cultural diffusion?

What did the common pastoralist Jew know about ancient creation stories?

they would know what they had heard and told before. that's how folklore and mythology work.

People are always ready to believe stories they think to have heard before in one or another form. And they have heard of those stories from Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Indo-Europeans (such as Hittites and Pelasgians), and the yehudized versions of these stories were told to them by their 'learnéd' religious leaders.

so this differs from standard cultural diffusion, how?

the first part, sure. the second part, not so much. what is your evidence for 'envy'? and why would they want to 'put together' a creation story from other sources in the first place? why is your idea to be preferred over standard cultural diffusion?there is no trace of the biblical creation story to be found prior to the persian era. it popped up out of nowhere in the one or two centuries leading up to the hellenistic era. how can i possibly assume that it was not artificially put together when all other sources tell a superficially similar yet substantially different story?

there is no trace of the biblical creation story to be found prior to the persian era. it popped up out of nowhere in the one or two centuries leading up to the hellenistic era. how can i possibly assume that it was not artificially put together when all other sources tell a superficially similar yet substantially different story?

your assumption makes the fact that the written form itself is a combination of multiple distinct sources somewhat complicated. which means that you must be positing either a particularly complex act of authorship, or the existence of various traditions that were each 'artificially' put together at some earlier point for some reason.

and how exactly can something 'pop up out of nowhere' and be significantly related to pre-existing traditions?

has anyone here heard of Philip Kitcher's Living with Darwin? good book, that...Kitcher's a philosopher of science. he argues that we shouldn't teach creationism (or intelligent design, for that matter) in schools, not because it's inherently not science, but because it's dead science. As in, longer ago, there were genuine scientists who believed creationism in one or another of its forms (young earth c., "novelty creationism," or anti-selectionism), and their aims as scientists were to solve the problems facing their theory, like how the flood could happen and species spread & diversify afterwards to be such as we find them now, etc. But they were persuaded by mounting evidence, each in turn (by around 1830, 1870, and 1930, respectively), that their theories were inadequate.

Now, if anti-Darwinists simply argued that we should teach more about the current challenges/problems facing Darwinism, questions about the origin of life for example, that would be another matter.

...it's worth a read.

has anyone here heard of Philip Kitcher's Living with Darwin? good book, that...Kitcher's a philosopher of science. he argues that we shouldn't teach creationism (or intelligent design, for that matter) in schools, not because it's inherently not science, but because it's dead science. As in, longer ago, there were genuine scientists who believed creationism in one or another of its forms (young earth c., "novelty creationism," or anti-selectionism), and their aims as scientists were to solve the problems facing their theory, like how the flood could happen and species spread & diversify afterwards to be such as we find them now, etc. But they were persuaded by mounting evidence, each in turn (by around 1830, 1870, and 1930, respectively), that their theories were inadequate.

kitcher is a good guy. or at least so i have been told by friends of mine that worked with him.

I haven't yet met an OEC who explicitly rejected evolution wholesale. They usually cherry-pick from both evolution and creationism, in my experience. Probably because the OEC position is usually the product of a person who wants to hold both to scientific findings and a more literal interpretation of the creation accounts, so they end up having to sacrifice the integrity of both.

the OECs i know of actually take the fixity of species as a key part to their position. for example,
this article (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/rapid_post_flood_speciation.shtml) from hugh ross's organization specifically argues that creationists should not be young earthers precisely because young earth creationism requires lots and lots of evolution. as the article concludes,

Reasons to Believe’s position is the species were specially created by God and began with their distinctive features already intact. We maintain descent with modification is not capable of producing new species regardless of the timeframe. We would concede speciation might occur with plants and with organisms at the level of microbes–bacteria, protists, fungi and viruses–(i.e., those species that have large population sizes with short generation times) but not to anything above that level. Thus, it is very ironic we are accused of being theistic evolutionists and compromisers when it is the young-earth creationists’ model that is siding with evolutionists.

The fixity of species is what separates special creation from theistic evolution and Darwinian evolution. Before we abandon this principle, let’s make sure the facts warrant it.

Okay, but you're going to have to wait until my two have a baby

(unfortunately they're both male)

:mad: You trickster you!

I demand my Tyrannosaurus Rex!

the OECs i know of actually take the fixity of species as a key part to their position. for example,
this article (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/rapid_post_flood_speciation.shtml) from hugh ross's organization specifically argues that creationists should not be young earthers precisely because young earth creationism requires lots and lots of evolution. as the article concludes,

Ah, he's a progressive creationist, and a hard-liner even among those, it seems. A very interesting viewpoint, I must say.

FIRST OF ALL:

Right here, there is a logical falsehood. Normally, people want to avoid these in arguments, but people who know they're wrong almost always tend to make their argument full of them.

First of all, perception. Perception is your thought of something through your filters, in a manner of speaking.

Fact > Perception > Opinion.


Anyway, to put it simple, you have a total logical falsehood in your statement, and you only say what you said because it goes against what you already thought, because you decided to start off your opinion and then build on it, rather than to take the facts and build up to an opinion like so many imbeciles do.


A good way to make this point would be to SHOW WHAT THE FALSEHOOD IS. So far, you have failed to prove a logical falsehood. Moving on...

NEXT PART:

It is your idiotic opinion that creationism is a fairy-tale. Whether or not that is true is subject to opinion, but it is an opinion, and for one thing, it is not proved to be false. Evolution is already taught in public schools, and it is not provable either. They both have evidence, and regardless of which you decide to put your faith in, you cannot deny either one in light of plain logic.


Creationism has no proof of its prime hypothesis. It only has the assertion that "God did it".

Evolution has many, many proofs. Rafts of them have been discussed at length in this very thread. I suggest you go back and read them.

A fairy tale is a story with fantastic imaginary creatures. God is such a creature. Therefore creationism IS a fairy tale.

THEREFORE:

Creationism should be able to be taught in Federally-funded schools, not just the hogwash they want the American population to believe, therefore making us out to just be a more evolved version of animals. Guess what? Since evolution became popular, humans have lost all dignity and have begun to act more like animals.
You have failed to prove your conclusion logically. And your point about humans acting like animals is unproven, and does not figure into the logical construct you appear to be trying to create.

ENDING:

If you want to prove to me, or more likely yourself, that you are right, then PM me. I'll know you're just bsing yourself and everyone that believes you if you choose not to, and it won't surprise me. Either way, maybe we'll meet in each other's inboxes if you dare to try me.

Just as an aside, has anybody noticed how eager creationists (and other religionists) seem to be to take these conversations out of the public eye and continue them in private one on one? Is it, perhaps, in the hope that without all of the rest of us throwing the cold water of actual science and firmly based logic on the issue, the person who takes up the offer of a private conversation might be easier to sway? Or is it, perhaps, that the creationists are not up to the level of debate offered here by those of us who LIKE to have things out and open for everyone to comment on so that we can learn new things? I have to say that I have never seen anyone on the opposing side of a religious argument offer to continue the discussion privately, but I have seen the religious folk do it time and again.

Just as an aside, has anybody noticed how eager creationists (and other religionists) seem to be to take these conversations out of the public eye and continue them in private one on one? Is it, perhaps, in the hope that without all of the rest of us throwing the cold water of actual science and firmly based logic on the issue, the person who takes up the offer of a private conversation might be easier to sway? Or is it, perhaps, that the creationists are not up to the level of debate offered here by those of us who LIKE to have things out and open for everyone to comment on so that we can learn new things? I have to say that I have never seen anyone on the opposing side of a religious argument offer to continue the discussion privately, but I have seen the religious folk do it time and again.

I have. I also notice that any "putdown" of Evolution comes as a reply to a short, two- or three-line post that's easy to refute anyway. The more detailed refutations seem to be left alone- unless, of course, the Creationist is already involved in that fight in the first place.

there is no trace of the biblical creation story to be found prior to the persian era. it popped up out of nowhere in the one or two centuries leading up to the hellenistic era. how can i possibly assume that it was not artificially put together when all other sources tell a superficially similar yet substantially different story?

There's actually evidence within the texts we have.

If the text was created perfect, so to speak, from earlier text, there is no reason for the Hebrew scriptures to show what appears to be strong internal evidence of textual evolution.

For example - the language evidence that shows multiple gods, the language evidence that shows multiple 'gendering' of god, the repetition of story-elements in different forms, etc.

Careful analysis of the text shows consistent results with what would be entirely reasonable to expect from transcription of collected oral traditions.

Does it look a LOT like the Hebrew scripture either bases heavily upon, or (in some cases) just flat out steals earlier Mesopotamian myth? Absolutely - that part isn't really in question. But there's no logical reason to assume that a text that shows all the hallmarks of being a transcript, was instead created from whole cloth.

Another 60 or 70 pages of posts and we just might get this thing wrapped up no?

your assumption makes the fact that the written form itself is a combination of multiple distinct sources somewhat complicated. which means that you must be positing either a particularly complex act of authorship, or the existence of various traditions that were each 'artificially' put together at some earlier point for some reason.

and how exactly can something 'pop up out of nowhere' and be significantly related to pre-existing traditions?Oh you can collect bits and pieces from earlier traditions and pour your own version of god over it. The text surely wasn't assembled in one day, but maybe over a century or so, but certainly not over a millennium or more. The lack of Yahweh-worship prior to some time after the return from the so called Babylonian Captivity puts the entire biblical (hi)story with its theological interpretations in doubt.

How many times do I have to say it? Charles Darwin started his theories on the basis there was no God first.
Completely and totally wrong. And what's more, completely and totally irrelevant. As UB said, Darwin != evolution
That's after he'd already come up with the theory of evolution a public report of a theory has hindsight, it's also pretty rhetoric to get some people fired up.
Stop lying and get the fuck off my internets.
Jeez... I checked this thread (it must have been just yesterday) and it was only 4 pages long.
What? This thing was over 80 pages yesterday.....
Another 60 or 70 pages of posts and we just might get this thing wrapped up no?

Maybe. If we're lucky.

Completely and totally wrong. And what's more, completely and totally irrelevant. As UB said, Darwin != evolution

...

Stop lying and get the fuck off my internets.

I wonder.. do creationist really not understand that lies like these hurt their cause ?
Why are there no mass protests from the serious creationists against them ?

I wonder.. do creationist really not understand that lies like these hurt their cause ?
Why are there no mass protests from the serious creationists against them ?

No they don't. They simply believe any argument, no matter how ridiculous, will forward their cause, if it is against 'evolution'.

Okay, let's see your facts.


Gravity isn't provable. No theory in science is. Learn how science works or shut up.


Okay. Present some of your evidence for Creationism. I'll wait.


But only the biblical account, I presume? Not the various creation myths of every other religion?


:rolleyes:
Right, because Christianity was so benevolent when it had total hegemony. The Crusades and Inquisitions were good, moral things.


Or you could debate it here in the thread. You know, that's the entire purpose of having one.

My opinion is it should be up to the teacher, most likely.

My point there wasn't to prove Creationism, but to say that it's their right to teach what they want.

You're thinking of Catholics in the crusades, not to be confused with real Christians, such as the later Anabaptists.

For one, Creationism can't be disproved. It never has and never will. The biblical Creationists take it all from the Bible, and though all of it can't be proven, it hasn't been disproved. Evolutionist theories are undoubtedly the same way in your opinion, no? Obviously not even every base of it all can be directly proved, but that's either because it's not true, or it's yet to be discovered. The same with the other, and it's really simple.

I don't have the time nor patience for another in-depth argument with someone who refuses to believe, but face the facts before you look at me as another victory.

You're thinking of Catholics in the crusades, not to be confused with real Christians, such as the later Anabaptists.

I won't even bother commenting on that. You people argue too much over something that doesn't exist. Like hundreds of bald guys arguing over a comb.

For one, Creationism can't be disproved. It never has and never will. The biblical Creationists take it all from the Bible, and though all of it can't be proven, it hasn't been disproved. Evolutionist theories are undoubtedly the same way in your opinion, no? Obviously not even every base of it all can be directly proved, but that's either because it's not true, or it's yet to be discovered. The same with the other, and it's really simple.

You can't prove a negative. Prove to me that there isn't a teapot so small no-one can see it orbiting Mars. This teapot is the reason we're here today, because when it tipped, it poured out lava which formed the earth and everything on it. Until you do, we all have to assume that it is there.

That's what you're asking us to do. Rightly, everyone will take that for what it is - nonsense. Or is your sky-fairy different to my teapot?

I don't have the time nor patience for another in-depth argument with someone who refuses to believe, but face the facts before you look at me as another victory.

Try facing facts yourself - evolution has evidence. Believe in that.

For one, Creationism can't be disproved. It never has and never will. The biblical Creationists take it all from the Bible, and though all of it can't be proven, it hasn't been disproved.

Define "disproved". It has been quite conclusively shown that the sun is older than the earth, and the earth itself is well over 6000 years old.

What kind of "proof" do you want ? What would you accept ?

My opinion is it should be up to the teacher, most likely.

My point there wasn't to prove Creationism, but to say that it's their right to teach what they want.

No, it isn't. Teachers are employees. Teachers in public schools are employees of the state. While they should have some leeway, it is not up to them to determine the entire curriculum.

You're thinking of Catholics in the crusades, not to be confused with real Christians, such as the later Anabaptists.

Ah, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

For one, Creationism can't be disproved.

Exactly! And that is why it is not and cannot be science. A scientific theory is a construct, based on evidence, that can be tested and, through testing, either disproven or supported. If it cannot be logically disproven by any test results, it cannot be seen as scientific.

If a hypothesis involves a supernatural entity (ie. God) that cannot be tested or disproven, it is not a scientific hypothesis and thus is not appropriate in a science class except as an example of non-science.

I won't even bother commenting on that. You people argue too much over something that doesn't exist. Like hundreds of bald guys arguing over a comb. just because their head is bald... ;)

You can't prove a negative. Prove to me that there isn't a teapot so small no-one can see it orbiting Mars. This teapot is the reason we're here today, because when it tipped, it poured out lava which formed the earth and everything on it. Until you do, we all have to assume that it is there.

That's what you're asking us to do. Rightly, everyone will take that for what it is - nonsense. Or is your sky-fairy different to my teapot? and in America, you have the freedom to believe in your Flying Teapot, the FSM, or IPU. :cool:

and in America, you have the freedom to believe in your Flying Teapot, the FSM, or IPU. :cool:

And to lie to spread that believe.
Are you sure that is something to be proud of ?

*snip*

Oh, goody, another person with fewer than 15 posts and indistinguishable arguments from the other dozen people with fewer than 15 posts. That's just what this thread needed.

just because their head is bald... ;)

and in America, you have the freedom to believe in your Flying Teapot, the FSM, or IPU. :cool:

UK, as it goes. But I don't spout lies or go to war because my flying teapot told me to.

And to lie to spread that believe.
Are you sure that is something to be proud of ? to be able to believe what you want to and to say what you want to? yes, I am proud I live in a nation that allows this.

UK, as it goes. But I don't spout lies or go to war because my flying teapot told me to.
that's your right also. ;)

to be able to believe what you want to and to say what you want to? yes, I am proud I live in a nation that allows this.

Hmm. I personally would be far more proud to live in a country that allows you to claim anything you want provided you can back it up.

But I admit that my aversion to mass-lies is nonstandard.

Creationism is based in faith and rooted in religious text. It's evidence and proof consists of it being the Word of God.

Evolution is a scientific theory with a hypothesis and scientific evidence. It has been tested through the scientific method.

IF Creationism can survive rigorous attempts to disprove it and can support itself with evidence that is not faith based or rooted in religious books, then it can be taught as a science. If not, it can be preached from a pulpit, but not discussed in a classroom. Dogma has no place in science.

But you could argue the logistics to no end, in the end regardless of how scientific one is over the other they both go into how life came to be and therefor one should not be favored over the other in a public school if there is a true separation of church and state.

Evolution doesn't cover the origins of life/abiogenesis. I think, technically, they're not really mutually exclusive. Creationists just like to pretend they are.

Schools should not be biased in the way of religion, yet to talk about where life came from is impossible without going into the realm of religion. Therefor, schools should either cover both widely believed theories of where life comes from or neither of them.
Besides, you can't really say one is more logical than the other. Evolution makes more scientific sense, but mathematically speaking as far as odds go creationism is significantly more likely. If you doubt me then print out a copy of the Mona Lisa (should be easy to find), tear it up in a few hundred shreds, and throw it up into the air over and over again until all the pieces land perfectly to recreate the painting.
Personally, I wonder why people think there needs to be one or the other. Evolution explains the development of life in a scientific manner and clearly living things can adapt, but creationism explains how those scientific rules got there in the first place and how they are so finely balanced and tuned to make life possible at all and how living things have been designed so well adapted.
Without some sort of intelligent design at work and with nature left to it's own devices the chances of life being possible are next to nothing and the chances of life just conveniently adapted to survive as long as it has are extremely slim too.
But you could argue the logistics to no end, in the end regardless of how scientific one is over the other they both go into how life came to be and therefor one should not be favored over the other in a public school if there is a true separation of church and state.

Schools should not be biased in the way of religion, yet to talk about where life came from is impossible without going into the realm of religion. Therefor, schools should either cover both widely believed theories of where life comes from or neither of them.

The "both" is an erroneous statement. There are many religions not based on Abraham.

Besides, you can't really say one is more logical than the other. Evolution makes more scientific sense, but mathematically speaking as far as odds go creationism is significantly more likely.

The chance of creationism cannot be computed. This claim is a frequent lie sprouted by creationists.
However, the exact form of creationism as proposed by the Bible has been quite conclusively shown to be wrong on several aspects. It is no longer worth considering.

Other religious explanations may fare better.

Schools should not be biased in the way of religion, yet to talk about where life came from is impossible without going into the realm of religion. Therefor, schools should either cover both widely believed theories of where life comes from or neither of them.

Both? Are you under the impression that only one religion has a creation story?

Meanwhile, there is no reason not to teach science in a science class simply because some forms of religion may contradict it.

Besides, you can't really say one is more logical than the other. Evolution makes more scientific sense,

...and therefore belongs in a science class.

but mathematically speaking as far as odds go creationism is significantly more likely.

How do you calculate the odds of a given divine entity existing? How do you calculate the odds of said entity doing it in one of a couple of specified ways in a single holy text?

But you could argue the logistics to no end, in the end regardless of how scientific one is over the other they both go into how life came to be and therefor one should not be favored over the other in a public school if there is a true separation of church and state.

A true separation of church and state couldn't choose a single religious viewpoint to teach above all others. Hence the reason that any form of creationism has its place in a religious studies class where multiple creation stories are studied.

Evolution doesn't cover the origins of life/abiogenesis. I think, technically, they're not really mutually exclusive. Creationists just like to pretend they are.

It's because they don't like to research what evolution is. It may make too much sense.

Hmm. I personally would be far more proud to live in a country that allows you to claim anything you want provided you can back it up. can you imagine living in a country that has that kind of censorship?

"Funniest movie in 2007" prove it.
"Most Fuel Efficent Car on the Road Today" Prove it.
"New and Improved" Prove it.
"I believe today is my lucky day" Prove it. :p

can you imagine living in a country that has that kind of censorship?

"Funniest movie in 2007" prove it.
"Most Fuel Efficent Car on the Road Today" Prove it.
"New and Improved" Prove it.
"I believe today is my lucky day" Prove it. :p

The last statement would not be problematic since it expresses an opinion. If the first three would also be rephrased as opinions instead of facts there would no problem with them either.

not if you stick with the "literal" interpretation.

"God autofellated and life came into being".
Some stories really are as simple as that. Not much to comment on ;)

Not much use either though.

Evolution doesn't cover the origins of life/abiogenesis. I think, technically, they're not really mutually exclusive. Creationists just like to pretend they are. I dunno, some evolutionists also pretend that Creationism of any sort is mutually exclusive.

The "both" is an erroneous statement. There are many religions not based on Abraham. and many Religions have their own form of creation story. so why not include them?

The chance of creationism cannot be computed. This claim is a frequent lie sprouted by creationists.
However, the exact form of creationism as proposed by the Bible has been quite conclusively shown to be wrong on several aspects. It is no longer worth considering. agreed, if sticking only to the Literal interpretation of the Biblical creation.

Other religious explanations may fare better. not if you stick with the "literal" interpretation. either way, all forms of creationism, if decided to be taught in school, should not be taught as science. Theology? yes, Philosophy? Maybe, but not science.

Schools should not be biased in the way of religion, yet to talk about where life came from is impossible without going into the realm of religion.

The origin of life is not proven in any capacity. To go through the scores of thought on the subject is best relegated to the pulpit.

Therefor, schools should either cover both widely believed theories of where life comes from or neither of them.

Evolution has matched the criteria for the scientific method about changes in development. It has never attempted to explain the origin of life, merely the origin of the species. Since this is a science class, the science should be taught and the dogma left to oral tradition from the pulpit.

Besides, you can't really say one is more logical than the other. Evolution makes more scientific sense, but mathematically speaking as far as odds go creationism is significantly more likely.

Actually creationism has no chance of being correct so your numbers are backwards. Even if the odds of evolution are a billion to one (I am sure the numbers are lower) than it still beats out creationism at infinity to 1...maybe.

If you doubt me then print out a copy of the Mona Lisa (should be easy to find), tear it up in a few hundred shreds, and throw it up into the air over and over again until all the pieces land perfectly to recreate the painting.

Falacious and specious. Howevr, if you did it a billion times, might be interesting to see the results. However you analogy lacks one fine point. That is that only one needs to fall into place correctly, and then we toss the other pieces until we evolve to the full picture. The same analogy was made about a 747. However the 747 was created after years of advances in technology that was built on previous work. It evolved. It did not suddenly come into being as you suggest.

Personally, I wonder why people think there needs to be one or the other. Evolution explains the development of life in a scientific manner and clearly living things can adapt, but creationism explains how those scientific rules got there in the first place and how they are so finely balanced and tuned to make life possible at all and how living things have been designed so well adapted.

Huh? Part one you explain about what evolution clearly explains. Part two you guess that this particular flavor has voracity. No, it does not need to be designed. It can happen randomly and the survival of the fittest holds true.

Without some sort of intelligent design at work and with nature left to it's own devices the chances of life being possible are next to nothing and the chances of life just conveniently adapted to survive as long as it has are extremely slim too.

Slim perhaps but we are the exception to the rule in your description. We successfully and randomly came into being, evolved, and now look at where we are! All without an 'intelligent designer' to praise or blame!

But you could argue the logistics to no end, in the end regardless of how scientific one is over the other they both go into how life came to be and therefor one should not be favored over the other in a public school if there is a true separation of church and state.

Religion again is a fallacy. If the schools desire to teach an optional course in religion, fine. Lets teach ALL religions. I have one about a head of lettuce dying to be taught. However, it has no place in a science class for obvious reasons.

"God autofellated and life came into being".
Some stories really are as simple as that. Not much to comment on ;)

Not much use either though.
well, how long did it take?
was it left handed or right?
and will there be a second coming? :D

Without some sort of intelligent design at work and with nature left to it's own devices the chances of life being possible are next to nothing and the chances of life just conveniently adapted to survive as long as it has are extremely slim too.

Perhaps the puddle believes that God must have created the ditch especially for it, since the two are exactly the same shape.

The last statement would not be problematic since it expresses an opinion. If the first three would also be rephrased as opinions instead of facts there would no problem with them either.
except you did state...

Hmm. I personally would be far more proud to live in a country that allows you to claim anything you want provided you can back it up.

But I admit that my aversion to mass-lies is nonstandard.

and that includes opinions.

and the first three are taken straight out of ads trying to sell you items like Movies, Cars, and any other product.

Also the last statement can actually be tested by charting past experiences to show a trend. ;)
But would you really sit though a powerpoint presentation that shows why the speaker really believes today is the speaker's 'lucky day'? :D

Naughty Slave Girls, you can't say that a Boeing 747 "evolved" simply because it didn't build and design itself. It had intelligent designers to supervise the process.

The simplest forms of life are far more complex than any human creation, so it seems logical to conclude that life had a designer.

Oral I believe ;)
But the trick is - the less detailed a story, the less there is to test.
Biblical creationism of the kind that some people want to see in classes is in fact quite expansive, with lots of details. Even though we cannot test the main part, we can test all those sideclaims.
And there literal creationism failed. Unfortunately many people insist on using the "but God used his magic wand and made it so, so it just seems to be wrong" argument :(

But good old Atum and his little pecker are so refreshingly simple :)

so God is a Hedgehog? :p

ah, but as others said, why stick to Christian Creationism?

and Biblical Creationism is also vague. "He created the plants and trees" doesn't state how.
and it doesn't state how long a day was either. for all we know, the Light and Dark periods was actually God opening the oven door to see if the Earth was ready for the next addition. :p

well, how long did it take?
was it left handed or right?
and will there be a second coming? :D

Oral I believe ;)
But the trick is - the less detailed a story, the less there is to test.
Biblical creationism of the kind that some people want to see in classes is in fact quite expansive, with lots of details. Even though we cannot test the main part, we can test all those sideclaims.
And there literal creationism failed. Unfortunately many people insist on using the "but God used his magic wand and made it so, so it just seems to be wrong" argument :(

But good old Atum and his little pecker are so refreshingly simple :)

Meanwhile, there is no reason not to teach science in a science class simply because some forms of religion may contradict it.

...and therefore belongs in a science class.

A true separation of church and state couldn't choose a single religious viewpoint to teach above all others. Hence the reason that any form of creationism has its place in a religious studies class where multiple creation stories are studied.

It's amazing to me that people who support evolution and only evolution being taught in science classes don't even try to ask why people would have a problem with just evolution and not the rest of science.

We don't see evolution as being a purely scientific thing. In case you failed to notice, evolution tends to mention the creation of life, including how humans physically came to be. Considering religions generally tend to talk about forces that govern the universe and creation, evolution is definitely stepping into those grounds.

And yet more amazing still is those who have the awareness to see that detail are then said to be not as smart.

Thus, I still still argue that it conflicts with separation of church and state to teach evolution without covering other theories of creation as well. I'm all for either everything or nothing being taught, but no in-between. I use creationism for examples because it's the most well known theory.

Naughty Slave Girls, you can't say that a Boeing 747 "evolved" simply because it didn't build and design itself. It had intelligent designers to supervise the process.

The simplest forms of life are far more complex than any human creation, so it seems logical to conclude that life had a designer.

Human life also evolved by survival of the fittest. It's randomness proves there was no intelligent designer.

It's amazing to me that people who support evolution and only evolution being taught in science classes don't even try to ask why people would have a problem with just evolution and not the rest of science.

I have no probloms with teaching the rest of science. There are just no alternative scientific theories for evolution that have not been debunked. Possibly there will be one in the future.

Religious alternatives ... well, those exist yes. Billions of them. But I have yet to see one that has any practical use.

We don't see evolution as being a purely scientific thing. In case you failed to notice, evolution tends to mention the creation of life, including how humans physically came to be.

The theory of Evolution suggests how humans came to be yes. It however makes no statements about the origins of life.

It's amazing to me that people who support evolution and only evolution being taught in science classes don't even try to ask why people would have a problem with just evolution and not the rest of science.

It's rather clear why. It challenges them to question their religion and they don't like to do so. They also don't want their children to think for themselves and question it.

Meanwhile, it is rather incorrect to say that I support evolution and only evolution being taught in science classes. I think science should be taught in science classes. Given that evolutionary theory is a core part of modern biology, it should be in the curriculum.

We don't see evolution as being a purely scientific thing.

That's not anyone's problem but your own. It is a scientific theory, whether you like it or not. It has nothing to do with your religion or with any other religion.

In case you failed to notice, evolution tends to mention the creation of life,

No, it doesn't. Not at all. The origins of life are another subject altogether. Evolution is a theory describing how life changes over time.

including how humans physically came to be.

Indeed.

Considering religions generally tend to talk about forces that govern the universe and creation, evolution is definitely stepping into those grounds.

Different religions cover a lot of things. Science, however, is not tied to any given religion, so it doesn't really matter if science covers something that a religion also happens to cover. If a religion declares that lightning bolts are Zeus throwing things at us because he is angry, there is no reason that said unscientific viewpoint should be covered in a science class along with the scientific ideas on it.

Religion once declared all things in the "heavens" (outside the Earth) perfect (ie. no craters) and declared a geocentric universe. Empirical evidence led to other conclusions.

Thus, I still still argue that it conflicts with separation of church and state to teach evolution without covering other theories of creation as well. I'm all for either everything or nothing being taught, but no in-between. I use creationism for examples because it's the most well known theory.

(a) Evolution is not a "theory of creation".

(b) Evolution is not religion. Thus, teaching it cannot possibly conflict with separation of church and state. It is no more a violation of your first amendment rights than teaching the heliocentric model of the solar system or pointing out that the moon has craters.

(c) Creationism is not a "theory", at least not in the scientific sense.

Thus, I still still argue that it conflicts with separation of church and state to teach evolution without covering other theories of creation as well. I'm all for either everything or nothing being taught, but no in-between. I use creationism for examples because it's the most well known theory.
actually it doesn't conflict with the Seperation of Church and State. Public schools are funded by government taxes and thus they cannot support any one religion over the other. hence they don't teach the Christian version of Creation.

now if Science was suddenly delcared a religion... :p

Considering religions generally tend to talk about forces that govern the universe and creation, evolution is definitely stepping into those grounds.


So? If reality upsets people, too bad. We can't ignore it just to spare their feelings.

Religious alternatives ... well, those exist yes. Billions of them. But I have yet to see one that has any practical use.Why must there be a practical use? And what would a practical use be?

Why must there be a practical use? And what would a practical use be?

What would be the point of teaching it if there is no way to link it to reality ?
Philosophy is nice, but humans tend to have a finite lifespan. Some ideas are simply more worthy of consideration than others. A form of triage is necessary.

So? If reality upsets people, too bad. We can't ignore it just to spare their feelings.QFT.
"Religious feelings" is a paradoxon anyways.

What would be the point of teaching it if there is no way to link it to reality ?
Philosophy is nice, but humans tend to have a finite lifespan. Some ideas are simply more worthy of consideration than others. A form of triage is necessary.what? :confused:
what practical uses does knowledge about evolution have?

what practical uses does knowledge about evolution have?
Evolutionary theories, Darwinian or otherwise, offer a supporting explanation for many aspects of the biological sciences; diversity, speciation, ecological adaptations etc.

Amongst other things, they posit ways of understanding viral mutations and the way that insects or bacteria are able to develop immunity to various insecticides or antibiotics, as well as providing scientifically testable hypotheses that have survived all the tests that have been thrown at them over the last 150 years.

I find that to be practical, useful knowledge. Your mileage may vary.

Evolutionary theories, Darwinian or otherwise, offer a supporting explanation for many aspects of the biological sciences; diversity, speciation, ecological adaptations etc.

Amongst other things, they posit ways of understanding viral mutations and the way that insects or bacteria are able to develop immunity to various insecticides or antibiotics, as well as providing scientifically testable hypotheses that have survived all the tests that have been thrown at them over the last 150 years.

I find that to be practical, useful knowledge. Your mileage may vary.insects and bacteria don't develop immunity. either they have it and survive/procreate or they don't and die. that's evolution. but i'm not sure how that helps practically beyond increasing knowledge.

Why must there be a practical use? And what would a practical use be?

Bum fodder?

insects and bacteria don't develop immunity. either they have it and survive/procreate or they don't and die. that's evolution. but i'm not sure how that helps practically beyond increasing knowledge.
My apologies, I should have realised that 1400+ posts in the thread was more than enough time for the pedantry to become well and truly entrenched.

For "the way that insects or bacteria are able to develop immunity to various insecticides or antibiotics" read "the way that species of insects or strains of bacteria exhibit increasing immunity to various insecticides or antibiotics over time". Better?

I'm well aware that that's evolution, thank you, and I stand by my assertion that it is knowledge both practical and useful. Not to you, perhaps, but no doubt to those engaged in developing counters to diseases, attempting to predict the effects that individual species might have in certain situations or simply understand the world around us.

Regardless, even if it were wholly purposeless knowledge, I would still see value in it. I call it progress.

My apologies, I should have realised that 1400+ posts in the thread was more than enough time for the pedantry to become well and truly entrenched.

For "the way that insects or bacteria are able to develop immunity to various insecticides or antibiotics" read "the way that species of insects or strains of bacteria exhibit increasing immunity to various insecticides or antibiotics over time". Better?

I'm well aware that that's evolution, thank you, and I stand by my assertion that it is knowledge both practical and useful. Not to you, perhaps, but no doubt to those engaged in developing counters to diseases, attempting to predict the effects that individual species might have in certain situations or simply understand the world around us.

Regardless, even if it were wholly purposeless knowledge, I would still see value in it. I call it progress.

Science has had remarkable progress in the last 500 years or so.

xtianity in particular drove knowledge away for many years. They branded people as heretics, tortured and killed them for having any divergent thought process. In fact knowledge sank so low, there was no one to maintain buildings, or sanitary conditions and it plunged us into plagues and darkness.

Religion is anti-progress.

The simplest forms of life are far more complex than any human creation, so it seems logical to conclude that life had a designer.

1. That does not follow logically.
2. The simplest forms of life are far less complex than many, many human inventions. Such as, say, a computer.

Religion is anti-progress.

This does not follow from the rest of what you said. The fact that some religious organizations have opposed progress hardly means that religion is inherently anti-progress.

This does not follow from the rest of what you said. The fact that some religious organizations have opposed progress hardly means that religion is inherently anti-progress.

Indeed. Now, I would go as far as to say that religion has anti-progress/anti-scientific tendencies, largely because it encourages people to accept faith as an answer-- thereby eliminating the need to look further-- and discourages lines of thought that are heretical or that in anyway contradict the understanding of the faith, but it's hardly inherently so. A tendency for something does not always imply an absolute.

It's quite possible to have religion without those aspects (well, maybe not so much the acceptance of faith as an answer, since faith is inherent to religion, but it can have this in small enough degree that new answers and new evidence will still be sought out), even if mainstream religion is quite guilty of both of those in varying, but still fairly high, degrees.

This does not follow from the rest of what you said. The fact that some religious organizations have opposed progress hardly means that religion is inherently anti-progress.

I will let history and the dark ages speak in rebuttal to your statement.

I will let history and the dark ages speak in rebuttal to your statement.

As a history geek/major, I'm going to point out that the "Dark Ages" is really not a term that you should, strictly speaking, use. It's only a part of pop history, not really recognized by historical scholars, largely because of negative connotations that aren't really meant to be attached to said period. When modern historians do use the term, it's meant to be neutral-- the "dark" refers to the fact that we don't have as much knowledge about it as the high or late middle ages. But even that part is slowly being chipped away at; we're learning more and more about that time period.

Again, I agree that religion has anti-scientific tendencies, but it's not as inherent to it as you make it out to be.

Again, I agree that religion has anti-scientific tendencies, but it's not as inherent to it as you make it out to be.

Actually it is. If words still have meaning and if we are meant to respect their meaning, religion and science are mutually exclusive. Religion exalts belief without evidence for such and such reasons. Science is the method by which beliefs are established by the evidence - or as someone else put it - by judicious study of discernible reality.

Can a person can maintain faith-based beliefs and evidence based beliefs simultaneously? Yes of course. But faith can only operate in the absence of evidence and by extension of science.

The lack of Yahweh-worship prior to some time after the return from the so called Babylonian Captivity puts the entire biblical (hi)story with its theological interpretations in doubt.

Incorrect. Kings like Jehu and Hezekiah both existed before the Babylonian Captivity (check the Babylonian and Assyrian annals) and both have theophoric elements in their names (Jehu and Hezekiah), indicating that there *was* Yahwistic belief entrenched at that time (and, since those two were kings, established as a (if not the) national religion). In fact, Yahwistic names date all the way back to at least the 9th century B.C. You're right in saying the bulk of the Bible was put to paper after the Babylonian captivity but that doesn't mean that a belief in Yahweh sprung at that time.

Creationism should show up in science class for a day, just so everyone can have a good chuckle.

Creationism should show up in science class for a day, just so everyone can have a good chuckle.

I wonder if Creationism would be the self-deprecating kid in science class?

I wonder if Creationism would be the self-deprecating kid in science class?

No. That's me.
In any class.

Indeed. Now, I would go as far as to say that religion has anti-progress/anti-scientific tendencies, largely because it encourages people to accept faith as an answer-- thereby eliminating the need to look further-- and discourages lines of thought that are heretical or that in anyway contradict the understanding of the faith, but it's hardly inherently so. A tendency for something does not always imply an absolute.

It's quite possible to have religion without those aspects (well, maybe not so much the acceptance of faith as an answer, since faith is inherent to religion, but it can have this in small enough degree that new answers and new evidence will still be sought out), even if mainstream religion is quite guilty of both of those in varying, but still fairly high, degrees.

The problem here is that you consider faith to be an end to questioning. In my opinion, one who stops questioning has actually lost faith.


I will let history and the dark ages speak in rebuttal to your statement.

In other words, you've got nothing. The actions of some religious leaders hardly represents all religion.


Actually it is. If words still have meaning and if we are meant to respect their meaning, religion and science are mutually exclusive.

Hardly. They can and do coexist when they are kept to their separate realms. Science is designed to investigate the universe around us - the natural - and works quite well in doing so. Religion is used to investigate the spiritual and supernatural. They are no more mutually exclusive than a hammer and a screwdriver. They're just tools for different purposes.

Hardly. They can and do coexist when they are kept to their separate realms. Science is designed to investigate the universe around us - the natural - and works quite well in doing so. Religion is used to investigate the spiritual and supernatural. They are no more mutually exclusive than a hammer and a screwdriver. They're just tools for different purposes.

Nonsense! A hammer will work with anything.

Hardly. They can and do coexist when they are kept to their separate realms. Science is designed to investigate the universe around us - the natural - and works quite well in doing so. Religion is used to investigate the spiritual and supernatural. They are no more mutually exclusive than a hammer and a screwdriver. They're just tools for different purposes.You're in illustrious company here - Stephen Jay Gould said the same thing - but that really doesn't hold much water. Religion teaches us that a burning bush talked to someone, that someone magically turned water into wine, and that plants were created before the sun.

Science teaches us that water is a stable molecule and doesn't spontaneously become ethanol, that entropy increases (making a burning bush impossible unless there's an outside stimulus), and that plants need to photosynthesize.

Religion teaches us that a burning bush talked to someone, that someone magically turned water into wine, and that plants were created before the sun.

No, a literal interpretation of ridiculously obvious allegories teaches that. Religion does not.

You're in illustrious company here - Stephen Jay Gould said the same thing - but that really doesn't hold much water. Religion teaches us that a burning bush talked to someone, that someone magically turned water into wine, and that plants were created before the sun.

Science teaches us that water is a stable molecule and doesn't spontaneously become ethanol, that entropy increases (making a burning bush impossible unless there's an outside stimulus), and that plants need to photosynthesize.

Only one religion 'teaches' us that... and that really rather depends how much of it you take entirely literally.

No, a literal interpretation of ridiculously obvious allegories teaches that. Religion does not.
Which allegories? Allegories for what?

Which allegories? Allegories for what?The eating of the forbidden fruit and the sudden desire to hide your shame resulting from that is an allegory for how humans are rather distinct from animals in their ambition and crafting.

My opinion is it should be up to the teacher, most likely.
What? What's the point in having a curriculum if teachers can just teach whatever they way?

My point there wasn't to prove Creationism, but to say that it's their right to teach what they want.
No it's not. Teachers have a curriculum to follow. They might have some freedom in how they teach, but not really in what they teach.

You're thinking of Catholics in the crusades, not to be confused with real Christians, such as the later Anabaptists.
Catholics are Christians whether you want them to be or not.

For one, Creationism can't be disproved. It never has and never will.
And thus has no place in science.
The biblical Creationists take it all from the Bible, and though all of it can't be proven, it hasn't been disproved. Evolutionist theories are undoubtedly the same way in your opinion, no? Obviously not even every base of it all can be directly proved, but that's either because it's not true, or it's yet to be discovered. The same with the other, and it's really simple.
Evolution, like all scientific theories, can be disproved.

I don't have the time nor patience for another in-depth argument with someone who refuses to believe, but face the facts before you look at me as another victory.
What facts are we meant to be facing?
Oh, goody, another person with fewer than 15 posts and indistinguishable arguments from the other dozen people with fewer than 15 posts. That's just what this thread needed.
I plugged my puppet detector out about 40 pages ago, to prevent explosion.
Creationism is based in faith and rooted in religious text. It's evidence and proof consists of it being the Word of God.

Evolution is a scientific theory with a hypothesis and scientific evidence. It has been tested through the scientific method.

IF Creationism can survive rigorous attempts to disprove it and can support itself with evidence that is not faith based or rooted in religious books, then it can be taught as a science. If not, it can be preached from a pulpit, but not discussed in a classroom. Dogma has no place in science.
Holy crap, someone with less than 15 posts that isn't saying the exact same thing as all the other people with less than 15 posts :eek: Way to go new guy!
Schools should not be biased in the way of religion, yet to talk about where life came from is impossible without going into the realm of religion.
Big Bang. Where the religious aspect to that?
Therefor, schools should either cover both widely believed theories of where life comes from or neither of them.
Besides, you can't really say one is more logical than the other. Evolution makes more scientific sense, but mathematically speaking as far as odds go creationism is significantly more likely.
Stop right the fuck there.
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINS OF LIFE
Naughty Slave Girls, you can't say that a Boeing 747 "evolved" simply because it didn't build and design itself. It had intelligent designers to supervise the process.

The simplest forms of life are far more complex than any human creation, so it seems logical to conclude that life had a designer.
Except we can find the people that designed the 747. If you can provide God and He can prove that he created the universe, then and only then I will acknowledge that God created the universe.
Creationism should show up in science class for a day, just so everyone can have a good chuckle.
You know, I wouldn't mind creationism being used as a 'What not to do' example when students are learning about the scientific method.

Catholics are Christians whether you want them to be or not.

Pfft, any fool knows that real christians have salt in their porridge.


You know, I wouldn't mind creationism being used as a 'What not to do' example when students are learning about the scientific method.

That's how I've always felt.

Even though it is the only sensible way to get ID in the science classroom I cannot see the IDers jumping for that idea.

Pfft, any fool knows that real christians have salt in their porridge.
Heretic! Jesus hated salty porridge!


That's how I've always felt.

Even though it is the only sensible way to get ID in the science classroom I cannot see the IDers jumping for that idea.

They're just so sure that they're right they won't accpet anything short of everyone agreeing with them. Oh well.

Incorrect. Kings like Jehu and Hezekiah both existed before the Babylonian Captivity (check the Babylonian and Assyrian annals) and both have theophoric elements in their names (Jehu and Hezekiah), indicating that there *was* Yahwistic belief entrenched at that time (and, since those two were kings, established as a (if not the) national religion). In fact, Yahwistic names date all the way back to at least the 9th century B.C. You're right in saying the bulk of the Bible was put to paper after the Babylonian captivity but that doesn't mean that a belief in Yahweh sprung at that time.Yah is not automatically Yahweh. Yah is the deity known to the Sumerians as Enki, to the Akkadians and subsequent Mesopotamians as Ia/Ea (pronounced something like Eyá). And there is a major conceptional difference between Yah worship of Hebrews and Israelites and the later Yahweh worship of Jews. The Jewish Yahweh is an amalgam of quite a number of deities (such as Enki/Yah, Enlil, Elohim, Asherah, Marduk/Baal/Set) while the much older Yah is not.

The eating of the forbidden fruit and the sudden desire to hide your shame resulting from that is an allegory for how humans are rather distinct from animals in their ambition and crafting.But how is the creation story allegorical?

But how is the creation story allegorical?Figure it out for yourself. I found you one; I'm not going to analyze the whole thing for you.

No..i have not read ALL 50+ pages..
Yes i am a low count poster..as all posters are at some time..

I cannot believe that creationism is still taught in American schools. Where the rest of the "modern" world has assessed and moved on to a more counterbalanced view ..given the wieght of evidence for evolution. Typical of how a system can be mis-guided by 3 church-loving old ladies on a commitee....only in America! (and any other nation that someone will undoubtly point out).

Creationism should not be taught in schools...the´same way "bomb-making", "Fairies and how to tame them", "How to wite astrology charts" and all other poppycock.

During the 50+ pages has anyone explained the evidence for the creationist viewpoint?..without using the "well God exists so it must be true" variant.

I am not so opinionated that i would not concider looking at any evidence for the creationist standpoint...its just I have never ever seen/heard/read anything that supports the view.

In my opinion..All religious documents ought to be listed under the "fiction" branch of the library of human knowledge.

During the 50+ pages has anyone explained the evidence for the creationist viewpoint?..without using the "well God exists so it must be true" variant.

In the space of 99 pages we've had 'The universe exists, therefore it was created' and 'The universe is complex, therefore it was designed'. And little else to actually support creationism. Plently of attempts to discredit evolution though.

In the space of 99 pages we've had 'The universe exists, therefore it was created' and 'The universe is complex, therefore it was designed'. And little else to actually support creationism. Plently of attempts to discredit evolution though.

Heh I guess the theing with creationists is the whole proof of Gods existance. I mean if they can't prove that how do they even begin to prove that God created the universe?

In the space of 99 pages we've had 'The universe exists, therefore it was created' and 'The universe is complex, therefore it was designed'. And little else to actually support creationism. Plently of attempts to discredit evolution though.
Which is nice, because all these responses serve as examples of why Creationism doesn't deserve any time whatsoever in science classes.

Want to get your pet theory taught in science? DO SOME SCIENCE, YOU LAZY JERKWADS.

What's your theory? Where are your TESTABLE hypotheses? Where are your practical experiments to test your predictions? Where is your peer review?

No, challenging somebody else's theory doesn't count. See, every single meaningful test of evolutionary theory has come from SCIENTISTS. Not Creationists. Creationists have presented precisely zero meaningful challenges to evolutionary theory. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. So really, we don't need Creationists to show us how to 'question' science. Scientists already do that, and we do it better.

I will let history and the dark ages speak in rebuttal to your statement.

And I will let the Islamic Caliphates at the same time speak in rebuttal to yours.

Religion is not inherently anti-science. It can be taken that way, and when used oppressively, has that effect. As do many other things. At risk of Godwin, so did Nazism (No Jewish science, for a start). It may have tendencies in that direction, but it is perfectly reasonable, possible, and indeed common to be religious and scientific, or to be religious and not seek to stifle scientific progress.

And I will let the Islamic Caliphates at the same time speak in rebuttal to yours.

Religion is not inherently anti-science. It can be taken that way, and when used oppressively, has that effect. As do many other things. At risk of Godwin, so did Nazism (No Jewish science, for a start). It may have tendencies in that direction, but it is perfectly reasonable, possible, and indeed common to be religious and scientific, or to be religious and not seek to stifle scientific progress.

Incidentally, Dixie was kind enough to point this out for us too. He went and listed a whole bunch of famous Christian scientists. At least, I think that was this thread.

I already figured: The creation story is NOT allegorical.

So it is literal?

Figure it out for yourself.I already figured: The creation story is NOT allegorical.

I cannot believe that creationism is still taught in American schools.

It isn't, at least not in public schools. There are those trying to force it into public schools, but it is not currently taught.

Creationism should not be taught in schools...the´same way "bomb-making", "Fairies and how to tame them", "How to wite astrology charts" and all other poppycock.

Bombs don't exist? :confused:

Where are your TESTABLE hypotheses?

we came up with some for them awhile back on nsg. they weren't doing too good in the "standing up to the test of reality" department though.

we came up with some for them awhile back on nsg. they weren't doing too good in the "standing up to the test of reality" department though.

But you didn't do the one test that matters: "is it in the Bible?"

Does YOUR religion, evolutionism, pass that test?!

But you didn't do the one test that matters: "is it in the Bible?"

Does YOUR religion, evolutionism, pass that test?!

Depends what version (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Genesis_3#14) of the bible.

An Ceiling Cat said unto teh serpent, "cuz u did dis,
cursd u aboov all teh moocows,
An aboov every one of those 4 leggd things that evolvd round here;
upon ur belly u gun walk An I gun take ur legs
An geev them to teh French 2 eatz An this is wut they gun eatz An hey gun call it "Frawgs leegz",
An dust shalt u eated
all teh dais ov ur life
An u no getz no cookies to eated. An no cheezburgers neither. Srsly.

Depends what version (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Genesis_3#14) of the bible.

An Ceiling Cat said unto teh serpent, "cuz u did dis,
cursd u aboov all teh moocows,
An aboov every one of those 4 leggd things that evolvd round here;
upon ur belly u gun walk An I gun take ur legs
An geev them to teh French 2 eatz An this is wut they gun eatz An hey gun call it "Frawgs leegz",
An dust shalt u eated
all teh dais ov ur life
An u no getz no cookies to eated. An no cheezburgers neither. Srsly.

Pfft, nobody takes lolcat Genesis literally anymore, except for crazy fringe groups. We all know that "evolved" is just an allegory for creation, because we had such FAIL that we couldn't understand Ceiling Cat creating the universe with His word.

I already figured: The creation story is NOT allegorical.

You are incredibly wrong. There are examples of allegorical interpretations of Genesis in the New Testament (Galatians 4:22-26) and other writings by early Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

Is the internet in the Bible?

;)

Anyway, that only matters when you presuppose that it matters. You say "it's in the Bible, therefore it's true" or "it isn't in the Bible, therefore it's false" -- your reason for trusting the Bible is "it's the Word of God" -- your reason for believing in God is "it's in the Bible." This is a circular argument, it's begging the question; it's invalid. Or have I grossly misrepresented the argument, and if so, please be so kind as to delineate the proper one?

Also, there are notable points (which, in 99 pages, must have been mentioned somewhere) at which the Bible contradicts itself, and I'm not referring just to OT/NT differences. The Bible, written, compiled, and canonized (after a good deal of argument, I'm had to understand) by humans, is fallible. I recognized that when I still would have called myself a good churchgoing Christian, as do many others.

Of course, I'm sure this has all been said, so I apologize if this is a waste of screen space on my part.
*shrugs*

He's not being serious you know :p

/EDIT: pardon. you'll see I'm new to the thread. and 99 pages is a lot to skim. :p

/EDIT: pardon. you'll see I'm new to the thread. and 99 pages is a lot to skim. :p

You are forgiven. Welcome to NSG :)

You are forgiven. Welcome to NSG :)

Hey a new person? welcome!

You are forgiven. Welcome to NSG :)No one on NSG is forgiven. We are all damned. :D

100 pages eh? King Leonidas has something to say about this thread:
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/thisisspamix4.gif

100 pages eh? King Leonidas has something to say about this thread:
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/thisisspamix4.gif

I'm saving that when I get home, and linking it into every thread on GM :D

I'm saving that when I get home, and linking it into every thread on GM :D

I have a genius idea.

Go on GM nao, FTW!

Other people should too, for the lulz. Link is in my sig, the big kulurful thing.

But you didn't do the one test that matters: "is it in the Bible?"

Does YOUR religion, evolutionism, pass that test?!

ROTFLMMFAO

I have a genius idea.

Go on GM nao, FTW!

Other people should too, for the lulz. Link is in my sig, the big kulurful thing.

Haven't been on GM for a reasonable amount of time. Popped in the other day to grab my south park avatar but that's about it. Uni's kept me too busy.

Haven't been on GM for a reasonable amount of time. Popped in the other day to grab my south park avatar but that's about it. Uni's kept me too busy.

Doooooo it! If only just for a second.

Maybe later. Got exam in 4 hours.

Awwww, just look at the news ticker!

Doooooo it! If only just for a second.

Maybe later. Got exam in 4 hours.

I have a genius idea.

Go on GM nao, FTW!

Other people should too, for the lulz. Link is in my sig, the big kulurful thing.Wow... When did Generalite Mafia come about? :confused: