NationStates Jolt Archive

So, here's a brief summary of the arguments that seem to be revolving around and around, and the counters to them:

Creationists: Creationism is an alternative view of how we came about, and should be taught in Science class.

Scientists: Only science should be taught in science class. Science is something that can be tested, and creation can't be tested.

C: Evolution can't be proven any more than creation can.

S: Yes, it can (and I said tested before). It is based on the life's work of many, many brilliant people. Just look at the fossil record, radiowaves from deep space, carbon dating, microevolution...According to Creationism, the earth just popped into existence about 10,000-6,000 years ago. There is simply too much evidence that that didn't occur. Creationism is an alternative view of how we came about that is not based on experiential evidence, and as such, should be taught where other such ideas are taught.

C: The Universe just came into existence and seems to be much older than it is.

S: Fine, but how can I test that? I need some evidence to work with before I change my point of view. Any ideas without evidence are merely opinions. Science does change over time, as new ideas are tested and debunked or found to be plausible. But it takes evidence to do that. It took a large amount of evidence to show the earth was round, it took a large amount of evidence to show the earth moves round the Sun, and it would take a large amount of evidence to show Creationism was true. Show me. Give me something that supports your point of view. Science is malleable. Just look at how much science has changed in the last 200 years, let alone the past 2000. How much has the Catholic Church changed?

C: But most of the world is creationist!

S: Even if that were true, there is no reason why that should enter into the realm of the scientific. Once again, science is based on experiential evidence, not popular opinion.

C:You just hate Deists.

S: No, I respect your views. I don't want science to be taught in church, which is the realm of religion. I would like you to respect my views, and only support presentation of evidence-based Theories in science class.

Was a new topic really necessary, when there's already two topics on Creationism?

I guess creationism is like a joke that never gets old.

there is another reason not to teach creationism in schools...

it endorses one religious belief over all others.

those who want to have creationism taught in science class live in a dream world where it will be taught exactly as their minister/denomination believes in it.

this is very unlikely to be the case. even if it were, is it fair to endorse YOUR belief over the belief of everyone else?

if you are a bible literalist, wont you be offended when the teacher points out that plants came after the birth of the sun? (in genesis the sun is created after plants) if you are sure that catholics are going to hell, are you going to be happy when the catholic view of "yes, it all happened that way but it was all god's idea" gets promoted? if you are an old earth creationist, do you want the school to promote young earth creationism?

its not just science vs religion (creationism isnt a science) its religion vs religion. THAT doesnt belong in science class.

I think your base fundamental arguments are not quite accurate. It's more like:

Creationists: Creationism is a scientific theory and should be tought alongside Evolution/Big Bang Theory in science class.

Non-creationists: Creationism is not science, as it intentionally ignores nearly every rule and principle that science holds dear. In addition, if we are to teach faith in school science classrooms, who are you to judge that yours is any more scientifically feasible than any other faith's creation story?

And I also agree with Agerias that this thread won't do anything the old thread didn't; provide a forum in which ignorance is countered by reason and then ignored by ignorance. :p

C: Goddidit. <-- retarded/ignorant/self-righteous position

S: We don't know who or what didit, but we know how species change over time. <-- intelligent/reason-based/evidence-based position


That's all.

C: Godditit. <-- retarded/ignorant/self-righteous position

S: We don't know who or what didit, but we know how species change over time. <-- intelligent/reason-based/evidence-based position


That's all.

QFT.

Wait, did I just agree with UB?

*takes cover as the universe implodes*

QFT.

Wait, did I just agree with UB?

*takes cover as the universe implodes*Remember that once you agree with me you are not a Jew anymore.

Creationists: Creationism is an alternative view of how we came about, and should be taught in Science class.
True.
Scientists: Only science should be taught in science class. Science is something that can be tested, and creation can't be tested.
False.

S: Yes, it can (and I said tested before). It is based on the life's work of many, many brilliant people. Just look at the fossil record, radiowaves from deep space, carbon dating, microevolution...According to Creationism, the earth just popped into existence about 10,000-6,000 years ago. There is simply too much evidence that that didn't occur. Creationism is an alternative view of how we came about that is not based on experiential evidence, and as such, should be taught where other such ideas are taught.
Fossil record? Incomplete.
Radiowaves from deep space? What is this...ET?
Carbon dating? Scientists made that UP.
Microevolution? Just 'cause a bunch of germs mutate doesn't mean evolution is true.

S: Fine, but how can I test that? I need some evidence to work with before I change my point of view. Any ideas without evidence are merely opinions. Science does change over time, as new ideas are tested and debunked or found to be plausible. But it takes evidence to do that. It took a large amount of evidence to show the earth was round, it took a large amount of evidence to show the earth moves round the Sun, and it would take a large amount of evidence to show Creationism was true. Show me. Give me something that supports your point of view. Science is malleable. Just look at how much science has changed in the last 200 years, let alone the past 2000. How much has the Catholic Church changed?
Science changes over time because it is 'malleable' as you say. You know what? Only lies are malleable, the Truth is solid Like a Rock.



S: Even if that were true, there is no reason why that should enter into the realm of the scientific. Once again, science is based on experiential evidence, not popular opinion.
The majority is automatically more powerful and thus more right than the minority.

S: No, I respect your views. I don't want science to be taught in church, which is the realm of religion. I would like you to respect my views, and only support presentation of evidence-based Theories in science class.
Not true.. you should see the lack of..for example.. crucifixes that I see all over towns in this godless nation. For goodness sake! Do you place that empty non-Christian space there just to offend us!? You don't see us Religious placing pictures of the saints all over your car windows, so please refrain from placing the empty godless air there!



Sorry...couldn't say all that with a straight face..:p

Sorry...couldn't say all that with a straight face..:pYou're gay? :eek:

I'm fairly certain you're using the word "Deist" incorrectly.

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

You're gay? :eek:

No. :p
Not yet.

Or maybe Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, or, depending on what you define them, totaly unrelated.

C: Goddidit. <-- retarded/ignorant/self-righteous position

S: We don't know who or what didit, but we know how species change over time. <-- intelligent/reason-based/evidence-based position


That's all.
I'm a Creationist AND an Evolutionist.

Take that, you stereotyping stereotyper! Does that mean my position is ignorant, retarded and self-righteous AS WELL as being intelligent and reason-based and evidence based? Puh-leeeeze! Your argument is inconsistence and not thought out. Come back later when you've put more thought into your thoughts. Then we can talk about summaries.

I'm a Creationist AND an Evolutionist.

Take that, you stereotyping stereotyper! Does that mean my position is ignorant, retarded and self-righteous AS WELL as being intelligent and reason-based and evidence based? Puh-leeeeze! Your argument is inconsistence and not thought out. Come back later when you've put more thought into your thoughts. Then we can talk about summaries.If you are an evolutionist, then that's good. But unfortunately your belief in the judeochristian creation tale fully consumes that positive part.

If you are an evolutionist, then that's good. But unfortunately your belief in the judeochristian creation tale fully consumes that positive part.

All the evidence for evolution does not discredit the notion that the Earth was physically created by some sort of god.
The two ideas can coexist.

If you are an evolutionist, then that's good. But unfortunately your belief in the judeochristian creation tale fully consumes that positive part.
Your attempts at trolling are laughable.

My bullshit detectors go off when you neglect to explain how Creationism is a retarded and ignorant position, and then again when you don't explain how the Christian creationism tale (which is a leap in conclusion, because I never stated that I believed in the Christian belief in Creationism, making my bullshit detector start flashing "Mega-shit! Mega-shit!") is a negative.

Troll elsewhere.

All the evidence for evolution does not discredit the notion that the Earth was physically created by some sort of god.
The two ideas can coexist.Have you read Genesis recently?

Have you read Genesis recently?

If you apply the word "Creationism" to the explicit description of the Christian Creation story in the Bible, then you are right, since it skips over the evolution of animals.
I am speaking from the sense that Creationism is the belief that the Earth was created by a 'higher power'; which does not interfere with a belief in Evolution.

Have you read Genesis recently?
Where, O wisest sage, is a verse that says "Animals shall never adapt or change according to environments or mutations in their genes" or something similar.

Actually, forget that. I'd just be feeding the troll.

Where, O wisest sage, is a verse that says "Animals shall never adapt or change according to environments or mutations in their genes" or something similar.

I'm not claiming to be a biblical expert, but in Genesis it says "according to it's kind" many times (see Genesis 1:21, 1:24), perhaps implying that each kind of animal is separate and has been since the beginning.

I can see a non-literal translation of Genesis to allow for evolution, though that sounds too much like twisting biblical text to get the answers one wants.