Creationism in Museums and Schools

[Rhyfelwyr]

I found this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7613403.stm) quite interesting.

I am glad to see that faith is not dead in the UK. I'm not sure whether or not I believe in Young Earth creationism, or Old Earth creationism, since scripture isn't very specific on the matter.

Anyway, since this is the backroom I was thinking about creationist schools. Do people here think they should be allowed. Or, as some in the article suggest, would this be considered brainwashing? Personally, I think that schools should at least achnowledge creationist theories, rather than leading children to believe that Darwin's ideas are facts, as they tend to do.

Still, the Anglican Church itself seems determined to water down all scripture to please modern society. Now, the Archbishop of Canterbury is apologising for denying the theory of evolution! It's like he's on a one-man mission to fulfill the end-time prophecies. :no:

And if you read the comments at the bottom it seems that Anglicans are unwilling to accept the Bible literally. I also think its interesting that some wish to dismiss creationism apparently out of anti-American sentiments. It wasn't any fun when the Puritans had the power after all was it, people were actually made to follow scripture!

[seireikhaan]

Creationism should not be taught in any science class; it lacks the necessary elements of the scientific method in order to qualify. If they want to teach it in a philosophy or religions class, then by all means go ahead.

Also, since when was faith dead in the UK? I keep hearing all about how great the Muslims seem to be doing.:beam:

[Kadagar_AV]

I have nothing against creationism being handled in churches...
But keep it out of the scientific rooms, untill creationism has a scientific base to stand on:)

There is a reasons why we have separated religion and science...

Religion can't handle science, and science can't handle religion.

[Big_John]

Creationism should not be taught in any science class; it lacks the necessary elements of the scientific method in order to qualify. If they want to teach it in a philosophy or religions class, then by all means go ahead.the obvious and correct answer. agreed.

[Lord Winter]

Still, the Anglican Church itself seems determined to water down all scripture to please modern society. Now, the Archbishop of Canterbury is apologising for denying the theory of evolution! It's like he's on a one-man mission to fulfill the end-time prophecies.

Since when does anyone know the absolute truth of the bible anyway? Why can't evoloution and religon go together theres really nothing contradicting about it.

[Kadagar_AV]

Since when does anyone know the absolute truth of the bible anyway? Why can't evoloution and religon go together theres really nothing contradicting about it.

Well, first of all... Science does not believe the world was created in 6 days...

Nor that the human genetic stock comes from 2 people only...

Must I go on?

[Big_John]

Well, first of all... Science does not believe the world was created in 6 days...

Nor that the human genetic stock comes from 2 people only...

Must I go on?in other words, scritural literalism and religious fundamentalism. religion as a metaphor, allegory, parable, etc can be made to jive with scientific conclusions.

[CountArach]

Anyway, since this is the backroom I was thinking about creationist schools. Do people here think they should be allowed.
Religion has no place in Education. My 2 cents.

[KarlXII]

The problem is that, and this may surprise you, some people do not either A. believe in creationism or B. agree to a certain type of creationism. The thing about teaching creationism is, if ever implemented, it needs to be on a choice basis.

You cannot force someone to learn your beliefs, this is entirely up to the person.

I believe in German Gymnasium, Catholic and Protestant history and philosophy are taught in a Religion class, however, students can choose an alternative Ethics class.

My thoughts on creationism in school? Put it in as an elective, a class choise. Do not force someone to learn your beliefs, let them decide if they wish to learn them on their own.

[Big_John]

creationism theories would fit well into a comparative religion type course. there's really no place for them in public primary or secondary education.

[Kadagar_AV]

in other words, scritural literalism and religious fundamentalism. religion as a metaphor, allegory, parable, etc can be made to jive with scientific conclusions.

Hey, if you read the bible as metaphors, allegorys and parables, ANYTHING will jive with it, so why not? :juggle2:

[Xiahou]

I don't think creationism ever needs to be added to a science curriculum. That's different from saying it can't be discussed. It should be mentioned, and if need be, debated. Creationism (as in the world is 10,000 yrs old, ect), has little(no) scientific standing and if students think it does, it should be debated and discussed rather than stifled.

[Big_John]

I don't think creationism ever needs to be added to a science curriculum. That's different from saying it can't be discussed. It should be mentioned, and if need be, debated. Creationism (as in the world is 10,000 yrs old, ect), has little(no) scientific standing and if students think it does, it should be debated and discussed rather than stifled.where should creationism ideas be 'mentioned' exactly?

[KarlXII]

where should creationism ideas be 'mentioned' exactly?

Philosophy and history sounds right. And not the kind of "God created life on Earth" but the kind of "The Catholic belief is that....."

[Big_John]

i honestly don't see where creationism would fit into a history class. do public schools below the college level offer philosophy classes nowadays?

[KarlXII]

i honestly don't see where creationism would fit into a history class. do public schools below the college level offer philosophy classes nowadays?

I was taught the history of religion, you weren't?

[Lord Winter]

Well, first of all... Science does not believe the world was created in 6 days...

Nor that the human genetic stock comes from 2 people only...

Must I go on?

Neither do a lot of christens...

and for the record I don't believe religion should be a part of public schools.

[TB666]

Why not simply have a religion classes and science class ??
That's what we got in Sweden and it works fine, no religious nutjobs demanding creationism to be taught in science class(any such request should result in the nutjob getting hit with a baseball bat).
In science class there is no talk about creationism or anything to do with young earth theory, why ??
Because it's not science hence it does not belong.
We had a catholic in my class that tried to bring it up during biology class, think we were talking about evolution at the time, the response she got from the teacher ??
Nothing to do with biology or science and if she wanna continue talking about it, then she should bring it up in religion class where it belongs. And that was that.
Can point out that religion classes are mandatory just like any other class and we are taught about all religions in a neutral manner.

[Big_John]

I was taught the history of religion, you weren't?
not in public elementary or high schools, no.

edit: though i must say, the public high school i went to for freshman and sophomore year was garbage. and the private school i went to for junior and senior year was episcopalian, and we sung hymns every morning at chapel.

[TevashSzat]

i honestly don't see where creationism would fit into a history class. do public schools below the college level offer philosophy classes nowadays?

Well, in my school system, religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism) is taught as a portion of World History

[KarlXII]

not in public elementary or high schools, no.

Well then, your concerns are ill founded. Religion is taught in history classes 'round here. You learn Islamic, Christain, Greek, Roman, Chinese etc. beliefs and history. They're not fillin your head with propoganda.

[Big_John]

hmm.. it was quite a while ago.. maybe we diud have some sort of comparative religion section in my world histroy classes...

[Tribesman]

I don't think creationism ever needs to be added to a science curriculum. That's different from saying it can't be discussed. It should be mentioned, and if need be, debated. Creationism (as in the world is 10,000 yrs old, ect), has little(no) scientific standing and if students think it does, it should be debated and discussed rather than stifled.
Thats a good post , the debate in a science class wouldn't take long so wouldn't really detract muchfrom the curriculum .
So that leads to ....
where should creationism ideas be 'mentioned' exactly?
Well John , you know on the news they sometimes finish up with a little funny story to lighten things up , perhaps they could finish the science lessons with 20 second snippets from Hams cretinist comedy genius to give the students a laugh .

[Navaros]

If religion has no place in education, then they must remove Darwinism/evolution from all schools. Darwinism is a religion that is currently brainwashing everyone in schools, and is way worse than Creationism.

There is zero scientific basis for the outlandish claims of evolution. To believe in those claims as true can be done by faith and subjective opinion alone, not by science. The outlandish claims of evolution do not meet the standards of the scientific method (things must be observable, testable and repeatable to be science), therefore they are not science. End of story.

Evolution is the fairytale of modern times. That it is being presented as 'science' is disgusting and a moral outrage. Darwinism should be outlawed and replaced with Creationism. Or at the very least, Darwinism should be banned from schools since it is not science.

[woad&fangs]

Ya know, there's kinda this thing called DNA which basically proves evolution is real.~;p

[Big_John]

please do not turn this into a evoution vs creationism debate.

[Tribesman]

Well there you go John , no need to use Ken Hams nonsense to give the students a laugh at the end of science class , just use a post from Navoros instead .
BTW Nav which fruity flavour of fundamentalist are you this week ?
Have you tried Sikhism yet ?what about Baha'i ? they should be quite entertaining for us , keep up the good work:2thumbsup:

[Navaros]

Ya know, there's kinda this thing called DNA which basically proves evolution is real.~;p

No it doesn't.


please do not turn this into a evoution vs creationism debate.

Other posters already have by bashing Creationism and pretending that Darwinism has some sort of superiority and scientific validity, when really it doesn't.

[woad&fangs]

No it doesn't.

How doesn't it?

Anywho, I think Creationism should be discussed in a world history class along with the basic ideas of other religions. I know my world history class discussed the basics of Islam, Hinduism, and a few other religions for a few days each. Creationism would fit nicely in there.

I couldn't care less what private schools teach in there science classes.

Edit: to be honest, in my 11+ years of schooling evolution has only come up a handful of times. My science classes have discussed DNA plenty of times but I doubt I've spent more than 5 class periods learning about Fish->whales->bats->Humans or whatever it is.

[Navaros]

How doesn't it?


It just doesn't. The question is, how does it? Some similar DNA in different things does not mean that they transformed into each other; it simply means that God used successful design principles more than once, when applicable.

[Ice]

Don't worry, anyone who took freshman, university biology, can debunk anything Nav throws. You just need your old notes and google. How do I know? I did it before, yet he still comes back. :laugh4:

[woad&fangs]

This explains how organic compounds can be synthesized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

This is a direct example of evolution. It even contains animals with different numbers of chromosomes being able to breed and produce offspring which are not sterile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_horse

:7teacher:

[seireikhaan]

This explains how organic compounds can be synthesized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

This is a direct example of evolution. It even contains animals with different numbers of chromosomes being able to breed and produce offspring which are not sterile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_horse

:7teacher:
:stare:

Woad, why would you use a Heathen source like Wikipedia? We all know that was invented by the devil to confuse us all. :devil:

[Ice]

:stare:

Woad, why would you use a Heathen source like Wikipedia? We all know that was invented by the devil to confuse us all. :devil:

AND...........................

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

FIGHT!

Remember everyone, this has to be legit. I mean, it has Adolph Hitler depitcted and calls Darwin a racist.

[woad&fangs]

I was too lazy to find another source. However, the stuff about wild horses being able to produce fertile offspring with domesticated horses despite different #s of chromosomes is something I just learned. I also found this which claims the same thing.

http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/horses/przewalski/index.htm

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
The attachment of fanatic unreligion to Darwinist evolution as religious zealots to their beliefs is indeed sickening. Not that I have anything against (or for) evolution. Admittedly I find it plausible as a means of creation. However, students should have access to opposing theories if they are to study according to scientific principles. Especially in the case of evolution, which would better be labelled as a hypothesis rather than a theory, and which is often a problematic of philosophy (sc. Social Darwinism) or indeed religion (in most cases the religion of unreligion) as much as, or more than, science.

The radical stance of zealous evolutionists against even the mention of contrary thought is, IMO, a reverse twin of the religious zealots' fear and hatred against positive science in the late middle ages.
.

[Big_John]

.
The attachment of fanatic unreligion to Darwinist evolution as religious zealots to their beliefs is indeed sickening. Not that I have anything against (or for) evolution. Admittedly I find it plausible as a means of creation. However, students should have access to opposing theories if they are to study according to scientific principles. Especially in the case of evolution, which would better be labelled as a hypothesis rather than a theory, and which is often a problematic of philosophy (sc. Social Darwinism) or indeed religion (in most cases the religion of unreligion) as much as, or more than, science.

The radical stance of zealous evolutionists against even the mention of contrary thought is, IMO, a reverse twin of the religious zealots' fear and hatred against positive science in the late middle ages.
.no.

[Mouzafphaerre]

no.
.
no U! :gah2:
.

[Adrian II]

Not that I have anything against (or for) evolution. Admittedly I find it plausible as a means of creation. However, students should have access to opposing theories if they are to study according to scientific principles.Opposing scientific theories, right? Not just any old theories. Teaching creationism in biology lessons is like teaching astrology and witchcraft in physics class. And guess who are most opposed to that? The established churches! :laugh3:
I'm not sure whether or not I believe in Young Earth creationism, or Old Earth creationism, since scripture isn't very specific on the matter.Scripture is pretty specific on fluid flow processes, electroporation and microquasar fluctuation. Take it from there!

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
As it stands today, evolution is little more advantageous than astrology to be taken granted. Still, I stand closer to the prior than the latter. While I -secretly- scorn who worship zodiac stuff, I don't explicitly deny the albeit minimal credibility to be found in it. Evolution, OTOH, as a process, I deem plausible, yet I flatly refuse to take it as a matter of faith, for or against.

I have to agree with Navaros in that it seems pretty unlikely for Evolution to be proven (or unproven) with the classical scientific methods. If it was ever proven (or unproven) I would only say to myself "hmm, interesting! :coffeenews:" and be done with it.

:toff:
.

[Adrian II]

Evolution, OTOH, as a process, I deem plausible, yet I flatly refuse to take it as a matter of faith, for or against.Faith has no part in it. Evolution is by far the best scientific theory we have, that's the whole point.

The fact that it is a theory doesn't mean that all other theories are just fine, that every priest or mullah is as smart as Einstein and that everyone can be a winner.

Creationism is biology for dummies.

[Navaros]

Wikipedia - ROFL. Probably the most uncredible 'source' in history. :laugh4:

Evolution is not a scientific theory. Can't produce observable, testable, or repeatable results - like all legitimate scientific theories can. I know Darwinists like to counter this point with examples of variation within a kind, but that is not proving the outlandish claims of evolution like common descent of all forms of life from bacteria.

For evolution to be a scientific theory there would need to be observable, testable, and repeatable evidence of lower forms of life transforming into completely different higher forms of life with new, additional genetic information. But there is none. Therefore, evolution can only be accepted based on faith, not based on science.

[JR-]

Creationism should not be taught in any science class; it lacks the necessary elements of the scientific method in order to qualify. If they want to teach it in a philosophy or religions class, then by all means go ahead.


perfectly sums up my views on the matter.

i can see where that FRS fellow was coming from however, we have an increasing number of creationists* in the UK, and the current policy of ignoring the issue obviously does nothing to positively challenge such backward views. by all means bring it up in RE as part of a wider discussion on how we came to be.







*and no 'special' schools to put them in anymore

[Big_John]

As it stands today, evolution is little more advantageous than astrology to be taken granted. Still, I stand closer to the prior than the latter. While I -secretly- scorn who worship zodiac stuff, I don't explicitly deny the albeit minimal credibility to be found in it. Evolution, OTOH, as a process, I deem plausible, yet I flatly refuse to take it as a matter of faith, for or against.

I have to agree with Navaros in that it seems pretty unlikely for Evolution to be proven (or unproven) with the classical scientific methods. If it was ever proven (or unproven) I would only say to myself "hmm, interesting! :coffeenews:" and be done with it.
Evolution is not a scientific theory. Can't produce observable, testable, or repeatable results - like all legitimate scientific theories can. I know Darwinists like to counter this point with examples of variation within a kind, but that is not proving the outlandish claims of evolution like common descent of all forms of life from bacteria.

For evolution to be a scientific theory there would need to be observable, testable, and repeatable evidence of lower forms of life transforming into completely different higher forms of life with new, additional genetic information. But there is none. Therefore, evolution can only be accepted based on faith, not based on science.

i know i shouldn't bother, but, what the hell.


"Evolution has never been observed."
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.


"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."
First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

[PBI]

Damn, I was going to have fun with this but Big John beat me too it.

So I will just add my two cents: Evolution does conform to the scientific method because it makes testable observations.

It predicts that in order to for life as we know it to have evolved on Earth, it would have to have been around for an incredibly long time, millions if not billions of years. This is testable and has proved to be correct.

It also predicts that if we have an organism with a very short lifespan, we should be able to observe it evolving in response to environmental factors in real time. This also has been proved correct, for instance antibiotic resistant bacteria.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Since when does anyone know the absolute truth of the bible anyway? Why can't evoloution and religon go together theres really nothing contradicting about it.

Such a stance is exactly what is wrong with the Anglican Church. Read the scripture and you will see that creationist arguments do not compliment the theory (because that's what it is) of evolution. However, what you won't see in the scripture is anything saying the earth is 6,000 years old, or that animals can't adapt to their surroundings through microevolution. While I don't won't to go down the Anglican path of pandering to modern society and its scientific (or not so scientific) views, I will say that there are many myths surrounding creationism which seem to be accepted with little thought, even amongst creationists.

As for the issue with DNA, flesh comes from flesh, spirit comes from His Spirit, it doesn't change anything.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Do you creationists also have a problem with the sciences of geology, chemistry and physics? Because to hold onto your beliefs, you also have to reject pretty much every theory in those disciplines too.

If only we could get a flat-earther to join up alongside a chap that believes that the little faery people ride tiny bicycles inside his computer to make it run, my day would be complete.

[InsaneApache]

and no 'special' schools to put them in anymore

That made me laugh. Then I remembered this shower of a governments attachment to faith schools. Then I felt like crying.

[PBI]

Reading the article, I found this particular quote frankly terrifying:


If we came from nothing and go into nothing... that encourages people to lead reckless and materialistic lifestyles.


We should modify our scientific theories until they give conclusions that make people more content not to question authority? The scientific community should stop trying to understand the world and benefit humanity and instead accept its rightful place as a propaganda arm of the government (or the church)? Lysenko and the Inquisition were right all along?

Sometimes I fear rationalism is doomed. A brief window of enlightenment in an eternity of benighted fanaticism.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sometimes I fear rationalism is doomed. A brief window of enlightenment in an eternity of benighted fanaticism.

As opposed to half the posters who seem to think evolution is a fact (despite it being widely accepted that this is not the case), and who seem to believe in it because they were told it was a fact.

Add to that the fact that the same people seem to have absolutedly no understanding of creationism or what the Bible says on the matter, I don't see a lot of rational thought there.

So maybe you are right. :shrug:

[InsaneApache]

Nice try. The choice is between openmindedness and dogma. If you believe that the world was created in seven days and that Adam was made a bit like a plant pot, fine. It's wrong of course but fine. On the other hand if you subscribe to the view that the world is 5 billion years old and that life evolved over eons and that there is a theory in place that attempts to understand his process, that's also fine.

The difference in the two is social control and power.

[PBI]

As opposed to half the posters who seem to think evolution is a fact (despite it being widely accepted that this is not the case), and who seem to believe in it because they were told it was a fact.


Of course it's not a fact per se, unlike religion science does not attempt to deal in facts or absolute truths, and it is much better for it. It deals in probabilities and evidence, it gives the most likely explanation based upon the evidence. That is what the Theory of Evolution is; rather than contradicting several pieces of evidence from multiple unrelated scientific disciplines and requiring us to invent as an axiom an omnipotent creator with limitless powers and attributes, it ties up all the evidence presented in a neat little bow and explains everything as being caused by an experimentally testable phenomenon (you acknowledge that micro-evolution does happen).

If another theory comes along which does a better job of explaining the origin of species, it will supplant evolution, but that theory is not Creationism. Science is not a particularly satisfying way of gaining knowledge about the Universe, but it has proven itself repeatedly to be by far the best method we have.

[Gregoshi]

Creationism in science class, day one:

Teacher (reading from Bible): "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." Any questions? No? Okay, on to science then...

[Adrian II]

Evolution is not a scientific theory. Can't produce observable, testable, or repeatable results - like all legitimate scientific theories can. You are 80 years behind again. Google 'fruit flies' and ' evolution' and try to grasp the basics. You probably won't even try, as usual. You expect people to take your views seriously and answer your points, but you never, ever return the courtesy. It makes you by far the worst debater in this forum. I seldom bother with your posts.

[Fragony]

I am fine with teaching creationism but not in biology class. Why not make both part of history classes because only there are they both relevant. It would be catering both. The big question through the ages, from the ancients till the renaissance.

[Kadagar_AV]

There are two lines of thought here....

1. "We can not explain everything, but day by day we add more pieces to the puzzle, and this is the best picture we have as of now based on what we ourselevs have seen of the world around us".

2. "We can explain everything, it's God's work. You can not understand his methods, no one can. Just have faith that it is so, no need to think about it. Accept his will, his will be done!"

Again, people are free to choose whatever path they like... But dont try to mix the paths:)

[Ronin]

For those asking for creationism to be mentioned in Science class......

When I went to school it was mentioned in Science class....I will try to quote my teacher verbatum:

"Back when people depended on belief on silly superstition they had this idea that this god fellow had created everything, now onto something with a bit more facts to back it up...the evolution theory"

I think it was given about 2 minutes...and that´s all it deserves on a science class....it´s quoted on a historical perspective and that´s all...if you want more send your kids to sunday school, or jesus camp or whatever.


Is evolution a fact?....no it´s a theory yes....but then again gravity is just a theory also...but let´s face it there´s a bunch of fact to back them both up.

on the other hand creationism has no facts to back it up......

[Kadagar_AV]

A question for creationists: Do you also think other religions creaton theorys should be brought up in science class?

Like, the nordic religion, that this world is a part of a big tree.. With a squirrel running around...

Or the religion Scott Adams mentions, that the whole universe was made in a big sneeze, and we should all be afraid of the big white towel?

Just wondering...

[Rhyfelwyr]

When they have their own national church, they can if they like.

[Ronin]

When they have their own national church, they can if they like.


numbers and organization do not equate value.

as a devote pastafarian I demand to see the story of how the flying spaghetti monster created all of us included in the curriculum!!!

[Sigurd]

Like, the nordic religion, that this world is a part of a big tree.. With a squirrel running around...

BLASPHEMY!!!! :stare:

[InsaneApache]

All hail his noodleyness. :bow:

[Reverend Joe]

Evolution is not a scientific theory. Can't produce observable, testable, or repeatable results - like all legitimate scientific theories can. I know Darwinists like to counter this point with examples of variation within a kind, but that is not proving the outlandish claims of evolution like common descent of all forms of life from bacteria.

For evolution to be a scientific theory there would need to be observable, testable, and repeatable evidence of lower forms of life transforming into completely different higher forms of life with new, additional genetic information. But there is none. Therefore, evolution can only be accepted based on faith, not based on science.


As opposed to half the posters who seem to think evolution is a fact (despite it being widely accepted that this is not the case), and who seem to believe in it because they were told it was a fact.

Call it irony, but the very fact that there are large groups of people who believe what you two are saying makes me want to run into the nearest church and beg God to personally stop you before you take over.

You two really have no idea what you are talking about. Haven't you ever heard of the fossil record, ring species, vestigial organs, Whales, bacterial evolution, or even how terribly designed our eye is? If we were "intelligently designed," why the hell would our photoreceptors be pointing backwards and attached to a lump of gelly so weak that any swift blow could easily detach the retina, while the average squid is swimming around with perfectly designed eyes? And for that matter, why do we only have two legs, possibly the worst walking design in history? Shouldn't we have at least 3 for stability, if not 4? And why do we have so many back problems? Maybe, just MAYBE, the last two could be explained by the fact that we evolved from four-legged organisms, replacing our front legs with arms but failing to properly adapt our backs to upright walking.

Damnit.



Oh, and there's one other thing bugging me...


As for the issue with DNA, flesh comes from flesh, spirit comes from His Spirit, it doesn't change anything.

So apparently DNA was made by Jesus. :wall:

[Goofball]

I don't think creationism ever needs to be added to a science curriculum. That's different from saying it can't be discussed. It should be mentioned, and if need be, debated. Creationism (as in the world is 10,000 yrs old, ect), has little(no) scientific standing and if students think it does, it should be debated and discussed rather than stifled.

I'll partly support you on that one, Xiahou. I liked what this fellow had to say in the article:


But that ruling was questioned last week by an influential figure. The Rev Professor Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, says science teachers ought to be willing to talk about creationism if students bring the subject up.
He told the British Association Festival of Science in Liverpool that while making clear creationism is not accepted by the scientific community, teachers should convey a message of respect that does not "denigrate or ridicule" children's beliefs.

I have no problem with this. While a science teacher should never bring up Creationism on his/her own in class, if a student brings it up, the teacher should be prepared to discuss it in a reasonable, respectful manner, while making it clear that it has absolutely no basis in science, and can only be believed as a matter of pure faith. But he should also make it clear that even if his students don't believe in the theory of evolution, they had still better have knowledge of it if they want to pass their exams...

[Viking]

As opposed to half the posters who seem to think evolution is a fact (despite it being widely accepted that this is not the case), and who seem to believe in it because they were told it was a fact.

Add to that the fact that the same people seem to have absolutedly no understanding of creationism or what the Bible says on the matter, I don't see a lot of rational thought there.

So maybe you are right. :shrug:

What you need is a science class, then you'd understand. Science deals only with theories; a theory that is tested again and again for ever without producing any wrong results are referred to as "laws", e.g. the formula for kinetic energy: Ek = 0,5mv^2. This formula isn't entirely accurate however, something that becomes apparent as we near the speed of light; in which case we need to use Einstein's formula from his theory of relativity.

There is nothing that supports creationism; while there is nothing that contradicts the theory of evolution. Therefore, you are, simply put, unscientific and dogmatic when you favour creationism.


----

BTW, I find the whole idea of ID rather funny. I think it's time to promote Stupid Design:

There are clear evidences that the creator of this universe either

a) is stupid
b) was drunk or intoxicated while creating the universe
c) didn't read the manual before creating the universe

There are several clear evidences that support this theory:

* the Earth and what we regard as liveable conditions do not make up the entire universe. Instead we are placed on a lone marble in a giantic universe filled up with lethal dangers.

* the Earth itself is also full of potential dangers, such as volcanoes, earth quakes, ultra violet radiation from the sun etc., clearly showing that the Designer had no clue as of what he was doing.

* the humans are animals just like the rest of the life on our planet; His divine fingers failed to create a clear distinction between humans and the rest; humanity are just another specie.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What's with all the ridiculing of the flat-earth (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7540427.stm) society?

:clown:

There is evidence for creationism. There's articles on genetics (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp), fossils (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/embryos-disprove-evolution), and geology (http://http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/lucy-buried-first).

The first article also shows how presumptious many of the ideas behind the theory of evolution are.

[Ronin]

BTW, I find the whole idea of ID rather funny. I think it's time to promote Stupid Design:

There are clear evidences that the creator of this universe either

a) is stupid
b) was drunk or intoxicated while creating the universe
c) didn't read the manual before creating the universe

There are several clear evidences that support this theory:

* the Earth and what we regard as liveable conditions do not make up the entire universe. Instead we are placed on a lone marble in a giantic universe filled up with lethal dangers.

* the Earth itself is also full of potential dangers, such as volcanoes, earth quakes, ultra violet radiation from the sun etc., clearly showing that the Designer had no clue as of what he was doing.

* the humans are animals just like the rest of the life on our planet; His divine fingers failed to create a clear distinction between humans and the rest; humanity are just another specie.

he might have been stupid but we know he had a sense of humor....just look at the platypus...


All hail his noodleyness. :bow:


rAmen....:book:

[Viking]

What's with all the ridiculing of the flat-earth (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7540427.stm) society?

:clown:

There is evidence for creationism. There's articles on genetics (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp), fossils (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/embryos-disprove-evolution), and geology (http://http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/lucy-buried-first).

The first article also shows how presumptious many of the ideas behind the theory of evolution are.

Okay, I'll be right back. I have to put my theory of Stupid Design up on some fancy looking website, and then I'll come back and link to it; and thus debunk everything that you've said so far!

[Adrian II]

There is evidence for creationism. There's articles on www.answersingenesis.org.That's just another Wiki, man. A Reli-Wiki. Don't throw links about as if you had really digested what they say; you just ofund them.

Think for yourself, study the issues, discuss. And accept a challenge when you are offered one. For instance why don't you answer the objections raised by the Reverend? They touch upon the obvious fact that human (or animal) design isn't 'intelligent' at all.

[Kadagar_AV]

Okay, I'll be right back. I have to put my theory of Stupid Design up on some fancy looking website, and then I'll come back and link to it; and thus debunk everything that you've said so far!

What he said.

But come to think of it... I do believe more in "stupid design" than ID.

As Roning stated, the platypus in itself would be somewhat proof the creater was stoned.

How about that, christians... I can sign that god might have had something to do with creation, if you agree he must be stupid and/or stoned.

[seireikhaan]

There is evidence for creationism. There's articles on genetics (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp), fossils (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/embryos-disprove-evolution), and geology (http://http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/lucy-buried-first).

The first article also shows how presumptious many of the ideas behind the theory of evolution are.
:laugh4:

I'm sorry, but that's a load of bologna, and that's only on a logical level.

The first link's first argument fails to actually argue against Darwin's point; he fails to argue why the environment has no implication on genetics. He just says its wrong. :dizzy2:

The second argument fails to account for what he argues in his own third point, mutations, in addition to the genetic variability that separates a plant from an animal. That is, animals have different genetic pools than plants. And further, the fact that he failed to show any kind of evidence for environmental impact on genetics also hampers his argument.

The third example cherrypicks evidence; for example, there are now theories that Velociraptors and Dinonychus developed feathers through a genetic mutation. Feathers, in fact, would have been extremely helpful as they helped to regulate body temperature.

As for the 2nd link... WOW. First of all, it doesn't say WHAT class of animal the embro belongs to. Second, embroys, tend to have a lack of distinct features. Third, we have this neat little process callled CARBON DATING. We can estimate its age, and where the article states that "evolutionist believe", I strongly suspect it is really "archaeoligists, scientists, evolutionists, and anyone with half a brain believe". The article also demonstrates a patent lack of understanding of evolutionary theory when it assumes the fallacy that merely because a creature existed many millions of years ago that it must in fact be completely different than anything that exists now; hell, crocs, roaches, and sharks have existsed for tens of millions of years in various forms. I fail to see how the embryo in ANY logical way disproves evolution.

The third link doesn't work.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sorry about the third link, hopefully it will work if I post it the old-fashioned way:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/lucy-buried-first

Also, a special article for our mod:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/leapin-lemurs

I'll try to make a proper reply after dinner...

[JR-]

:laugh4:

The third link doesn't work.

it's a real shame about the third link, as a geologist i was up for a laugh. :thumbsdown:

[Louis VI the Fat]

The earth isn't flat, storms are not caused by big hammer wielding Scandinavians, 1 + 1 isn't three and life wasn't created. School is meant to teach children these simple facts. Kids need only biology in school.


Creationism is simply (Abrahamic) religionist agitation and not a controversy. It is of no relevance to a school curriculum. There is no controversy. There are not two models to describe the origins of life - there are an infinite ones. No need to single out one and teach it as a counter-model or a controversy.

[Gregoshi]

The third link doesn't work.
Ah, the missing link...:idea2:

[Kadagar_AV]

From the same source as the third link...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n3/god-rules

:weirdthread:

[Ice]

Ah, the missing link...:idea2:

I must be a huge nerd, but I find that hilarious. :beam:

[Rhyfelwyr]

For the issue of carbon dating and fossils, don't natural disasters have a big impact on the conclusions drawn from them? For example, it is widely accepted that thousands of years ago there were a series of superfloods which covered areas such as the Caspian Sea, the Aegean area, the Mediterranean etc. Also, there was a Great Flood, caused by the melting of the ice sheets, which had taken place by 8,000 years ago. Without directly relating this to Biblical floods, these superfloods did have a massive effect on the landscape. Not just the obvious affects the floods themselves had on sediment layers, but through the other natural disasters they triggered, eg supervolcanoes, tsunamies etc. I'm not a scientist but from what I remember these can dramatically alter readings gained through carbon dating, making fossils appear much older than they really are.

Also I think I should be more clear on creationist views towards evolution. Your standard US Evangelical tends to believe in microevolution, but rejects macroevolution. However, there is little need for this split within forms of evolution, and this is the viewpoint taken by the vast majority of scientists. The boundaries between the two are purely man-made, despite some vague ideas about fertility and the ability to reproduce. How do we judge when something evolves to a new species? In this respect, Christianity should not conflict with issues such as vestigial organs. I know some Christians argue penguins have wings to help with balance for example, but I don't really accept this idea myself, as it doesn't make sense in the long-run. Although I do appreciate that my views differ from the creationist mainstream in this and so I understand why the point was made.

Of course, I still do not accept that humans evolved from apes. Which brings me onto the point regarding our imperfect bodies. Admittedly, the point about the eyes and detaching retinas is a tough one. As a Christian, ridiculous as it sounds to many here I do believe that we were designed for living a peaceful existance in Eden, not in the violence of the world we know. By that logic, we wouldn't need to be built like tanks to protect ourselves. They're not that weakly designed anyway, I've taken my share of knocks and my retina's still attached. On the flip side, why would we evolve so bizarrely, especially considering that it is so unsuitable for our surroundings? Design flaws are tough for creationists or evolutionists to answer, maybe we simply don't understand the designs perfectly.

On the issue of having two legs, I think its an isue of interpretation. Why think of ourselves as an improvement over the apes (physically), instead of just being different? It is a fair line of thought to think, "we look similar to apes, so we must have grown to be genetically superior from them". But on the other hand, the apes are much better suited to their surroundings than we would be. Of course we have physical similarities, we live in the same world after all, but humans are better suited to the way they live. Of course we are not meant to sit in front of a PC all day as many here including myself probably do, which is why we tend to have so many back problems. We simply aren't using our bodies for what they were designed for (through a creator or evolution).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The trouble many of you are encountering in debating Navaros on this issue is simple. He doesn't accept your basic premise that "The Scientific Method" is the paramount tool for explanation of phenomena (in fact, he labels this belief as a "religious" belief). Since he does not accept this basic premise, he does not place any kind of "central" value to theories derived/proved thereby.

It is as though you are trying to argue about the nature of a specific color with someone who sees only on the infra-red end of the energy spectrum -- there is a basic disconnect.

You might think about this as an instance of differend, because you are speaking past one another and not really connecting.

[Big_John]

more than anything, it just makes me sad that people can be so deluded.

[Kadagar_AV]

Not just the obvious affects the floods themselves had on sediment layers, but through the other natural disasters they triggered, eg supervolcanoes, tsunamies etc. I'm not a scientist but from what I remember these can dramatically alter readings gained through carbon dating, making fossils appear much older than they really are.


Atom radiation halves at the same speed, floods and volcanoes doesnt change it. :logic:

And no, you are obviosly not a scientist, we found something to agree on!

[woad&fangs]

yes, but carbon dating measures the ratio of C-12 to C-14 and volcanic ash messes with that ratio.

[Rhyfelwyr]

yes, but carbon dating measures the ratio of C-12 to C-14 and volcanic ash messes with that ratio.

That's the point I was trying to make, I knew it was something to do with ashes.

[Tribesman]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
It was only a matter of time before someone was silly enough to cite that bollox from Hams site .
Well done Rhyfelwyr :2thumbsup:
Whats your next party piece to give us a good laugh ?
Will it be this one perhaps ?.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPM7FI_QuWA

[woad&fangs]

That's the point I was trying to make, I knew it was something to do with ashes.

But what you must also remember is that Volcanic ash settles in layers. Anything above or below that layer will be fairly accurate.

[Rhyfelwyr]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM:2thumbsup:
SPAM SPAM SPAM
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


Another thoughtful and enlightening post from Tribesey.

[Tribesman]

Another thoughtful and enlightening post from Tribesey.
Far more enlightening than that crap from Ham that has been posted and thoroughly demolished here more times than I care to think about .

[Goofball]

Of course, I still do not accept that humans evolved from apes.

Neither do scientists.

[InsaneApache]

Think for yourself.

There you go.

[KarlXII]

Neither do scientists.

TRIPLEHIT3000000000000000000000000 HP



In all seriousness, why can't religion and evolution go hand in hand? I'm a devout Lutheran, a believer in God, I think that God created life on Earth and maintains it. However, I also believe evolution is his way to better develop a species. Sounds strange, I know, but my point is, why do you think evolution cannot go with religion?

Or do you think God does not have that ability? :inquisitive:

[Rhyfelwyr]

I also believe that evolution takes place, and not just within the man-made confines of microevolution.

But I still believe God created Adam directly, not through bacteria. I think the ability to evolve was implemented through intelligent design. Maybe that is controversial to mainstream creationists, but if you consider how animals were supposed to cover the earth from around Babel it makes sense they should have the ability to adapt to their surroundings. We see evolution happening, there's no need to deny it. If we see new species develop, its not a big deal. We draw the line when we say they are a new species.

But equally I don't see how a Christian could deny that humans were created directly by God. :inquisitive:

[ShadesPanther]

I also believe that evolution takes place, and not just within the man-made confines of microevolution.

But I still believe God created Adam directly, not through bacteria. I think the ability to evolve was implemented through intelligent design. Maybe that is controversial to mainstream creationists, but if you consider how animals were supposed to cover the earth from around Babel it makes sense they should have the ability to adapt to their surroundings. We see evolution happening, there's no need to deny it. If we see new species develop, its not a big deal. We draw the line when we say they are a new species.

But equally I don't see how a Christian could deny that humans were created directly by God. :inquisitive:

eh? :inquisitive:

[Reverend Joe]

For the issue of carbon dating and fossils, don't natural disasters have a big impact on the conclusions drawn from them? For example, it is widely accepted that thousands of years ago there were a series of superfloods which covered areas such as the Caspian Sea, the Aegean area, the Mediterranean etc. Also, there was a Great Flood, caused by the melting of the ice sheets, which had taken place by 8,000 years ago. Without directly relating this to Biblical floods, these superfloods did have a massive effect on the landscape. Not just the obvious affects the floods themselves had on sediment layers, but through the other natural disasters they triggered, eg supervolcanoes, tsunamies etc. I'm not a scientist but from what I remember these can dramatically alter readings gained through carbon dating, making fossils appear much older than they really are.

Also I think I should be more clear on creationist views towards evolution. Your standard US Evangelical tends to believe in microevolution, but rejects macroevolution. However, there is little need for this split within forms of evolution, and this is the viewpoint taken by the vast majority of scientists. The boundaries between the two are purely man-made, despite some vague ideas about fertility and the ability to reproduce. How do we judge when something evolves to a new species? In this respect, Christianity should not conflict with issues such as vestigial organs. I know some Christians argue penguins have wings to help with balance for example, but I don't really accept this idea myself, as it doesn't make sense in the long-run. Although I do appreciate that my views differ from the creationist mainstream in this and so I understand why the point was made.

Of course, I still do not accept that humans evolved from apes. Which brings me onto the point regarding our imperfect bodies. Admittedly, the point about the eyes and detaching retinas is a tough one. As a Christian, ridiculous as it sounds to many here I do believe that we were designed for living a peaceful existance in Eden, not in the violence of the world we know. By that logic, we wouldn't need to be built like tanks to protect ourselves. They're not that weakly designed anyway, I've taken my share of knocks and my retina's still attached. On the flip side, why would we evolve so bizarrely, especially considering that it is so unsuitable for our surroundings? Design flaws are tough for creationists or evolutionists to answer, maybe we simply don't understand the designs perfectly.

On the issue of having two legs, I think its an isue of interpretation. Why think of ourselves as an improvement over the apes (physically), instead of just being different? It is a fair line of thought to think, "we look similar to apes, so we must have grown to be genetically superior from them". But on the other hand, the apes are much better suited to their surroundings than we would be. Of course we have physical similarities, we live in the same world after all, but humans are better suited to the way they live. Of course we are not meant to sit in front of a PC all day as many here including myself probably do, which is why we tend to have so many back problems. We simply aren't using our bodies for what they were designed for (through a creator or evolution).

Now, that is a well-mannered post. If my previous post sosunded aggressive, excuse me; I was reading "The Merchant of Venice" and the antisemitic Italians were rankling me.

Anyhow, about bad evolution: basically, scientists believe that these flaws that I was pointing out have to do with simple mistakes; much of evolution is a process of making up for those mistakes. The bad eye design, for example, is resent in a wide variety of animals; in fact, I believe it is present in all vertebrates. Actually, what is remarkable about the eye is the degree to which evolution has managed to overcome such a terrible design over hundreds of millions of years. I mean, for organisms whose eyes see backwards, we see remarkably well. So, the argument is, it's just a matter of circumstance. The organism that all vertebrates are believed to have evolved from (which, incidentally, is believed to be a tiny wormlike/lancetlike organism living in the ocean) just happened to have backwards eyes attached by jelly, so now all its descendants do too.

The upright human problem is another victim of circumstance; since, according to the theory, we all evolved from four-legged organisms, we could not just grow extra limbs; evolution doesn't allow for something this radical, the genetics involved being far too complex. So we just adapted our already fairly useful tree-hugging feet into arms and hands, and the lower limbs developed into paddles, i.e. feet, for better support. Again, this worked out quite well; we have fairly good balance for creatures that hae to depend on a bipod for standing (although getting drunk certainly can show the flaws in this design at times.) But, the back problem remains, and this is a major problem with your post. The people who develop back problems are the people who work more, not those who sit around. Now, your reponse would probably be, "of course;" but consider, for a moment, that during the stone age (you do believe this happened, right? :beam:) people would have had to do one hell of a lot of work, especially walking and running. Spending your whole life on your feet, even if you don't do a lot of lifting, causes MAJOR lower back problems late in life. That's a flawed design by any estimation.

So, basically, the back can be explained two ways: either we weren't supposed to do any work in Eden so it didn't matter if we had backs that were ill-designed for work, or we evolved from organisms who had back support because they had four limbs, and we no longer have that support after standing up, hence the back problems. Now, disregarding the idea that macroevolution does not exist, will you at least grant that the second theory makes sense?

[Big_John]

this isn't just directed at Joe, but the discussion as a whole. i'm just quoting the latest post for efficacy.


about bad evolution: basically, scientists believe that these flaws that I was pointing out have to do with simple mistakes; much of evolution is a process of making up for those mistakes.it is not really useful to think of 'mistakes' in biological evolution. evolution is a results-based process. it's an observation of what has been successful and what was less successful.


The bad eye design, for example, is resent in a wide variety of animals; in fact, I believe it is present in all vertebrates. Actually, what is remarkable about the eye is the degree to which evolution has managed to overcome such a terrible design over hundreds of millions of years. I mean, for organisms whose eyes see backwards, we see remarkably well. So, the argument is, it's just a matter of circumstance. The organism that all vertebrates are believed to have evolved from (which, incidentally, is believed to be a tiny wormlike/lancetlike organism living in the ocean) just happened to have backwards eyes attached by jelly, so now all its descendants do too.it's important to remember that evolution works on what it is given. if we can model a hypothetical design for a particular organ that is much more efficient than the actual organ, it does not follow that we "should" observe that design in nature.. that some sort of "mistake" has taken place.


The upright human problem is another victim of circumstance; since, according to the theory, we all evolved from four-legged organisms, we could not just grow extra limbs; evolution doesn't allow for something this radical, the genetics involved being far too complex. So we just adapted our already fairly useful tree-hugging feet into arms and hands, and the lower limbs developed into paddles, i.e. feet, for better support. Again, this worked out quite well; we have fairly good balance for creatures that hae to depend on a bipod for standing (although getting drunk certainly can show the flaws in this design at times.) But, the back problem remains, and this is a major problem with your post. The people who develop back problems are the people who work more, not those who sit around. Now, your reponse would probably be, "of course;" but consider, for a moment, that during the stone age (you do believe this happened, right? :beam:) people would have had to do one hell of a lot of work, especially walking and running. Spending your whole life on your feet, even if you don't do a lot of lifting, causes MAJOR lower back problems late in life. That's a flawed design by any estimation.

So, basically, the back can be explained two ways: either we weren't supposed to do any work in Eden so it didn't matter if we had backs that were ill-designed for work, or we evolved from organisms who had back support because they had four limbs, and we no longer have that support after standing up, hence the back problems. Now, disregarding the idea that macroevolution does not exist, will you at least grant that the second theory makes sense?i'm not sure what this discussion is all about nor how it relates to biological evolution. remember though, the point of an organism is to reproduce genes. behaviors and structures that increase the chance of that happening become better represented in successive generations.

[Tribesman]

I also believe that evolution takes place
Wow thats a turnabout , all the way from evolution is a myth via a website that denies evolution happens arriving at evolution happens .

[InsaneApache]

Looks like the guy had to fall on his sword.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4768820.ece

[Navaros]

You are 80 years behind again. Google 'fruit flies' and ' evolution' and try to grasp the basics. You probably won't even try, as usual. You expect people to take your views seriously and answer your points, but you never, ever return the courtesy. It makes you by far the worst debater in this forum. I seldom bother with your posts.

Fruit flies? Experiments on fruit flies actually help to disprove evolution because all the mutants die out since mutations are almost always bad, not good (which evolution would require). Yes there are a few freak exceptions to this, but it is not the general rule. It is also disproves evolution because they never transformed into anything else, like common ancestry requires.

The author Ian Taylor has an extremely poignant quote about fruit flies in his Darwinism-debunking book, "In the Minds of Men". This quote always crack me up when I see it. It is hilarious because it's so true.



Experimentation with fruit flies began in the 1920s with
Thomas Hunt Morgan and today is still a minor "industry"
among researchers. The stubborn fruit fly has endured
every genetic indignity possible, but so far not one has
ever produced anything except another fruit fly.


Incidentally that book can be read for free online at this link: http://www.creationism.org, and it also debunks many of the other Darwinists claims made in this thread.

Chapter 6 of that book has some good scientific debunkings of Darwinists' species quagmire:

http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMf06.htm#Tay%20%20lorIMMfT_Mutation4WorseOrBetter

For the claims not debunked in that book, there are other sites that also debunk all the other Darwinist claims such as:

http://www.answersingenesis.org
http://www.trueorigin.org/
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200809.htm

In regards to Big John's big quote from talkorigins, there is zero evidence in there, or anywhere else in the world, of a lower form of life evolving into a completely different, more complex, higher form of life with new, additional genetic information. All there is in that quote is evidence for variation within a kind, which is something that no one disputes. Darwinists using semantic wordplay with the word 'species' does not prove that the sort of evolution described which is required for common ancestry has ever occurred, or is even possible.

[JR-]

just on a point of clarity; are we into the whole earth is 5000 years old business?

[Navaros]

just on a point of clarity; are we into the whole earth is 5000 years old business?

The figure is usually closer to 10 000 years old, although it can range from 6000 - 10 000 in some cases.

I personally do not know how old the Earth is since the Bible isn't specific about the age of the Earth. A few things must be noted, however:

1. God can create things with age as He did with Adam & Eve (Ie: they were never babies). So even if the Earth is old, that does not necessarily mean that Earth has actually existed for the years of age which it contains.

2. No one knows exactly how, and to what degree, the Earth was changed as a result of the damage from the great Flood (Ie: potentially causing artificial signs of age in all sorts of things as a result of damage from the great Flood), and other natural disasters.

3. All the Darwinists 'dating methods' that they allege 'proves' how old things are, have been proven to be erroneous & unreliable; and believing in their accuracy requires faith in unprovable assumptions to begin with.

[Ronin]

The figure is usually closer to 10 000 years old, although it can range from 6000 - 10 000 in some cases.

I personally do not know how old the Earth is since the Bible isn't specific about the age of the Earth. A few things must be noted, however:

1. God can create things with age as He did with Adam & Eve (Ie: they were never babies). So even if the Earth is old, that does not necessarily mean that Earth has actually existed for the years of age which it contains.

2. No one knows exactly how, and to what degree, the Earth was changed as a result of the damage from the great Flood (Ie: potentially causing artificial signs of age in all sorts of things as a result of damage from the great Flood), and other natural disasters.

3. All the Darwinists 'dating methods' that they allege 'proves' how old things are, have been proven to be erroneous & unreliable; and believing in their accuracy requires faith in unprovable assumptions to begin with.


Nav....I am just wondering...

have you considered taking up juggling? :juggle2:

something tells me you have the natural talent to pull it off...

[Navaros]

The trouble many of you are encountering in debating Navaros on this issue is simple. He doesn't accept your basic premise that "The Scientific Method" is the paramount tool for explanation of phenomena (in fact, he labels this belief as a "religious" belief). Since he does not accept this basic premise, he does not place any kind of "central" value to theories derived/proved thereby.

It is as though you are trying to argue about the nature of a specific color with someone who sees only on the infra-red end of the energy spectrum -- there is a basic disconnect.

You might think about this as an instance of differend, because you are speaking past one another and not really connecting.

This post is sort of correct and sort of not correct.

I reject the premise that the scientifc method is applicable to theory of evolution. It isn't. That is why belief in the theory of evolution must be taken on faith, and is therefore, a religious belief.

The scientific method can explain phenomena which can be observed, tested, and repeated. A lower form of life evolving into a higher, more complex, completely different form of life with new genetic information is applicable to none of the above.

The quoted post is correct though, in that I would never be 'convinced' by any argument from the other side. I have my point of view which isn't ever going to change by anything Darwinists have to say, and the Darwinists have their points of view which probably aren't ever gonna change based on what Creationists have to say. But, I can correctly challenge the Darwinists' common, yet untrue, assertions that their opinions about these matters are facts (they are not), are science (they are not), and do not require faith (they do).

The quoted post also touches on that Darwinists require everything in the Universe to be explainable by 'natural processes'. But, not everything is a result of natural processes. God created. He did not use 'natural processes' to do so. So in trying to fit all the creation and diversity of life into the tiny little box which it cannot fit into - 'natural processes' - leaves no possible alternative other than for men to fabricate explanations off the top of their heads, and then accept those fabrications based on faith alone (since what they fabricated in their own minds never occurred in reality, thus they can never legitimately be proven --- just like macroevolution.)

[InsaneApache]

As usual the godfearing come up with the ususal claptrap about the theory of evolution requiring faith. No it doesn't. This is along the same lines that atheists must have a faith that god does not exist. It's like a blind spot for them, they just do not get it. Perhaps this is because faith plays such a huge part in their day to day lives that they cannot concieve of a world view that doesn't have any. A requirment for faith is the suspention of disbelief. A total absence of critical thought. After all, when all said and done, the creationist can always turn around and just say "God did it".

It's almost like arguing with a small child.

[rory_20_uk]

First off I'm Agnostic.

But concerning what Navaros is saying, if there is a God and he is all powerful, one can not prove that the universe is billions of years old by extrapolating data gained now. Perhaps God made it look that way - we'll never know. Perhaps the laws of physics were altered to make it appear differently.

I only have a problem when people who try to square the circle with "proving" the bible using science. I'm happy that everything is as it says, and everything that appears different is merely because God made it that way - fair enough. But to state that the laws of physics are correct, and somehow a large flood can make rocks look 2 billion years older is going too far.

Macroevolution can be "proven" given enough time. That we've not monitored change for long enough does not disprove the theory.

Embryonic changes are the clearest view of evolution at work - humans have gills which they then loose for example; snakes have legs which again dissappear.

Of course, God could have decided that it was more "fun" this way, instead of mammals only developing with structures they'd need as adults.

What is a "natural process"?

~:smoking:

[JR-]

The figure is usually closer to 10 000 years old, although it can range from 6000 - 10 000 in some cases.

I personally do not know how old the Earth is since the Bible isn't specific about the age of the Earth. A few things must be noted, however:

1. God can create things with age as He did with Adam & Eve (Ie: they were never babies). So even if the Earth is old, that does not necessarily mean that Earth has actually existed for the years of age which it contains.

2. No one knows exactly how, and to what degree, the Earth was changed as a result of the damage from the great Flood (Ie: potentially causing artificial signs of age in all sorts of things as a result of damage from the great Flood), and other natural disasters.

3. All the Darwinists 'dating methods' that they allege 'proves' how old things are, have been proven to be erroneous & unreliable; and believing in their accuracy requires faith in unprovable assumptions to begin with.

thank you for clarifying that. *scared*

[Ignoramus]

Science has nothing to do with the popularity of evolution. People like to believe it because it means they have an excuse to ignore the Bible. Pure and simple. That's why you can argue all the scientific facts with an evolutionist and never make a dent.

Oh, and did anyone around here hear the term PC before?

[Tribesman]

The author Ian Taylor has an extremely poignant quote about fruit flies in his Darwinism-debunking book, "In the Minds of Men".
That wouldn't be the Ian Taylor who is widely lambasted for his sloppy reasearch which he puts down to his own sloppy memory , who after retracting what he claims then makes more claims based on more thorough research that he then has to retract because his sloppy memory meant that his new research was again suffering from his sloppy memory....
or would that be an entirely different Ian Taylor who wrote "in the minds of men"

Bloody hell Nav you just make it too easy to ridicule your views , you really must try harder .

[PBI]

Speculating that God made the Universe to look old is a cop out. We may as well speculate that the universe was created complete with our memories five minutes ago. It may be true, but there are an infinite number of such theories and they are all completely untestable. This is why scientists at some point have to apply Occam's razor. On one hand we have an infinite number of theories, all of which require us to assume a priori the existence of an omnipotent creator who for no clear reason sets out to systematically deceive his creations (or some other, henceforth completely unknown reason why the universe could simply pop into existence fully made) and all of which are utterly untestable. On the other hand we have a theory which makes no a priori assumptions and instead states all life forms to have been produced by a natural, already documented phenomenon, as well as making testable predictions such as requiring the Earth to have been around for an awfully long time.

Incidentally, amid all this clutching at straws regarding carbon dating and such, I hear no attempt to address any of the astronomical evidence regarding the age of the Universe. For instance, the evidence that all the visible galaxies appear to be expanding out from a Big Bang some 14.2 billion years ago, or the evidence that our sun is apparently a main sequence star about 6 billion years old. Am I supposed to believe that this evidence was also planted by a flood?

[Ronin]

This is along the same lines that atheists must have a faith that god does not exist. It's like a blind spot for them, they just do not get it.

well...in order to be fair to Navaros I must agree with him partly on this.....depending on what definition of Atheism you are using....if you refering to a "Strong" atheist that basically says "I know there is no God" then that person is establishing something as a fact that he has no way of really knowing.......this is partly a faith based position I´d have to agree.

Whoever a "weak" atheist or an apatheist do not profess such a strong conviction as "knowing" there is no god....they either think it is unprobable and ilogical given the known facts that god exists or are unconcerned by such the question of a god....I´ll include myself in this last group.

I´ll agree with you that evolution requires no faith......we say it is likely that things happened a certain way given the presented facts....nobody can say they are sure unless they where there at the time to witness the events.

[Ronin]

Science has nothing to do with the popularity of evolution. People like to believe it because it means they have an excuse to ignore the Bible. Pure and simple. That's why you can argue all the scientific facts with an evolutionist and never make a dent.

Oh, and did anyone around here hear the term PC before?

Sir...I aplaud you for honoring your chosen forum name in such a fashion.

[rory_20_uk]

Sir...I aplaud you for honoring your chosen forum name in such a fashion.

:applause:

Couldn't have put it better myself. :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

[PBI]

People like to believe it because it means they have an excuse to ignore the Bible.

People have been ignoring the Bible (or at least "interpreting" it) for thousands of years before Darwin ever came along.

Similarly even if there were any evidence contradicting evolution it still would not be evidence to uncritically accept the Bible's version of events. We would simply be back at square one with an infinite number of untestable theories to choose from.

I have never yet heard any convincing arguments against the Flying Spaghetti Monster critique of Creationism.

[seireikhaan]

Call me crazy, or maybe just a religious softy, but I always rather interpreted the creation story(well, ya know, the 2nd one :wink:) as a general parable about how God gave man life, and man turned from God. Rather than a specific and exact account of actual events. Plus, I was always a bit miffed that Cain suddenly got married, yet the only other people who had been created, if we are to take it literally and exactly, were his father and mother.~:rolleyes:

[Navaros]

Embryonic changes are the clearest view of evolution at work - humans have gills which they then loose for example; snakes have legs which again dissappear.

Of course, God could have decided that it was more "fun" this way, instead of mammals only developing with structures they'd need as adults.

What is a "natural process"?



Humans don't have gills. Some Darwinists just fabricated an opinion that they do, than that opinion caught on, and now it commonly gets spread around as if it's a fact. This is also the exact same way how all the other unproven aspects of evolution caught on as well. This is all evolution can do; rely on spin-doctoring opinions as empirical evidence in order to misrepresent those opinions as facts. Because there are no empirical facts for evolution to stand on. It always all boils down to faith in an opinion.

Here is a good article that debunks the opinion-based 'humans have gills' claim:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c024.html

A natural process is a process that exists in this Universe, and happens on it's own, automatically.

[InsaneApache]

I distinctley remember a piscine appearence on a human foetus when I was taking my O level biology. It had both gills and a tail. That is unless they had photoshop back in'76. :laugh4:

[HoreTore]

I distinctley remember a piscine appearence on a human foetus when I was taking my O level biology. It had both gills and a tail. That is unless they had photoshop back in'76. :laugh4:

Well, I can clear that one up for you:

Your dating system is based on the premise that the earth is billions of years old. It is in fact between 6000 to 10.000 years old. So, what you think was "back in '76", was in fact last thursday. Around noonish. And yes, they did have photoshop last week.

~;)

[Louis VI the Fat]

I think the 'human embryo gills' is not true. I think it is an outdated biological concept, that is, the thought that embryos follow the shapes of previous stages of evolution. There is a word for it, but I can't remember it right now.

[HoreTore]

There is a word for it, but I can't remember it right now.

Yeah, it's in that book I haven't read or heard about. ~;)

[Louis VI the Fat]

I was not being sarcastic. More importantly, I remember it now! :idea2:

'La théorie de la récapitulation'. Which, if there is a benevolent God, hopefully simply translates as 'theory of recapitulation'. Which is now considered an erroneous biological theory.

Which no doubt will please the critics of biology.
A rejoicing, which, in turn, will to the science crowd only further attest to their unfamiliarity with scientific concepts, progress and perennial critical evaluation.

[Ronin]

Which no doubt will please the critics of biology.
A rejoicing, which, in turn, will to the science crowd only further attest to their unfamiliarity with scientific concepts, progress and perennial critical evaluation.

It is the circle of "Org" life :laugh4:

[Viking]

Design flaws are tough for creationists or evolutionists to answer, maybe we simply don't understand the designs perfectly.[...]

Non, non; design flaws do not exist in the theory of evolution. What ever lives and breeds, lives and breeds. That's all you need to think of.
If a man strongly physically disabled because of his genetics sitting in a wheel chair, a very fit athlete and a woman are the only human survivors left on Earth; and the physically weak man has a gun, while the athelete does not, who'll win the theoretical rivalry between the two? The weak man will just have to shoot the athlete; and in this case, the man sitting in the wheel chair is the fittest, while the athlete is the one who is weak.


Of course we are not meant to sit in front of a PC all day as many here including myself probably do, which is why we tend to have so many back problems. We simply aren't using our bodies for what they were designed for (through a creator or evolution).

It's a false assumption that the human body is meant for anything. It is clear that the enviroment has had its impact on what's ideal; but every enviroment has its pros and cons. There is no such thing as an ultimate enviroment/lifestyle for humans; it fully depends on what goals one want humanity to reach. Numbers? Personal health? Galactical domination? The list goes on for eternity.

[Big_John]

Speculating that God made the Universe to look old is a cop out. We may as well speculate that the universe was created complete with our memories five minutes ago. It may be true, but there are an infinite number of such theories and they are all completely untestable. This is why scientists at some point have to apply Occam's razor. On one hand we have an infinite number of theories, all of which require us to assume a priori the existence of an omnipotent creator who for no clear reason sets out to systematically deceive his creations (or some other, henceforth completely unknown reason why the universe could simply pop into existence fully made) and all of which are utterly untestable. On the other hand we have a theory which makes no a priori assumptions and instead states all life forms to have been produced by a natural, already documented phenomenon, as well as making testable predictions such as requiring the Earth to have been around for an awfully long time. yes, this is simply an epistemic skepticism (which is humorous enough, coming from creationist), and has no bearing on the scientific validity of evolution. a good quote on the matter:
The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.


Incidentally, amid all this clutching at straws regarding carbon dating and such, I hear no attempt to address any of the astronomical evidence regarding the age of the Universe. For instance, the evidence that all the visible galaxies appear to be expanding out from a Big Bang some 14.2 billion years ago, or the evidence that our sun is apparently a main sequence star about 6 billion years old. Am I supposed to believe that this evidence was also planted by a flood?there are numerous lines of evidence for the age of the universe/age of the earth. creationist will no doubt have criticisms of them as sloppy as the criticisms we've seen on radiometric dating here.

note about radiometric dating: the idea that creationists seemed to try to invoke as a criticism (with all the talk about ashes or whatever) is contamination. and it is true that a few radiometric isotopes are vulnerable to contamination (carbon-14 especially), but many others aren't. moreover, if contamination were responsible for all radiometric evidence for the age of the earth, we would expect radiometric dating to produce random results, not the essentially uniformly old age that they do.




I was not being sarcastic. More importantly, I remember it now! :idea2:

'La théorie de la récapitulation'. Which, if there is a benevolent God, hopefully simply translates as 'theory of recapitulation'. Which is now considered an erroneous biological theory.

Which no doubt will please the critics of biology.
A rejoicing, which, in turn, will to the science crowd only further attest to their unfamiliarity with scientific concepts, progress and perennial critical evaluation.yes, recapitulation (aka "the biogenetic law") was a theory put forth by ernst haeckel. recapitulation was never a part of darwinism, and isn't part of evolutionary biology. recapitulation is essentially dead as a theory, though some science textbooks still bring it up as a discussion point, and there are (as always) a few holdouts out there that believe in it, or some reworded form of it.



fellow rationalists, there really is little reason to discuss this topic with people like navaros. as others have pointed out, his MO here is the rejection of rationality. you can't have a real argument with nonsense. don't try.

[Ironside]

Call me crazy, or maybe just a religious softy, but I always rather interpreted the creation story(well, ya know, the 2nd one :wink:) as a general parable about how God gave man life, and man turned from God. Rather than a specific and exact account of actual events. Plus, I was always a bit miffed that Cain suddenly got married, yet the only other people who had been created, if we are to take it literally and exactly, were his father and mother.~:rolleyes:

No worries, It only took the enlighted ones atleast 1800 years to figure out that the Bible were to be taken entirely literally intead of mostly allegoral.

It's aslo funny that the first group to come to the conclusion that the earth needs to be much older than about those 10.000 years gets almost no mention at all. Those damn geologists.


I was not being sarcastic. More importantly, I remember it now! :idea2:

'La théorie de la récapitulation'. Which, if there is a benevolent God, hopefully simply translates as 'theory of recapitulation'. Which is now considered an erroneous biological theory.

Which no doubt will please the critics of biology.
A rejoicing, which, in turn, will to the science crowd only further attest to their unfamiliarity with scientific concepts, progress and perennial critical evaluation.

That theory claims that we go through all the previously evolutionary stages, not that there's some remnant development (aka forming legs and then remove them).

It would be simular to claiming the Lamarckism is correct because it actually does seem like some traits caused by environment does get inheirited.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's aslo funny that the first group to come to the conclusion that the earth needs to be much older than about those 10.000 years gets almost no mention at all. Those damn geologists.

Absolutely! Those :furious3: should be the second ones up against the wall when the revolution comes -- right after the lawyers. Bunch of simpering know-it-all rockheads.

[KarlXII]

Absolutely! Those :furious3: should be the second ones up against the wall when the revolution comes -- right after the lawyers. Bunch of simpering know-it-all rockheads.

Anyone hear the joke about why the Ten Commandments should not be courtroom policy?

Hilarious.

[m52nickerson]

Wikipedia - ROFL. Probably the most uncredible 'source' in history. :laugh4:

Evolution is not a scientific theory. Can't produce observable, testable, or repeatable results - like all legitimate scientific theories can. I know Darwinists like to counter this point with examples of variation within a kind, but that is not proving the outlandish claims of evolution like common descent of all forms of life from bacteria.

For evolution to be a scientific theory there would need to be observable, testable, and repeatable evidence of lower forms of life transforming into completely different higher forms of life with new, additional genetic information. But there is none. Therefore, evolution can only be accepted based on faith, not based on science.

Observable - fossil record

testable - miller experiment, DNA data, Mitochondrial RNA data

repeatable - see above

Evolution is a scientific theory, in fact it has more evidence supporting it then any other theory.


The figure is usually closer to 10 000 years old, although it can range from 6000 - 10 000 in some cases.

I personally do not know how old the Earth is since the Bible isn't specific about the age of the Earth. A few things must be noted, however:

1. God can create things with age as He did with Adam & Eve (Ie: they were never babies). So even if the Earth is old, that does not necessarily mean that Earth has actually existed for the years of age which it contains.

2. No one knows exactly how, and to what degree, the Earth was changed as a result of the damage from the great Flood (Ie: potentially causing artificial signs of age in all sorts of things as a result of damage from the great Flood), and other natural disasters.

3. All the Darwinists 'dating methods' that they allege 'proves' how old things are, have been proven to be erroneous & unreliable; and believing in their accuracy requires faith in unprovable assumptions to begin with.

1. Ok, since your hypothesis relies on God, use the scientific methond to prove God exists.

2. No one knows, because their is no evidence, that their was a flood or that it changed anything as far as signs of age.

3. Fail - http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

[KarlXII]

I think Wikipedia is alright, unless you're more in line with reading Conservapedia. Anyway, there definition of a "scientific theory":


In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

And they're absolutely right. A scientific theory is a theory derived through observation and experimentation. As stated before, evolution is a scientific theory. It can be observed through fossils of past creatures, and experimented with things like DNA (I hate to be so crude, though I don't know the specifics of how evolution is thoroughly tested).

If you still do not think so, you're in zealous denial.

[Navaros]

Observable - fossil record

testable - miller experiment, DNA data, Mitochondrial RNA data

repeatable - see above

Evolution is a scientific theory, in fact it has more evidence supporting it then any other theory.



1. Ok, since your hypothesis relies on God, use the scientific methond to prove God exists.

2. No one knows, because their is no evidence, that their was a flood or that it changed anything as far as signs of age.

3. Fail - http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html


The fossil record provides zero evidence for evolution. Darwinists like to allege it does, but that is only their opinion, not fact & not science.

It's summed up quite nicely on this site, click "Click here for the evidence of evolution in the fossil record!" to see:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com

Any claim made by a Darwinist about any specific fossil showing evolution, can be debunked by a Creationist looking at the very same fossil who has a different, scientific explanation for the same fossil.

Miller experiment...you mean the one where they tried to create life from non-life, and failed miserably at doing so? If anything that is further disproof of evolution.:2thumbsup:

DNA data - so what, as discussed in previous posts in this thread, is provides no evidence of anything other than that God used the same building blocks in different creations, when applicable to do so. That provides zero evidence for evolution. It provides evidence for God, the common designer.

There is plenty of Flood evidence, the Grand Canyon is probably the best example, although that's just one of countless examples.

God's methods of creation cannot be proven by the scientific method. The point is, neither can Darwinists' fabrications of what they think happened in their opinions. The problem lays wherein Darwinists try to elevate their opinions to 'fact' or 'science', zealously mispresent their opinions as such, and then try to suppress any contrary opinions which are every bit as valid, Ie: the Creationist point of view.

The link you provided saying that the dating methods are accurate is bollocks. Here are some good links that illustrate the problems with the dating methods; these facts are agreed upon by all scientists who do not have a pro-Darwinism bias which leads to them fudging the truth, like that article on the actionbioscience site does.

http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMk11.htm#Tay lorIMMkT_PrinRadiomMeas
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMl12.htm#Tay lorIMMlT_C14Dating

[Navaros]

Speculating that God made the Universe to look old is a cop out. We may as well speculate that the universe was created complete with our memories five minutes ago. It may be true, but there are an infinite number of such theories and they are all completely untestable. This is why scientists at some point have to apply Occam's razor. On one hand we have an infinite number of theories, all of which require us to assume a priori the existence of an omnipotent creator who for no clear reason sets out to systematically deceive his creations (or some other, henceforth completely unknown reason why the universe could simply pop into existence fully made) and all of which are utterly untestable. On the other hand we have a theory which makes no a priori assumptions and instead states all life forms to have been produced by a natural, already documented phenomenon, as well as making testable predictions such as requiring the Earth to have been around for an awfully long time.

Incidentally, amid all this clutching at straws regarding carbon dating and such, I hear no attempt to address any of the astronomical evidence regarding the age of the Universe. For instance, the evidence that all the visible galaxies appear to be expanding out from a Big Bang some 14.2 billion years ago, or the evidence that our sun is apparently a main sequence star about 6 billion years old. Am I supposed to believe that this evidence was also planted by a flood?

If the Universe looks old to men, that does not mean that "God made the Universe to look old". It is only in the minds of men, who think they know better than God, that ideas such as the old age of the Universe have spawned.

God did not set out to deceive His creations. God was quite clear, that in the beginning, He created, and he created each creature fully-formed, and ready to reproduce after it's kind. There is no deception there.

It is exclusively men deceiving other men into believing the Universe is old, because that belief is the only way they can make the evolution fairytale 'work' (not that it really works, that is to say, 'work' in their own minds). God has nothing to do with it. Men who want to replace the reality of what God did with their own fabricated version instead, they are the only ones responsible for this deception.

There is plenty of problems with astronomy's claims of the Universe being old. Ie: short-term comets.

For example:

The kuiper belt and oort cloud --- mythical fabrications with no evidence whatsoever, used to 'explain away' parts of the evolution fairytale, like short-term comets, that do not jive with reality that the Universe is not so old as Darwinists require it to be. That's also why evolution is unfalsifiable - any time something factual that does not fit in with it's requirements is discovered, it is either 'explained away' with wild fabrications like the kuiper belt and oort cloud, or the evolution story is changed and then the 'current version' is assumed to be irrefutable fact, until it gets re-written again when Darwinists accept that additional 'irrefutable facts' they believed turned out not to be facts after all. But the 'current version' always remains 'irrefutable fact' no matter what. Obviously it is impossible to disprove something under these circumstances.

Here's another recent example from the Creation/Evolution headlines website about a problem of time & astronomy:
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200809.htm


Short-Term Flings at Saturn’s Rings 09/16/2008
Sept 16, 2008 — The Saturn system is assumed to be 4.5 billion years old like the rest of the solar system. What mean the delicate dances of ring particles that have been observed by Cassini lately? One would think moons and particles had pretty much settled into a stable old age by now, but no: some things change on a daily basis, and Cassini’s cameras are catching the action. The question is, how long can this go on? Is the dance marathon at Saturn setting new records?
A Cassini press release shows gouges in the narrow F-ring that scientists say are evidence of a collision. And just a couple of days earlier, another Cassini press release published pictures of delicate ring arcs among two of Saturn’s small moons, Anthe and Methone. “This is further evidence that most of the planet’s small, inner moons orbit within partial or complete rings,” the article says. Are they exceptions to a rule of stability and senescence? No again; “The intricate relationships between these ring arcs and the moons are just one of many such mechanisms that exist in the Saturn system.”
Notice how rarely the scientists ever address the age question. It seems hard to believe that interactions this delicate and dynamic could persist for billions of years. Before spacecraft got there, scientists expected things to be simple and stable and old. Things like ring arcs, thousands of ringlets, ring spokes and ring collisions caught them by complete surprise. Why are they silent on the question about whether such phenomena could last that long? As with biological evolution, the answers are worded as vague promissory notes: “Understanding these interactions and learning about their origins can help us to make sense of what we are seeing in the Cassini images.” They need help, all right, especially with sense.

Occam's Razor supports the Genesis account. God created the Universe and everything in it fully-formed and able to reproduce after it's own kind. That's the simplest and most likely explanation.

The other explanation: the Universe and everything in it formed by random happenstance. Molecules became bacteria life by random happenstance, which then evolved into higher more complex forms of life by random happenstance, like bacteria to fish, fish to mammals, apes to men, birds to dinosaurs etc. etc. It really gets quite absurd rather quickly. Occam's Razor slices the heck out of the evolution fairytale.

[Big_John]

if anyone can read those last two posts and not come away with a certainty in the truth of biological evolution, nothing will help them.

[Ser Clegane]

Occam's Razor slices the heck out of the evolution fairytale.

I certainly will not get fully sucked into the good ole evolution/creation debate - but the quoted statement struck me as "interesting".

If you use Occam's Razor to support your view - how do you actually measure the likelihood of the existance of an omnipotent entity that is able to create the universe out of - what exactly? - vs the likelihood of evolution happeneing the way you describe it?

I am tempted to doubt that creation is any "simpler" than evolution - at least not if you would bother to apply the same scrutiny to this "model" that you are trying to apply to evolution.

[rory_20_uk]

Navros, besides a book (of which there are many, many different variants) what evidence is there for all being made by God? As far as I can see, no more than Aliens seeding the earth.

~:smoking:

[Ronin]

Navros, besides a book (of which there are many, many different variants) what evidence is there for all being made by God? As far as I can see, no more than Aliens seeding the earth.

~:smoking:

if you read his posts carefully you will see that he admits there is no proof.

you are making a mistake here because you are trying to deal with Navaros using logic, this will get you nowhere because he does not follow the same logical rules as you.

there is simply no way to argue with someone like this [snip]
nowadays I see Navaros posts as more fodder for humor than as a serious debate possibility....the guy will just wear your down......it´s much like having a fight with a girlfriend.....it comes to a point that you shut up...........not because she´s right...she isn´t...but just because you´re tired.

[rory_20_uk]

You're right of course...

I was even going to answer one link... (yolk sac is most efficient place for early blood cells - apart from the liver and spleen of course) but sanity kicked in.

Yup, it is rather like arguing with a woman. The sooner you apologise and try to find out what it is you are perceived to have done wrong the better :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

[PBI]

Occam's Razor supports the Genesis account. God created the Universe and everything in it fully-formed and able to reproduce after it's own kind. That's the simplest and most likely explanation.


Ah, the old misconception about Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor has nothing to do with the simplest theory, the point is to select the theory that makes the fewest assumptions whilst still explaining the observed phenomena. Special Relativity could hardly be described as a simple theory, but the reason it won out over its competition is that formulating the entire theory requires only two postulates.

Creationism requires some big assumptions. Firstly, it requires us to postulate without justification the existence of an infinitely powerful being with limitless arbitrary attributes. Secondly, it requires us to postulate the occurance of a vast series of floods several thousands of years ago, and this introduces a whole vast subset of little postulates, that the flood, rather than just jumbling stuff around at random, must by chance have left everything lying in the exact position required to give the impression of an Earth billions of years old, with all the fossils of the dinosaurs lined up neatly with the newly created geological epochs.

Similarly it requires a whole bunch of postulates about stuff that could not possibly have been affected by the flood nonetheless appearing to be much older than it is, such as the Universe or the Sun, for which I have yet to hear any coherent explanation beyond "the astronomers are in on the conspiracy". Incidentally, the article you linked to about Saturn's rings falls down in its very first sentence:


The Saturn system is assumed to be 4.5 billion years old like the rest of the solar system.

According to my astronomer friend it is generally accepted by the astronomical community that the rings were produced much more recently than the rest of the Solar System, so they are not of any real relevance in gauging the age of the Solar System.

Evolution by contrast requires only two postulates:
*That living things are capable of mutation when reproducing.
*That the Earth has been around for a really long time.

Both of which have a great deal of experimental support. Everything else follows as a logical consequence of those two postulates.

Incidentally, I note that the point about the FSM critique of Creationism remains conspicuously unanswered.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Ah, the old misconception about Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor has nothing to do with the simplest theory, the point is to select the theory that makes the fewest assumptions whilst still explaining the observed phenomena. Special Relativity could hardly be described as a simple theory, but the reason it won out over its competition is that formulating the entire theory requires only two postulates.

Creationism requires some big assumptions. Firstly, it requires us to postulate without justification the existence of an infinitely powerful being with limitless arbitrary attributes. Secondly, it requires us to postulate the occurance of a vast series of floods several thousands of years ago, and this introduces a whole vast subset of little postulates, that the flood, rather than just jumbling stuff around at random, must by chance have left everything lying in the exact position required to give the impression of an Earth billions of years old, with all the fossils of the dinosaurs lined up neatly with the newly created geological epochs.

Similarly it requires a whole bunch of postulates about stuff that could not possibly have been affected by the flood nonetheless appearing to be much older than it is, such as the Universe or the Sun, for which I have yet to hear any coherent explanation beyond "the astronomers are in on the conspiracy". Incidentally, the article you linked to about Saturn's rings falls down in its very first sentence:.

Why do you hate leprechauns? :inquisitive:

[Sigurd]

Navros, besides a book (of which there are many, many different variants) what evidence is there for all being made by God? As far as I can see, no more than Aliens seeding the earth.

~:smoking:
It is interesting that present day religionists take the Bible as a book of allegory.
I have the opinion that those preceding didn’t. In fact the early Christians was very much literalists.
I have been of the opinion that religion and science don’t mix. That religion is about the metaphysical and therefore removed from science which tries to understand the physical.
I have even engaged in debates supporting this notion of metaphysical prior to physical i.e. a first cause, eternal and beyond physical, causing the temporal event called creation. However I have learned that this metaphysical first cause crept in with other Greek philosophies during a sorrowful time in Christianity. The early Christians believed in a physical God, very much present in or close to our universe.
But this is a discussion belonging elsewhere.
One thing I will say is this:
True religion should reflect true science. By this I mean; scientific truths where they have been found should comply perfectly with revealed religion through heavenly beings.
Ok this might need further explanation: If there is a God and he has angels, anything coming from their lips should support scientific truths or where science has gotten their answers right.

Present discussion is on the Creation and its chronology. To me those who claim that the earth was made in six days and that the earth only is 6000 years old have not really read the Bible. They might have read it but not “read” it.
Genesis doesn’t give us that much really. And scholars and their ilk need other supporting scriptures from other biblical or contemporary writers to support their views.

If we simply look at Genesis chapter one with the eyes of present we will notice some interesting things.

Let’s take “day one”

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The question would be; is this talking about the creation of the universe or our earth?
Other translations mention this heaven and this earth as in a geocentric view, which were the common view at the time this was supposedly written. An account from a book of Abraham with a creation text nearly identical to Moses’ account gives a prelude to the creation of this earth. Abraham is taken on a journey through God’s creations and Abraham explains this journey with: “I saw those things which his hands had made, which were many; and they multiplied before mine eyes, and I could not see the end thereof”. Clearly this is not merely standing on the ground looking into the night sky with its 3 to 5 thousand visible lights. While several thousand is a lot, “the end thereof” can be seen.
Take into account that those men were shown the creation and hence described it as they saw it.
The next sentences are interesting. Let’s presume this account by Moses and Abraham speaks of the formation of our solar system some 4.6 billion years ago.
The first period would be that of the organization and the formation of the solar system. The sun, planets and other astral bodies, dust and gas. In this early stage darkness “was upon the face of the deep and the spirit of [the] God[s] moved upon the face of the waters”.
According to the current theory of the formation of our solar system some 4.7 billion years ago a large cloud of gas and dust was shocked by a wave of a nearby supernova.
The cloud began to rotate and collapse upon itself due to the mutual attraction of the gas and dust particles. About 75% of all matter in the universe is hydrogen and was a major component of the cloud. Notice the use of non created waters in the genesis text. Hydrogen in Greek means water source. It is not unthinkable that there is a connection here.
As the cloud of gas and dust began to collapse it became denser and began to block out light; hence the darkness. (This is an observed reality where stars are forming).
The cloud continues to collapse and regions of higher density forms within it. At the center where the highest density forms, gravitational potential energy converts to heat and gets progressively hotter until the density and temperature are high enough for nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium. Other high density areas form into the nine planets and other astral bodies.
The proto-sun core and the fusion within, starts to push on the remaining gas and dust but the view to the outside stars are yet obscured and the light described could be the ignition of our star. Hence the puzzle of creating the other stars on day 4 gets new meaning.

I am going to postulate an alternative meaning of the term day used in Genesis.
There is a slight difference in the Moses account compared with the Abraham account:
In Genesis it states:

And the evening and the morning were the first day.
But in the Abraham account it states:

And this was the first, or the beginning, of that which they called day and night.
As I see it, it can mean one of three things. One day as in 24 hours, one day as in; one day to the Lord is a thousand years, or one day as in a period of time. As I understand it the word day in Genesis could also mean time in a general sense.

So this first day of creation could either be 24 hours as in a day here on earth, at a time before where these things had meaning. Or … 1000 years as in a day reckoned by the creator(s). Or … the time frame from 4.6 billion years to 3.6 billion years according to scientific estimation for the events described in day one.

This would become a rather lengthy post should I continue.
My point is that even if you take a literal interpretation of the Bible, you can surely fit it in with today’s scientific theories with a creative mind.

Scientific evidence contradicts popular religious ideas of the creation, but instead of taking another look at what is actually written, the dogmas dictate creative research on where the science must be wrong, which is clearly the wrong approach.
Most if not all religion has a deist approach which excludes new information on the subject. Apparently we have to solely live by what is written which is up for interpretation if we look at the numerous denominations out there.

[Adrian II]

Fruit flies? Experiments on fruit flies actually help to disprove evolution because all the mutants die out since mutations are almost always bad, not good (which evolution would require). Yes there are a few freak exceptions to this, but it is not the general rule.All mutants die out? You haven't been looking into the matter again, only into your little websites.

The rule is that only a few survive, and a fraction of those result in speciation, i.e. the appearance of a new species that is unable to mate with its ancestors. Speciation is best observed in insects because of their high rates of reproduction. Novel genetic material is created by non-fatal mutations all the time.

As for mutants dying out, just ask bacteria. Mutation is their very strategy of of survival.

It is a pity that you stick to mythology. Many creationists at least accept the basics of evolution because their own world view and concept of science wouldn't make sense without it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is a pity that you stick to mythology. Many creationists at least accept the basics of evolution because their own world view and concept of science wouldn't make sense without it.

Can't speak for Navaros, but I suspect the devout creationist would pity your reliance on concrete minutae to attempt to explain the transcendent.

I keep telling you he doesn't accept your basic premise -- as you don't accept his. You couldargue until you burst a vein without swaying him because he KNOWS -- not merely knows -- that you are off base. The difference is, he's comfortable with his view and accepts that you'll probably remain unconvinced with relative equanimity.

[Big_John]

Can't speak for Navaros, but I suspect the devout creationist would pity your reliance on concrete minutae to attempt to explain the transcendent.

I keep telling you he doesn't accept your basic premise -- as you don't accept his. You couldargue until you burst a vein without swaying him because he KNOWS -- not merely knows -- that you are off base. The difference is, he's comfortable with his view and accepts that you'll probably remain unconvinced with relative equanimity.much of the posts pointing out the nonsensical aspects of navaros' posts are for the benefit of other readers. like people who may not know enough about evolution to understand why it is a scientific fact. or people who would be swayed by the sexiness of one of the many flavors of creationism (personally, i prefer the Finnish 'comsic egg' story).

[Ice]

I actually pity people like Nav. It's a shame there isn't a way to say "I told you so".

Oh well, guess I need to start work on that time machine.

[Reverend Joe]

All this Creationism/Evolution argumentation is useless... after all, God is dead. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMyUiajtYlQ)

[Ice]

All this Creationism/Evolution argumentation is useless... after all, God is dead. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMyUiajtYlQ)

Nah... god's away on business (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExyRMqX8eOA)... he isn't dead :yes:

[Ice]

double post... the internet company lied to me... this isn't 7 megs :/

[m52nickerson]

Any claim made by a Darwinist about any specific fossil showing evolution, can be debunked by a Creationist looking at the very same fossil who has a different, scientific explanation for the same fossil.

Miller experiment...you mean the one where they tried to create life from non-life, and failed miserably at doing so? If anything that is further disproof of evolution.:2thumbsup:

DNA data - so what, as discussed in previous posts in this thread, is provides no evidence of anything other than that God used the same building blocks in different creations, when applicable to do so. That provides zero evidence for evolution. It provides evidence for God, the common designer.

There is plenty of Flood evidence, the Grand Canyon is probably the best example, although that's just one of countless examples.

God's methods of creation cannot be proven by the scientific method. The point is, neither can Darwinists' fabrications of what they think happened in their opinions. The problem lays wherein Darwinists try to elevate their opinions to 'fact' or 'science', zealously mispresent their opinions as such, and then try to suppress any contrary opinions which are every bit as valid, Ie: the Creationist point of view.

The link you provided saying that the dating methods are accurate is bollocks. Here are some good links that illustrate the problems with the dating methods; these facts are agreed upon by all scientists who do not have a pro-Darwinism bias which leads to them fudging the truth, like that article on the actionbioscience site does.

http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMk11.htm#Tay lorIMMkT_PrinRadiomMeas
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMl12.htm#Tay lorIMMlT_C14Dating


Just because someone comes up with a fairytale about fossil does not remove the fact that the fossil record as a whole supports evolution. Anyone who does not see this does not understand how science works.

The miller experiment was not to create life, but to see if under the condition that existed on this earth millions of years ago could produce the building blocks of life, which it did. For life to have developed it would have to have run for at least a could of millennium. Most of the theories that life started spontaneously are antiquated, most scientist believe life developed over time.

The Grand Canyon was carved by a river, not a flood. Pretty common knowledge for anyone except those despite enough to claim evidence of the bible.

Your hypothesis about God using the same block explaining DNA lacks one thing, you must prove God exists until you can do that it is nothing more then a fairytale.

God's methods can't be proven because science can't prove something that did not happen. Evolution is science, in fact it is the central theorem of Biology. If someone can't understand how evolution is science they don't understand what science is or how it works.

All in all creationist fail because they are trying to prove something, not looking for the truth. You think that science is just trying to prove evolution, its not, it is trying to find the truth. Right now the evidence point at evolution.

Even if next week evolution was total dis-proven it would not meant that creation would be correct.

It is their approach and lack of understanding is why creationist fail.

God did not create Man, Man created God to explain what we did not understand. As we advance God is becoming less necessary.

[Navaros]

Evolution by contrast requires only two postulates:
*That living things are capable of mutation when reproducing.
*That the Earth has been around for a really long time.

Both of which have a great deal of experimental support. Everything else follows as a logical consequence of those two postulates.

Incidentally, I note that the point about the FSM critique of Creationism remains conspicuously unanswered.


That those are the only two postulates of evolution is incorrect. It leaves out the absurdities that evolution requires.

Evolution also requires these postulates too:

-Vastly complex working systems, biological machines, and the Universe as a whole can self-assemble by random happenstance.
- All the infinitely complex genetic information that is loaded into these biological machines just got there by random happenstance.
- Mutations - which is in actually a degenerative process which damages the genome by corrupting the information in it and/or causing it to lose information and therefore worsens organisms - is a beneficial process that causes lower forms of life to transform into better, more complex, completely different, higher forms of life with new genetic information that did not exist before, by random happenstance.
- All life shares a common ancestor, which is bacteria, that eventually transformed into all the forms of life that have ever existed.

Obviously, there is no scientific support for any of the above. These things being true can only exist as faith-based opinions as there is no observable, testable, or repeatable evidence to support them.


All mutants die out?
All the mutants died out in the fruit flies experiments, that's what I was talking about. You are talking my quote out of context in that post.

But mutations remain a degenerative process that damages the genome even if the organism survives. Bacteria survive by mutation by losing genetic information, thus the things that used to kill it no longer can because they are no longer able to latch onto the genetic information that used to be present before the bacteria lost it; which is the method by which they used to be able to kill it. Thus the bacteria survive by devolving and becoming less complex. Which is what mutations cause to happen in all organisms. This is the opposite of evolution. Mutations are another great disproof of evolution.


does not remove the fact that the fossil record as a whole supports evolution. Anyone who does not see this does not understand how science works.


Incorrect. That's not a fact. The fossil record shows every fossil fully-formed just as they were created. There are none of the (required by evolution) millions of transitional fossils that Darwin said would be found and indeed knew that were/are required to be found for evolution to be true, but never were found. Darwinists have at times attributed 'transitional fossil' labels to fully-formed creatures that were not really 'transitional' at all, but that always turn out to be a fabrication. Wishful thinking to support their own worldview. The fossil record supports Creation, not evolution. Here is a good new example regarding the fossil record of how the evolution story just gets rewritten around the facts whenever evolution's 'irrefutable facts' are proven wrong (and therefore the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable, and therefore, unscientific):

Again from http://creationsafaris.com/crev200809.htm
Fully Gecko 40 Million Years Earlier? 09/03/2008
Sept 3, 2008 — Amber, or fossilized tree sap, usually contains remnants of insect parts. One piece, mined in the jungles of Myanmar, contained the foot of a gecko – alleged to be 100 million years old. That’s 40 million years older than the previously claimed oldest gecko fossil. This critter may have skittered under the feet of dinosaurs. Maybe it even hitched a ride by walking on the underside of a Diplodocus.
Examination of the foot pads shows the same lamellae that give modern geckos their ability to walk across ceilings. To Science Daily, this could only mean one thing: “that geckos were definitely in Asia by 100 million years ago, and had already evolved their bizarre foot structure at that time.”
The discoverers from Oregon State and the London Natural History Museum estimate the juvenile specimen could have grown to about a foot long as an adult, comparable to living species.
Speaking of the Spiderman abilities of the gecko, the article stated that “Research programs around the world have tried to mimic this bizarre adhesive capability, with limited success.” How did this inimitable ability arise? “It’s not known exactly how old this group of animals is, and when they evolved their adhesive toe pads.”
But does this fossil really provide evidence that evolution produced a gecko, with its innovative adhesive feet? Certainly not directly. The specimen was 100% gecko – and it appeared 40 million years earlier than evolutionists thought, according to their own timeline. It’s not clear, therefore, how or why this fossil is “shedding additional light on the evolution and history of these ancient lizards that scampered among the feet of giant dinosaurs then and still are common in tropical or sub-tropical regions all over the world.”

If you are tired of the evolutionists’ tiptoe dance around falsification with the falsetto jingle that the latest discovery is “shedding more light on evolution,” then let’s all shout in basso profundo, “Let there be light!” The light is shining, but it is shining everywhere except on evolution.
Fossil after fossil has proven older and less evolved than any honest evolutionist would have predicted. Nowhere do we find them evolving into something else. All their equipment is there from the start. At first appearance, this gecko was all gecko, just like the first bat was all bat (02/16/2008), the first frog was all frog (05/28/2008), the first bombardier beetle was already armed and dangerous (09/23/2007), the first horseshoe crab was all horseshoe crab (01/28/2008), the first platypus was all platypus (11/27/2007), the first penguin was all penguin (06/26/2007), the first jellyfish was all jellyfish (11/02/2007, the first crustacean was all crustacean (10/04/2007), and the first comb jelly was all comb jelly (04/03/2007), and on and on anon etc. and so forth. In each case, the evolutionary paleontologist declares that the fossil is “shedding light on evolution.”
Let’s follow the light, then. If trends keep up, every kind of animal will trace its ancestry to the Cambrian or before. They will all be seen to burst onto the scene, fully formed, without ancestors. The light shed on evolution will show it to have been essentially instantaneous. In the asymptotic limit, evolution under the lights will be seen clearly. It will come into sharp focus. It will read: CREATION.

As for applying the scientific method to how God created: you can't. God spoke things into existence. This is not something any other entity in the Universe can do, and it is not something that can be repeated, observed, or tested. This being so, however, does not mean that making up an unprovable faith-based evolution story and then slapping an illegitimate 'science' label onto it is a better explanation that has more validity (contrary to popular belief).:idea2: The scientific method can no more be applied to the evolution being true point of view than it can to the Creation point of view. Both points of view require faith as they cannot be proven.

There is however, plenty of circumstantial and common-sense evidence for Creation as described in Genesis. Simply looking at anything in nature makes it clear it was the Universe itself and all life in it were designed, and designed fully-formed and ready to go. We only ever observe life reproducing after it's own kind exactly as God's Word says. Not lower forms of life transforming into completely different, more complex, higher forms of life with new genetic information like evolution claims.

[Ser Clegane]

Just a gentle reminder:
Please stick to playing the ball instead of the man.
Feeling that playing the ball is no fun anymore does not justify overt or covert personal attacks.

Thanks

:bow:

[rory_20_uk]

Mutations are degenerative? Very simplistic approach. Sure, they often are, but sometimes help the organism: resistance in bacteria is a case in point. Bacteria have evolved to have multiple drug resistances with the increased use of medicines. This can be altering the shape of protiens that the drugs work on, or pumps that remove the substance from the bacterium. To achieve this process billions of bacteria die as they fail to evolve, but there are sufficient billions for this approach to work. Generations happen in ideal conditions every 30 minutes, so evolution can be this quick - it is a process you can easily replicate in a lab.
Further examples are sickle cell trait providing resistance to Malaria.

Evolution is survival of the fittest: when the envoronment changes, mutations that are often not beneficial become beneficial: Sickle cell trait is not beneficial, unless the alternative is dying of malaria; similarly lugging around DNA for resistance for several antibiotics isn't of any use, unless there is heavy antibiotic use in the colonised organism - hence why MRSA can be carried on 30% of people and does nothing, but kills hospitalised patients.

~:smoking:

[Viking]

For example:

The kuiper belt and oort cloud --- mythical fabrications with no evidence whatsoever, used to 'explain away' parts of the evolution fairytale, like short-term comets, that do not jive with reality that the Universe is not so old as Darwinists require it to be.

You could in fact observe KBOs with a backyard telescope if you'd bother to. If you're interested in the truth, that is. :laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

What do Darwinists have to do with the Age of the Universe? Surely that's Astrophysics.

~:smoking:

[Riedquat]

- Mutations - which is in actually a degenerative process which damages the genome by corrupting the information in it and/or causing it to lose information and therefore worsens organisms - is a beneficial process that causes lower forms of life to transform into better, more complex, completely different, higher forms of life with new genetic information that did not exist before, by random happenstance.


:dizzy2:

I'm sorry, a little clarification, in genetics the term mutation is only used to non beneficial changes of genes only. Meanwhile a beneficial change is called evolution.

In Evolution, mutation and change have the same meaning, without making distinction between beneficial or not. :book:



Mutation is a beneficial process that causes lower forms of life to transform into better, more complex, completely different, higher forms of life with new genetic information that did not exist before, by random happenstance.


Somehow correct.



Mutation - in genetics - is a degenerative process which damages the genome by corrupting the information in it and/or causing it to lose information and therefore worsens organisms

Somehow correct too.


Both statements together...... :shame:

[Tribesman]

What do Darwinists have to do with the Age of the Universe? Surely that's Astrophysics.

Astrophysics is a faith , them astrophisicalists believe in the signs of the zodiac and tarot cards .

[m52nickerson]

That those are the only two postulates of evolution is incorrect. It leaves out the absurdities that evolution requires.

Evolution also requires these postulates too:

-Vastly complex working systems, biological machines, and the Universe as a whole can self-assemble by random happenstance.
- All the infinitely complex genetic information that is loaded into these biological machines just got there by random happenstance.
- Mutations - which is in actually a degenerative process which damages the genome by corrupting the information in it and/or causing it to lose information and therefore worsens organisms - is a beneficial process that causes lower forms of life to transform into better, more complex, completely different, higher forms of life with new genetic information that did not exist before, by random happenstance.
- All life shares a common ancestor, which is bacteria, that eventually transformed into all the forms of life that have ever existed.

Obviously, there is no scientific support for any of the above. These things being true can only exist as faith-based opinions as there is no observable, testable, or repeatable evidence to support them.

Evolution does not work on random happenstance. Evolution works on selection of traits. Yes, higher organisms are very complex, but you seem to be taking out a few billion years over which they developed.

So, mutations that cause Bactria to become resistant to anti-bionics are degenerative? No, they are not.

Evolution has been observed in microscopic organisms. The selection of traits which is the driving force of evolution has been observed. Fossils can be dated, DNA can be used to show the decent of the organisms from which the fossils came.





All the mutants died out in the fruit flies experiments, that's what I was talking about. You are talking my quote out of context in that post.

But mutations remain a degenerative process that damages the genome even if the organism survives. Bacteria survive by mutation by losing genetic information, thus the things that used to kill it no longer can because they are no longer able to latch onto the genetic information that used to be present before the bacteria lost it; which is the method by which they used to be able to kill it. Thus the bacteria survive by devolving and becoming less complex. Which is what mutations cause to happen in all organisms. This is the opposite of evolution. Mutations are another great disproof of evolution.

Yes, some mutation doe lead to death, or the selection against that trait. You assumption that an organism that becomes less complex is "devolving" is incorrect. To evolve to not mean to become more complex. Perhaps you don't understand the theory very well.


Incorrect. That's not a fact. The fossil record shows every fossil fully-formed just as they were created. There are none of the (required by evolution) millions of transitional fossils that Darwin said would be found and indeed knew that were/are required to be found for evolution to be true, but never were found. Darwinists have at times attributed 'transitional fossil' labels to fully-formed creatures that were not really 'transitional' at all, but that always turn out to be a fabrication. Wishful thinking to support their own worldview. The fossil record supports Creation, not evolution. Here is a good new example regarding the fossil record of how the evolution story just gets rewritten around the facts whenever evolution's 'irrefutable facts' are proven wrong (and therefore the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable, and therefore, unscientific):

You are still looking for the missing link? That is an antiquated idea. All fossils are transitional fossils. They are all organism, fully formed, that gave rise to the next evolutionary species.

You again seem to have it the wrong way around. Evolutionary theory is modified as new evidence is found. That is the wonderful think about scientific theories, they are fluid and change as our understanding increases. Creation on the other had is stagnant.


As for applying the scientific method to how God created: you can't. God spoke things into existence. This is not something any other entity in the Universe can do, and it is not something that can be repeated, observed, or tested. This being so, however, does not mean that making up an unprovable faith-based evolution story and then slapping an illegitimate 'science' label onto it is a better explanation that has more validity (contrary to popular belief).:idea2: The scientific method can no more be applied to the evolution being true point of view than it can to the Creation point of view. Both points of view require faith as they cannot be proven.

I've explained how the evolution has been put to test by scientific means.

I did not ask you to prove how God created, I ask you to prove God exists. If you cannot do that the very base of creation is gone, that is why creatin is not science.

......and everything we know exists can be put to the test of science, if God can't he is nothing more then fable.

[InsaneApache]

A Muslim creationist has succeeded in having Richard Dawkins’s website banned in Turkey, after complaining that its atheist content was blasphemous.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4791175.ece

I wonder what he's frightened of? People thinking for themselves, perhaps.

[Viking]

From tuesday:

Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080916/sc_nm/vatican_evolution_dc_1)


VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.


Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican's culture minister, was speaking at the announcement of a Rome conference of scientists, theologians and philosophers to be held next March marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation.

Earlier this week a leading Anglican churchman, Rev. Malcolm Brown, said the Church of England owed Darwin an apology for the way his ideas were received by Anglicans in Britain.

Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans in 1950 and Pope John Paul reiterated that in 1996. But Ravasi said the Vatican had no intention of apologizing for earlier negative views.

[...]

This implies that humans have not always been humans; heh.. Either way, the Vatican is on the right track on this one. :smash:



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4791175.ece

I wonder what he's frightened of? People thinking for themselves, perhaps.

Definately.

[Reverend Joe]

:fainting:

Is this a joke?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080916/sc_nm/vatican_evolution_dc_1)


This implies that humans have not always been humans; heh.. Either way, the Vatican is on the right track on this one. :smash:Creationism is not a Catholic problem. It is an American fundamentalist problem.

[Tribesman]

Creationism is not a Catholic problem. It is an American fundamentalist problem.

That goes back to Augustine doesn't it , well apart from that crazy stuff with telescopes when they insisted that the lens was the devils work and the bible was really definitive on that sort of thing .

[Kadagar_AV]

As an agnostic, I must say I get a good laugh whenever the curch has to admit being wrong...

Yet, the idiots hold firm to their belief.. "Ok, so THAT part of the bible was wrong, but THIS part is still ok"

I mean, c'mon... If there was a christian god, wouldnt he be able to put his message across more clear than this?

I mean, if god walked the earth one day, and said "bow down, worship me" then I sure would..

But basing a faith on a 1700 year old book?
*Before I get complaints, no the bible is not 2000+ years old, it has been revised by humans since then... a couple of times, to fullfill the political situation at the time*

Again, don't get me wrong... I am agnostic, not an atheist.

If I saw ANY (what-so-ever) proof of Gods existance I would abide his law...

Just, there is no proof... Only some wierd americans who have been brainwashed by their parents / society.

:sweden::sweden::sweden::sweden::sweden:

[ShadesPanther]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4791175.ece

I wonder what he's frightened of? People thinking for themselves, perhaps.

Did they not ban youtube because it had a video that was offensive about their hero Ataturk?





That goes back to Augustine doesn't it , well apart from that crazy stuff with telescopes when they insisted that the lens was the devils work and the bible was really definitive on that sort of thing .

I think He means that it isn't a problem, Now.

Whereas those fundies are still in the dark ages of their evolutionary stage :idea2:

[KarlXII]

As an agnostic, I must say I get a good laugh whenever the curch has to admit being wrong...

Yet, the idiots hold firm to their belief.. "Ok, so THAT part of the bible was wrong, but THIS part is still ok"

I mean, c'mon... If there was a christian god, wouldnt he be able to put his message across more clear than this?

I mean, if god walked the earth one day, and said "bow down, worship me" then I sure would..

But basing a faith on a 1700 year old book?
*Before I get complaints, no the bible is not 2000+ years old, it has been revised by humans since then... a couple of times, to fullfill the political situation at the time*

Again, don't get me wrong... I am agnostic, not an atheist.

If I saw ANY (what-so-ever) proof of Gods existance I would abide his law...

Just, there is no proof... Only some wierd americans who have been brainwashed by their parents / society.

:sweden::sweden::sweden::sweden::sweden:

Unfortunately for you, you're Swedish, and apparently God hates Sweden, which means you're damned if you do. That'd make me half damned as well.

[HoreTore]

If I saw ANY (what-so-ever) proof of Gods existance I would abide his law...

I'm an agnostic too, but I have to sayl even if there was definite proof of the christian god, I would never, ever bow down to him, simply because I see him as evil, nothing more, nothing less. And I won't ever submit to evil.

[Kadagar_AV]

Swedishfish, it's not so bad, god apparently hates gays and communists even more... I guess I'd end up in "limbo".

HoreTore, Are you kidding me? IF (big if) God would actually walk the earth and command people, I'd be scared like hell, and just do whatever he said. I mean, I can stand up to tough guys and stuff... But here we talk about BIBLICAL proportions of violence he can inflict.








ON A SIDENOTE: I must say i have more respect for christians now I thought about it.... I never understood these fanatical idiots claiming to do stuff in Gods name.. But then I thought: "Hey, if Optimus Prime would tell me to gack someone, that ******* would be going DOWN!"

:weirdthread:

[Adrian II]

I'm an agnostic too, but I have to sayl even if there was definite proof of the christian god, I would never, ever bow down to him, simply because I see him as evil, nothing more, nothing less. And I won't ever submit to evil.That's right. If He existed, He would be man's worst enemy.

We would have to nuke the sucker. :smug:

[CountArach]

Yet, the idiots hold firm to their belief.. "Ok, so THAT part of the bible was wrong, but THIS part is still ok"
The exact point that ultimately made me an Atheist.

[rory_20_uk]

Really? I'm an agnostic, and to be honest I find Atheists as deluded as Theists. There's no compelling evidence in either direction, so a position of uncertainty seems the most sensible position.

A 2,000ish year old almac which has been rewritten many times is neither here nor there.

~:smoking:

[Ronin]

Really? I'm an agnostic, and to be honest I find Atheists as deluded as Theists. There's no compelling evidence in either direction, so a position of uncertainty seems the most sensible position.

A 2,000ish year old almac which has been rewritten many times is neither here nor there.

~:smoking:

read my earlier post where I explained the difference between "strong atheism" and "weak atheism"....not every atheist states that he knows for sure there is no god.

[rory_20_uk]

Where does "weak" Atheism end and Agnosticism begin?

~:smoking:

[Viking]

Really? I'm an agnostic, and to be honest I find Atheists as deluded as Theists. There's no compelling evidence in either direction, so a position of uncertainty seems the most sensible position.

A 2,000ish year old almac which has been rewritten many times is neither here nor there.

~:smoking:

How about this: if we cannot know, cannot gain evidence, then why bother? I like to call myself an agnostic atheist as I don't want anything to do with religion, and I don't find the question whether there is a god or not relevant for anything. Do not claim to know, only find the question irrelevant until serious evidences are put forth.

Ultimately, we're walking in a mine field made out of definitions.

[CBR]

Where does "weak" Atheism end and Agnosticism begin?

I have posted it before but I'm happy to do it again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_Theistic_Probability


Dawkins' formulation
Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7.Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

Dawkins notes that he would be "surprised to meet many people in category 7". Dawkins calls himself "about a 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden"

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yet, the idiots hold firm to their belief.. "Ok, so THAT part of the bible was wrong, but THIS part is still ok"

Indeed, that is one of the biggest problems with many churches today. Some are of course more guilty than others ... *cough* Anglicans *cough*

I respect agnostics, even though I do not agree with them, but I cannot bring myself to see the reasoning behind todays liberal churches. I suppose it's part of the Great Tribulation or falling away. Oh how fundamentalist of me.

[Ronin]

How about this: if we cannot know, cannot gain evidence, then why bother? I like to call myself an agnostic atheist as I don't want anything to do with religion, and I don't find the question whether there is a god or not relevant for anything. Do not claim to know, only find the question irrelevant until serious evidences are put forth.

Ultimately, we're walking in a mine field made out of definitions.

you mind friend sound like an apatheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism)

[KukriKhan]

Why would god, if she exists, care whether humans "believe in" her?

The absolute arrogance of the idea that we, with our puny intellects, deceiving/unreliable sensory systems, and penchant for knee-jerk fear and cowardice towards things we cannot understand, presume to know anything beyond our own base desires - is staggering.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Why would god, if she exists, care whether humans "believe in" her?

The absolute arrogance of the idea that we, with our puny intellects, deceiving/unreliable sensory systems, and penchant for knee-jerk fear and cowardice towards things we cannot understand, presume to know anything beyond our own base desires - is staggering.That reminds me of when i was five. I had an ant farm back then. A rather big one, tens of thousands of ants.

I build them their house, I fed them, gave 'em space to drill their tunnels.

Every day I looked at them. And looked. But nope, the bastards wouldn't erect big statues in honour of me. So I shook their tunnels, gave them little earthquakes in their main cities. Created floods with cups of water. I couldn't get the message across that I needed worshipping. Then in the end I destroyed it in seven plagues. That tought the little buggers.


I suggest we, humanity, take heed. :yes:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Why would god, if she exists, care whether humans "believe in" her?

The absolute arrogance of the idea that we, with our puny intellects, deceiving/unreliable sensory systems, and penchant for knee-jerk fear and cowardice towards things we cannot understand, presume to know anything beyond our own base desires - is staggering.

I have to disagree strongly.

If there is a god, all the evidence provided by him/her/them is that they are frantic that humans believe. Divinities from time immemorial have been "jealous gods" dependent on their creations for worship.

Regardless of origin, we are a species imbued with the noblest of qualities - mercy, love, art. That we are also drawn to the ignoble does not change our destiny - to know ourselves and to be ourselves.

That is not remotely arrogant - indeed, in the face of such an extraordinary universe of possibilities, where every single human existence is at the same time an infinite universe unto itself and a spitball of dust that barely troubles eternity, all we have is ourselves and our own journey.

To live, and to understand how to create a life that makes whatsoever a difference, is not arrogance, but beauty. Curiosity is our most precious gift. The evil that men do cannot diminish it.

[Viking]

Why would god, if she exists, care whether humans "believe in" her?

The absolute arrogance of the idea that we, with our puny intellects, deceiving/unreliable sensory systems, and penchant for knee-jerk fear and cowardice towards things we cannot understand, presume to know anything beyond our own base desires - is staggering.

Well, according to the Bible, the Koran and other holy books; God does indeed care, and has even bothered to put up hell and heaven for us.

Also, you say that we have a puny intellect; but who's to say that we are not the smartest specie in the entire universe?

Well yes, humans are not perfect creatures and do not understand everything there is to understand. History is full of stories that can prove that (or just the fact that even today two people might hold the opposite views on a question and die of age in disagreement. At least one of them was wrong no matter how convinced and devoted); something which I would view as a strengthening of the agnostic argument. If there was a divine right, why does not all humans naturally reach it through logical reasoning?

[Ronin]

Why would god, if she exists, care whether humans "believe in" her?


inferiority complex??? :laugh4:

[Rhyfelwyr]

No human can ever hope to understand God by his own intellect or reasoning.

God does not care whether or not people "believe in" Him, not that on its own. Satan believes in God, but he isn't going to Heaven. What he does want us to do is put our trust in Him.

We had our chance at a perfect world, and we blew it. We abused the free will that we were given, and which God never questioned. We rejected God, and so we are now in this fallen world. Not as punishment, we simply decided we didn't need him or his laws. As can be seen from comments here, the base of all sin is pride. People think they don't need God, so they reject him. This isn't in its own right an evil thing to do, in that it doesn't harm anybody else. But if you reject God, then you no longer have his protection and so Satan will take you when you die.

[Ronin]

No human can ever hope to understand God by his own intellect or reasoning.

God does not care whether or not people "believe in" Him, not that on its own. Satan believes in God, but he isn't going to Heaven. What he does want us to do is put our trust in Him.



you just wrote that we can´t understand god in one line....and on the following line proceeded to tell us what god wants...

just wanted to point out that "tiny" inconsistency....:oops:

[rory_20_uk]

I have posted it before but I'm happy to do it again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_Theistic_Probability

Thanks for that. I must have missed it. I'd rate myself a 4 on that scale

~:smoking:

[KukriKhan]

If no human believed in the "real" god, would she, like Tinkerbell, die? Or does she exist independent of what we believe?

My statement above about arrogance has been interpreted as a scathing rebuke of it. But I don't mean that. I do not rebuke or condemn human arrogance in the face of our instinctual fear or cowardice - rather I celebrate it. It is the overcoming of our natural fear, in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds that we arrogantly walk through fire, organize sounds into music, assemble sights into an abstract of perceived reality known as 'art', use our gift of language to spin stories to speculate about why things are, and how they are, and what we ought to do about that. We seem to have a need to do those things, to satisfy some deep craving of ours.

I'm not an atheist, I think. But I also cannot accept the two major ideas of many established religions: 1) that a mistake, or 'sin' (which I don't believe was either a mistake or sin) by some ancient ancestor dooms my existence now and forever, and 2) that even if 1) were true, that I need the help of a savior, or leader-man, or half-man-half-god, to do what? Make me God, or more human, or more perfect?

Sorry, with all the evidence to the contrary staring me in the face, I nevertheless assert with confidence: I am already perfect; I was born that way, and I'll die that way. But just because I'm statistically certain to stop breathing someday, doesn't mean I must live my life in dread of that final hour. I am both a puny little insignificant human, and the god-like ultimate reason for the universe to exist.

Sez I, of my own free will.

-edit-
p.s. And the same, of course holds for you, every one. :)

[Strike For The South]

Any faith in God requires just that, faith. I see many people here trying to apply science to this question when it is not a scientific question. You can not disprove God anymore than I can prove him. All I know is I have a relationship with him now could it just be when I pray at night that it is entirely psychological and my brian is just releasing chemicals making me feel better? Maybe or it could be my personal relationship with my savior.

Kurki I can not speak for all religious people here but I do not fear or dread the final hour at all I do not believe in God because I fear the end, far from it. I believe because I look around and think that it is entirely plausible that he is there. Death takes everyone there is no sense in being afraid of something that will happen

[KukriKhan]

Exactly SFTS, your free will allows you to make the leap of faith, and to choose a god-story that seems to suit you. Or to not choose one at all, or to cherry-pick bits of god-stories from others. Whether your personal god-story is based on Judeo-Christian stories or the Bhagavad Gita or whatever, is irrelevant, and mostly an accident of geography (where you were born, and to whom), in my opinion.

Two Roman Catholics, though both profess Catholicism, neverthless have very different personal ideas about who god is, and what their relationship with him/her is - the same as the fact that both see a leaf and call it "green", though both perceive the lights rays coming from that same leaf entirely differently.

And I agree, one shouldn't fear death. We don't even know what it is, aside from the cessation of breathing. We can rightly fear pain and suffering, though. Especially when inflicted upon us by others who think our ideas about god are punishable by them. They've gone too far in their god-stories.

-edit-
a thought about Louis' ant farm: you were only a demi-god to them, because you didn't speak ant-ese. For all you knew, they DID praise you unceasingly day and night. :)

[Rhyfelwyr]

you just wrote that we can´t understand god in one line....and on the following line proceeded to tell us what god wants...

just wanted to point out that "tiny" inconsistency....:oops:

Yes because God tells us what he wants many times in scripture. There is a difference between understanding God and knowing what you are told by Him.


I'm an agnostic too, but I have to sayl even if there was definite proof of the christian god, I would never, ever bow down to him, simply because I see him as evil, nothing more, nothing less. And I won't ever submit to evil.

God does not take pleasure in being told how great he is, I'm sure he is already aware of it. The central part of Christianity is having a relationship with God. In Heaven, everything (including ourselves) will be perfect and no-one will bow down to anything. Worshipping is often misunderstood. It is not about praising God (although Christians often feel like doing it anyway), but it is instead about seeking guidance from God. We just ask him casually, and if its for the best he will answer the prayer. This does please God, because he cares for humanity and likes to have people return to him.

[Ronin]

Yes because God tells us what he wants many times in scripture. There is a difference between understanding God and knowing what you are told by Him.



and You know what god wants because some other guys that thought they knew what god wanted (or because they wanted to control other people- that´s open for discussion) wrote a book....

gee pall...the woods are getting darker and it seems to me you´re just going around in circles.

[Rhyfelwyr]

and You know what god wants because some other guys that thought they knew what god wanted (or because they wanted to control other people- that´s open for discussion) wrote a book....

gee pall...the woods are getting darker and it seems to me you´re just going around in circles.

Have you read the Bible? I doubt any religion in the world is worse than Christianity when it comes to states or religious leaders controlling people. It's no good for a ruler when people serve something higher than the state - look what happens to Christians in China.

Yes there is the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churche's, but they controlled people by hiding the scripture from them. As soon as the Reformation came everyone did their own thing and sent Europe to the point of chaos in areas. And I don't just mean violence like in the 30-years war (as much a dynastic conflict as anything), look at the hundreds of denominations that sprung up, almost all of which prided themselves on removing social hierarchies and giving people freedom, whether it was from the aristocracy or the Bishops.

Christianity is hopeless at controlling people, it always was and it always will be.

Cults etc may brainwash in the name of Christianity, but people can be brainwashed over almost anything.

[Viking]

Sorry, with all the evidence to the contrary staring me in the face, I nevertheless assert with confidence: I am already perfect; I was born that way, and I'll die that way. But just because I'm statistically certain to stop breathing someday, doesn't mean I must live my life in dread of that final hour. I am both a puny little insignificant human, and the god-like ultimate reason for the universe to exist.

Sez I, of my own free will.

-edit-
p.s. And the same, of course holds for you, every one. :)

I agree on that. :bow:



Any faith in God requires just that, faith. I see many people here trying to apply science to this question when it is not a scientific question. You can not disprove God anymore than I can prove him. All I know is I have a relationship with him now could it just be when I pray at night that it is entirely psychological and my brian is just releasing chemicals making me feel better? Maybe or it could be my personal relationship with my savior.

Yes, it is a scientific question. Someone tells you that a is true; but why should you accept it blindly if it has a major impact on your life? The fact that it cannot be proven/disproven (if this is a fact) may only strengthen the agnostic argument.

[Ronin]

Have you read the Bible? I doubt any religion in the world is worse than Christianity when it comes to states or religious leaders controlling people. It's no good for a ruler when people serve something higher than the state - look what happens to Christians in China.

Yes there is the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churche's, but they controlled people by hiding the scripture from them. As soon as the Reformation came everyone did their own thing and sent Europe to the point of chaos in areas. And I don't just mean violence like in the 30-years war (as much a dynastic conflict as anything), look at the hundreds of denominations that sprung up, almost all of which prided themselves on removing social hierarchies and giving people freedom, whether it was from the aristocracy or the Bishops.

Christianity is hopeless at controlling people, it always was and it always will be.

Cults etc may brainwash in the name of Christianity, but people can be brainwashed over almost anything.

yes I was raised catholic and I have read the bible....

just to make this clear I wasn´t just talking about christians....any organized religion is about control and influence, maybe not at a state level but that´s what it boils down to....

One can say that religion is about faith, hope and a way of life, and on the individual level I´ll agree with you even if I don´t share such beliefs...but once you get lots of people involved, and organizations and titles and positions of power begin being passed around people will use it for their own gain.

and as for christianity being hopeless at controlling people.....uhm....history objects to that my friend....christianity is on the decline in terms of influence yes...but there was a time that nothing is done without their say-so......hell....at the edge of my neighborhood there is a huge estate where the bishop of Lisbon lives....the man hasn´t done a hard´s day work in his life but he lives like nobility...if that´s not being in control I don´t know what is.

[Ronin]

Any faith in God requires just that, faith. I see many people here trying to apply science to this question when it is not a scientific question. You can not disprove God anymore than I can prove him. All I know is I have a relationship with him now could it just be when I pray at night that it is entirely psychological and my brian is just releasing chemicals making me feel better? Maybe or it could be my personal relationship with my savior.




This topic is about creationism being included in the curriculum of science classes at schools.....yes faith and belief do not have to answer to scientific scrutiny. Everyone has the right to believe what they want and nobody has anything to say about that.

but once someone crosses the line of wanting their religious beliefs to enter a classroom then it does fall under scrutiny.....and if people are uncomfortable with the fact that their beliefs fall apart under simple analysis and reasoning, well then they shouldn´t have pushed their beliefs into that field in the first place...

[Rhyfelwyr]

The controlling elements of the Catholic Church are not based on Christianity. As I said earlier, why do you think wanted to hide the Bible from people? The guys that wrote the Bible must not have done a very good job if the guys who took power had to hide their writings.

[Ronin]

The controlling elements of the Catholic Church are not based on Christianity. As I said earlier, why do you think wanted to hide the Bible from people? The guys that wrote the Bible must not have done a very good job if the guys who took power had to hide their writings.

that is true of every organized religion....

the original texts were probably written as proto-laws to help organize life in a comunity......the ideas that are there are generally wholesome.......but they have been re-written so many times by men that wanted to exploit them for their own gains that what´s left?

and just for the record...I think Jesus Christ is an incredible role mode as a person...even if I don´t believe in his divinity.

[Viking]

This topic is about creationism being included in the curriculum of science classes at schools.....yes faith and belief do not have to answer to scientific scrutiny. Everyone has the right to believe what they want and nobody has anything to say about that.

but once someone crosses the line of wanting their religious beliefs to enter a classroom then it does fall under scrutiny.....and if people are uncomfortable with the fact that their beliefs fall apart under simple analysis and reasoning, well then they shouldn´t have pushed their beliefs into that field in the first place...

Gah, on a personal level it does of course matter. :end: One do simply not pick one's beliefs randomly.

[Strike For The South]

This topic is about creationism being included in the curriculum of science classes at schools.....yes faith and belief do not have to answer to scientific scrutiny. Everyone has the right to believe what they want and nobody has anything to say about that.

but once someone crosses the line of wanting their religious beliefs to enter a classroom then it does fall under scrutiny.....and if people are uncomfortable with the fact that their beliefs fall apart under simple analysis and reasoning, well then they shouldn´t have pushed their beliefs into that field in the first place...

I agree. Christianity has no place in a science classroom just like science has no place in a Christian one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree. Christianity has no place in a science classroom just like science has no place in a Christian one.

So Science is antithema to Christianity? Trying to better understand His Great Work is a bad thing?

I've been away, so I've not been in on this from the beggining but I read a book about Darwinism recently, not evolution, which highlighted a lot of wholes in the theory. For example, Scienists tell us that the conditions for life to begin on Earth were achieved 3.8 Billion years ago, and the oldest lifeforms are 3.8 Billion years old. So the primordial ooze sponaniously produced life as soon as it was possible, which is highly unlikely. He also made the point about the difference between micro-diversity and macro-evolution. The prime example he gave was sugar-beat where is has proved impossible to cross-breed for yields higher than 18%, after which further breeding results in lower, more natural, yields. He also pointed out that every form of radiometric dating can be subject to contamination or acceleration. If Uranium is compressed, for example, it decays more quickly and this is possible naturally.

The best point he made though, and I found this really interesting, was that modern science does require a faith-commitment because it is founded on the unquestioned principle that the universe is ordered and can be explained by a man-made mathematical system. Scientists have spent at least 50 years looking for a "theory of everything" without any proof that everything can be explained by one theory. That hardly means that there isn't one, but it is an important point none the less.

[Strike For The South]

I never said pursuing science was bad I stated that if try to figure out Christianity just by applying science to it you will be disappointed with the results because the faith cannot be pigeonholed by science. Not everything can be answered with reasoning and a hypothesis.

[m52nickerson]

So Science is antithema to Christianity? Trying to better understand His Great Work is a bad thing?

I've been away, so I've not been in on this from the beggining but I read a book about Darwinism recently, not evolution, which highlighted a lot of wholes in the theory. For example, Scienists tell us that the conditions for life to begin on Earth were achieved 3.8 Billion years ago, and the oldest lifeforms are 3.8 Billion years old. So the primordial ooze sponaniously produced life as soon as it was possible, which is highly unlikely. He also made the point about the difference between micro-diversity and macro-evolution. The prime example he gave was sugar-beat where is has proved impossible to cross-breed for yields higher than 18%, after which further breeding results in lower, more natural, yields. He also pointed out that every form of radiometric dating can be subject to contamination or acceleration. If Uranium is compressed, for example, it decays more quickly and this is possible naturally.

The best point he made though, and I found this really interesting, was that modern science does require a faith-commitment because it is founded on the unquestioned principle that the universe is ordered and can be explained by a man-made mathematical system. Scientists have spent at least 50 years looking for a "theory of everything" without any proof that everything can be explained by one theory. That hardly means that there isn't one, but it is an important point none the less.

Oceans may have been around as long as 4 billion years ago, and could have easily had the beginnings of life. Remember, most scientist don't believe that life started spontaneously. "The Selfish Gene" is a good read to understand how life could have developed over time.

How does the sugar-beat not being able to yield higher then 18% (sugar?) go against macro-evolution?

Solids and liquids can't be compressed, that is why hydraulic systems work. So how is uranium under the ground compressed?

There is no faith needed. Mathematical equations are written to describe how the universe works, not the other way around.

[Ironside]

I've been away, so I've not been in on this from the beggining but I read a book about Darwinism recently, not evolution, which highlighted a lot of wholes in the theory. For example, Scienists tell us that the conditions for life to begin on Earth were achieved 3.8 Billion years ago, and the oldest lifeforms are 3.8 Billion years old. So the primordial ooze sponaniously produced life as soon as it was possible, which is highly unlikely.

Hard to determine, we got a 1 on 1 ratio there, or to put it differently a too small sample to make a statistical analysis. Easier to determine within the next 50 years or so.


He also made the point about the difference between micro-diversity and macro-evolution. The prime example he gave was sugar-beat where is has proved impossible to cross-breed for yields higher than 18%, after which further breeding results in lower, more natural, yields.

Might be that they are close to thier maximum yield limit perhaps? And crossbreeding only got access to that many genes anyway.
I'm not sure were this goes towards diversity and macro-evolution though, if anything cross-breeding brings species more together, it's selective breeding that eventually would create new species.


He also pointed out that every form of radiometric dating can be subject to contamination or acceleration. If Uranium is compressed, for example, it decays more quickly and this is possible naturally.

Self-contradictive, if radiation methods are systematically unreliable then he don't have an argument in´your first point.


The best point he made though, and I found this really interesting, was that modern science does require a faith-commitment because it is founded on the unquestioned principle that the universe is ordered and can be explained by a man-made mathematical system. Scientists have spent at least 50 years looking for a "theory of everything" without any proof that everything can be explained by one theory. That hardly means that there isn't one, but it is an important point none the less.

Well, by the end of the 19:th century all physics were considered to be explained, it was just few irks that needed to be fixed. Those irks ended up as quantum theory and relativity.
The point? If you set up self-made restrictions, you'll never be able to know if you can cross that line or not.

FYI the "theory of everything" is to explain all the major physical forces in one formula and while helpful, it wouldn't explain everything.

The problem with mixing science and religion together is when the religious man answer with "God did it" instead asking thje question of "If God did it, how did his powers manifest in our world?". One limits understanding, while the other expands it.

[Reverend Joe]

I've been away, so I've not been in on this from the beggining but I read a book about Darwinism recently, not evolution, which highlighted a lot of wholes in the theory. For example, Scienists tell us that the conditions for life to begin on Earth were achieved 3.8 Billion years ago, and the oldest lifeforms are 3.8 Billion years old. So the primordial ooze sponaniously produced life as soon as it was possible, which is highly unlikely.

The first "life forms" were just chemical reactions. It would take another 700 million years for Eukaryotes to appear, and that's a generous estimate.


He also made the point about the difference between micro-diversity and macro-evolution. The prime example he gave was sugar-beat where is has proved impossible to cross-breed for yields higher than 18%, after which further breeding results in lower, more natural, yields.

Inbreeding. Sugar-beats probably have a small genetic pool.


He also pointed out that every form of radiometric dating can be subject to contamination or acceleration. If Uranium is compressed, for example, it decays more quickly and this is possible naturally.

Dunno about this.


The best point he made though, and I found this really interesting, was that modern science does require a faith-commitment because it is founded on the unquestioned principle that the universe is ordered and can be explained by a man-made mathematical system. Scientists have spent at least 50 years looking for a "theory of everything" without any proof that everything can be explained by one theory. That hardly means that there isn't one, but it is an important point none the less.

Of course it requires faith. Everything does. Just to be able to get out of bed in the morning, you need to have faith that the floor will not turn into the maw of a Saturnian sandworm and swallow you whole. The differentiation lies in the execution: science requires systematic proof that can be replicated by everyone who does it correctly. Religion requires a person to believe; nothing more, nothing less. They are totally different systems, and should be used for entirely different purposes.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oceans may have been around as long as 4 billion years ago, and could have easily had the beginnings of life. Remember, most scientist don't believe that life started spontaneously. "The Selfish Gene" is a good read to understand how life could have developed over time.

Life is still life at a certain point, which would be single celled organisms, since the concensus is that Viri are relatively new. The unlikely happenstance of life forming means that we are very lucky that we are here at all. The point is about the way dating is done, particually dating of sediments, which are dated the volcanic rock above and below them and by comparative fosil analaces. So geology and evolutionary theory are used to support each other.


How does the sugar-beat not being able to yield higher then 18% (sugar?) go against macro-evolution?

well, rather life the bombarding of fruit flies with radiation, where all you get are deformed fruit flies, all you ever get from beat is beat.


Solids and liquids can't be compressed, that is why hydraulic systems work. So how is uranium under the ground compressed?

I'm sorry you are wrong. the Enrichment of Uranium is essentially the compression of Uranium into a denser substance. Carbon can be compressed, from coal into diamond.


There is no faith needed. Mathematical equations are written to describe how the universe works, not the other way around.

Yes there is, because you make the unqualified assumption that the universe is mathematical. It probably is, but I have seen no actual proof of this, Quantum theory, irrc, has some holes that need plugging and it will probably be re-calculated at some point. Physicists creat elegant mathematical theories to explian natural thenomona, no one ever says, "maybe, you know, two plus two actually comes out as five"

Hence "faith"


Hard to determine, we got a 1 on 1 ratio there, or to put it differently a too small sample to make a statistical analysis. Easier to determine within the next 50 years or so.

well, we still have bateria, so maybe it still happens and we don't notice. It's possible the likelyhood is much higher than we think, but the point is that the scientists have themselves made the chances infinately small. Miraculous even.


Might be that they are close to thier maximum yield limit perhaps? And crossbreeding only got access to that many genes anyway.
I'm not sure were this goes towards diversity and macro-evolution though, if anything cross-breeding brings species more together, it's selective breeding that eventually would create new species.

The thing is that after 150 years the Beat is still beat and the yeild is the same. Artificial selection should have the same effect as natural selection, just faster, but a dog is always a dog and Beat is always Beat. So how does nature come up with variations when they are needed through selective breeding?


Self-contradictive, if radiation methods are systematically unreliable then he don't have an argument in´your first point.

The point is that the whole timescale may be incorrect.


Well, by the end of the 19:th century all physics were considered to be explained, it was just few irks that needed to be fixed. Those irks ended up as quantum theory and relativity.
The point? If you set up self-made restrictions, you'll never be able to know if you can cross that line or not.

I'm not sure of your point, I assume you mean that all of physics has been re-written.


The problem with mixing science and religion together is when the religious man answer with "God did it" instead asking thje question of "If God did it, how did his powers manifest in our world?". One limits understanding, while the other expands it.

Oh granted, Newton was a devout Christian, for example.

[TevashSzat]

The best point he made though, and I found this really interesting, was that modern science does require a faith-commitment because it is founded on the unquestioned principle that the universe is ordered and can be explained by a man-made mathematical system. Scientists have spent at least 50 years looking for a "theory of everything" without any proof that everything can be explained by one theory. That hardly means that there isn't one, but it is an important point none the less.

Well the difference, I feel compelled to point out, is that scientists do accept that what they believe in, may someday end up being proved false. Now they may be very hesitant in accepting it and try to delay it (look at those Newtonians back before relativity came on), the great majority will. Scientists do believe in what they learn, but they do not think that what they learned is guaranteed fact, but that it is simply most likely fact given the current state of human knowledge regarding whichever phenomena

[PBI]

Hi all, I'm not on top of my game at the moment for various reasons so I won't get stuck right back into the debate just yet but I would just like to pick up on this:


If Uranium is compressed, for example, it decays more quickly and this is possible naturally.


This is true of Uranium because it is fissile, and the decay is caused by absorption of a neutron making the nucleus unstable. Thus compressing Uranium increases the rate of decay because it increases the density of neutrons and thus the probability of a nucleus absorbing one. However, for most radioactive decay this is not the case; the nucleus is naturally unstable and has a certain probability to spontaneously decay in any given period of time. I understand it is this kind of radioactive decay that is used in radiometric dating.

The thing is, unlike Uranium fission which is dependent on the neutron density and can thus be accelerated by compression, spontaneous radioactive decay cannot be artificially accelerated. The only way of affecting it at all is relativistic time dilation, which would have the effect of slowing the decay, not accelerating it. In principle this could lead to such methods underestimating age (although it's hard to see how this could happen in practice) but it could not overestimate the age.

[Reverend Joe]

Life is still life at a certain point, which would be single celled organisms, since the concensus is that Viri are relatively new. The unlikely happenstance of life forming means that we are very lucky that we are here at all. The point is about the way dating is done, particually dating of sediments, which are dated the volcanic rock above and below them and by comparative fosil analaces. So geology and evolutionary theory are used to support each other.

Again, the earliest stuff considered to be "life" is just evidence of chemical reactions that occur in the simplest cells. It indicates self-perpetuating chemical reactions, which happen all the time. It takes a lot longer to actually see what the average person would consider "life."


well, rather life the bombarding of fruit flies with radiation, where all you get are deformed fruit flies, all you ever get from beat is beat.

True, but then kohlrabi, broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, kale, collard greens and brussels sprouts all come from one ratty weed that only grows on cliff faces.

Just because one plant is evolutionarily deficient doesn't mean macroevolution doesn't exist.


I'm sorry you are wrong. the Enrichment of Uranium is essentially the compression of Uranium into a denser substance. Carbon can be compressed, from coal into diamond.

Again... :shrug:


Yes there is, because you make the unqualified assumption that the universe is mathematical. It probably is, but I have seen no actual proof of this, Quantum theory, irrc, has some holes that need plugging and it will probably be re-calculated at some point. Physicists creat elegant mathematical theories to explian natural thenomona, no one ever says, "maybe, you know, two plus two actually comes out as five"

Hence "faith"


Of course it requires faith. Everything does. Just to be able to get out of bed in the morning, you need to have faith that the floor will not turn into the maw of a Saturnian sandworm and swallow you whole. The differentiation lies in the execution: science requires systematic proof that can be replicated by everyone who does it correctly. Religion requires a person to believe; nothing more, nothing less. They are totally different systems, and should be used for entirely different purposes.


well, we still have bateria, so maybe it still happens and we don't notice. It's possible the likelyhood is much higher than we think, but the point is that the scientists have themselves made the chances infinately small. Miraculous even.

I don't understand you here.


The thing is that after 150 years the Beat is still beat and the yeild is the same. Artificial selection should have the same effect as natural selection, just faster, but a dog is always a dog and Beat is always Beat. So how does nature come up with variations when they are needed through selective breeding?

See above. And note that almost all Canids can still crossbreed; most of the Canid genus is more like a group of highly distinct subspecies.

[m52nickerson]

Life is still life at a certain point, which would be single celled organisms, since the concensus is that Viri are relatively new. The unlikely happenstance of life forming means that we are very lucky that we are here at all. The point is about the way dating is done, particually dating of sediments, which are dated the volcanic rock above and below them and by comparative fosil analaces. So geology and evolutionary theory are used to support each other.Viruses are still a good example of something that can reproduce but is not alive. Again life did not suddenly "poof" into existence, nor was it unlikely happenstance.


well, rather life the bombarding of fruit flies with radiation, where all you get are deformed fruit flies, all you ever get from beat is beat.
That experiment is ignoring that fact that evolution take thousands of years and works not only on cross breading but also mutation. Selection by an individual or selection by nature will not speed up the process because it is still selection.


I'm sorry you are wrong. the Enrichment of Uranium is essentially the compression of Uranium into a denser substance. Carbon can be compressed, from coal into diamond.Well no. Enriching uranium is the process of separating the different isotopes from each other. No compression involved. Carbon that is put under presser and heat does go through a physical reaction, but it is not compression. Again the fact that liquids and solid can't be compressed is why hydraulic systems work. If they could be compressed a hydraulic system would see the fluid compressed into a solid and the system would no longer function.


Yes there is, because you make the unqualified assumption that the universe is mathematical. It probably is, but I have seen no actual proof of this, Quantum theory, irrc, has some holes that need plugging and it will probably be re-calculated at some point. Physicists creat elegant mathematical theories to explian natural thenomona, no one ever says, "maybe, you know, two plus two actually comes out as five"

Hence "faith"
The universe may not be mathematical, but mathematics is universal. Two plus two is always four, in any were you go. Just as prime numbers are always prime. You can find mathematical equations to explain all natural phenomenon, you just have to be able to find those equations. Math is used to express what is going on in the universe, not the other way around.

[TevashSzat]

Yes there is, because you make the unqualified assumption that the universe is mathematical. It probably is, but I have seen no actual proof of this, Quantum theory, irrc, has some holes that need plugging and it will probably be re-calculated at some point. Physicists creat elegant mathematical theories to explian natural thenomona, no one ever says, "maybe, you know, two plus two actually comes out as five"

Well, I think I can safely say that no one on the forums here would understand the proof even if we were given it lol (I'd expect all of the Greek letters used at least in there)

Well, regarding "holes" in some mathematical theories, string theory is very promising in its ability to reconcile discrepancies between general relativity and quantum mechanics in regards to certain types of objects so technically, the universe may be able to be described by mathematics

[LittleGrizzly]

TBH for me it would require more faith for me to believe that science and scientists are wrong and fundamentally flawed, i have been studying physics at a fairly basic level and basically it works out, so either science managed to get the wrong conclusions which amazingly work out quite well or science and scientists are for the most part right...

As i don't fully understand everything to do with science and i haven't discovered these things for myself you could say a certain amount of faith is required, the same faith that was required to believe that the earth orbits the sun, for me to suddenly start disbelieving these scientists and thinking they are wrong would require a huge amount of faith on my part, whereas to assume theorys they have created, tested and argued to death are true requires a very small amount of faith...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Thinking of the science I studied at school, most of it really doesn't contradict the Bible. My Physics equations didn't, my science experiments didn't, the only subject with a problem is Biology. And again mostly it doesn't disprove any part of scripture, its just the Theory of Evolution that the problem is with. But then that theory isn't entirely incompatible either.

[Kadagar_AV]

Thinking of the science I studied at school, most of it really doesn't contradict the Bible. My Physics equations didn't, my science experiments didn't, the only subject with a problem is Biology. And again mostly it doesn't disprove any part of scripture, its just the Theory of Evolution that the problem is with. But then that theory isn't entirely incompatible either.

Now... Not long ago you would have been burned for claiming ninsence like "world not being in center of creation".

See, the church has had to retreat more and more as science has progressed... And the creationist thingy is sort of a brave last stand.

Sure, a last stand that is laughed upon in intellectual circles, but still a valiant attempt to restore some kind of credibility to the church...

Again, separate science and faith, faith cant handle science, science cant handle faith.

[Papewaio]

Why not Evolution is correct and Genesis is the bullet point list of which evolved in order...

[LittleGrizzly]

Science and faith can mix but faith has to bend over to accomadate science and not the other way around...

[HoreTore]

Why not Evolution is correct and Genesis is the bullet point list of which evolved in order...

How 'bout "Genesis is just plain wrong"...?


Two plus two is always four, in any were you go.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

[KukriKhan]

How 'bout "Genesis is just plain wrong"...?



"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

Mr. Orwell was correct, of course. Except that he missed the point.

Two sheep plus[/] two sheep [u]equals Four sheep. We all agree. Because we first agree with the underlying assumption that "plus" and "equals" always mean the same thing, in every circumstance. But we critically have to make that same assumption/agreement beforehand, for the formula to 'work', that is, for it to explain a perceptual situation with a perceptual result.

I posit that there is a similar 'leap of faith' in mathematics and science, as there is in religious story-telling. Both require a mutual agreement/understanding between the teller and the listener/reader on the definitions and abilities of the operands. What, exactly, does "plus" mean? And "equals", and "believe", and "adore", and...

Science is our new religion. I have little doubt. One need only look at the resistence of the 'old religion(s)' to it, and its persistent, vociferous, insistant defense of itself, and the smug assurance of its adherants that 'we' are right, and informed, and studied, and righteous - versus the backwards, superstitious, uninformed, old-fashioned "them".

It has been ever thus. And, apparently, shall be again, and forever, until we get it 'right'.

[cmacq]

First of all the opening line of the newspaper article was designed to mislead. Right, this is addressed in CmacQ’s 48th Rule of Total BS. Those that confuse to sway perception of content, win. Those that lend themselves to confusion or tend to be unduly swayed by BS, lose...

big-time.

Widely believed in the United States, creationism - the belief that God created the earth and man in six days - is enjoying a resurgence of support in the UK, say its believers and its critics.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _

Most people in the US do not, in fact believe in creationism; as defined herein with the earth being created by god in six days. If for example, most people in the US did believe so, it would be universally taught in American schools, no?

Personally, I have no idea about the articles veracity and its claims among friend and foe, in the UK, of the topic's resurgent support. Yet, since the article seems designed to sway a negative opinion at the outset, I distrust it’s overall content. Thus, I’m turned to ask; directly or indirectly, does the state have the right to dictate or even influence what the citizenry believes? If the ansewer is yes, then why would the state seek to dictate or influence the citizenry?

UK press still using anti-US sentiment as a moblity aid? Isn't that so yesterday, no???


best to all


CmacQ

[Kadagar_AV]

cmacq,
I’m turned to ask; directly or indirectly, does the state have the right to dictate or even influence what the citizenry believes?

Yes and no...

The state has an obligation to make sure knowledge is spread, not propaganda, idiocy, false facts and so on.

Of course this is one of the states most important missions, to make sure that the populace is educated and ready to face the 21th century.

Thus a theory only backed up by a 2000 year old book (revised a couple of times over time) should get out of the classroom.



However, you are still 100% entitled to BELIEVE in whatever you want... Green men from Mars, God, Gaia...

However, the state as such must search scientific facts. You however do not.

If anyone wants to cave up in a hole to wait for the end of days or whatever, it's of course ok.

But, stuff like that has no place in a classroom.

[cmacq]

So then, we are to trust the state to be a fair arbitrator of what is true-fact, fiction, propaganda, idiocy, false-facts, and so on? And, the citizenry’s traditions and beliefs are to be discarded forthwith, due to the state's need to fulfill one of its most important missions; that of education? What if, a particular political faction gained control of the education system and much of the governmental apparatus, and its goal was indeed, to confuse and mislead? In order to sustain the supremacy of the faction, would the state still have this right? I know in the compact between citizen and state, in the country which I live, the government has no such given right, to compel its people thusly. This of course, does not keep the state from making the attempt, every so many years.




CmacQ

[Kadagar_AV]

Well, as long as the states official line is, well, about the same as what they teach in universitys.... you know, knowledge based on facts, not belief, then I dont see a problem.

Do you?

You think the big bad universitys all over the world has a secret agenda to misslead people when it coems to believing in green men from mars, God, and other stuff based on belief?

[cmacq]

Maybe you've never heard of the Deutsche Studentenschaft? Actually, not that long ago, for a time, the green men from mars thing, was a proven fact.

A few former proponents and/or supporters of Marian Civ 101

Giovanni Virginio Schiaparelli-University of Turin, as well as Berlin and Brera Observatory-Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society-Bruce Medal
Percival Lawrence Lowell-founded the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona
Nicolas Camille Flammarion-French astronomer and author
Nikola Tesla-hysics, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering; known for Alternating Current, induction motor, rotating magnetic field, and wireless technology
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin-British mathematical physicist and engineer. At Glasgow University he did important work in the mathematical analysis of electricity and thermodynamics, and did much to unify the emerging discipline of physics in its modern form. He is widely known for developing the Kelvin scale of absolute temperature measurement.
Edward Charles Pickering-director of the Harvard College Observatory



As one is forced to believe a thing is either fact or fiction based on a given set of tests; in the end all knowledge is founded on belief. Again, should the state impose belief on the populace, or should the people infuse the state with its beliefs? In other words, whom is the dog, and which is the tail?



CmacQ

[Kadagar_AV]

So... For you it would be OK that I teach about aliens visiting earth in your kids class?

[cmacq]

I simply don't care one way or the other, as you bring into sharp relief the fact, that the state is inclined to have an inherent predilection to do, whatever it shall do.

I'm sure the point excape you for the momment. Yet, to possibly forestall the parting of the fool from his money, from a very young age one may be taught to think independently and critically. In fact, vast heaps of BS arguably far more ridiculous daily pass for fact in our schools, at all levels. No doubt at some point, you may have sampled this very rich and diverse cuisine.

Nonetheless, the issue remains unchanged about the relationship of the people and state. Not withstanding, those that would hold children up as hostage to confuse, divert, or inspire compliance.


CmacQ

[Kadagar_AV]

vast heaps of BS arguably far more ridiculous daily pass for fact in our schools

Like what?

I dont know about the school system where YOU are from, but over here in Sweden I must say that what is teached in schools holds up:)

Well, of course sometimes the teachers have personal opinions, but then they make sure to state that it is a personal opinion, not facts.

Like, I had a teacher who believed in god. But of course he didnt claim it as a fact that god existed. He separated his profesional intellectual work with his personal faith, see?

Much like I do... I have a beliefsystem too, but to force it on others? No way.

[cmacq]

Like what?

I dont know about the school system where YOU are from, but over here in Sweden I must say that what is teached in schools holds up:)

Well, of course sometimes the teachers have personal opinions, but then they make sure to state that it is a personal opinion, not facts.

Like, I had a teacher who believed in god. But of course he didnt claim it as a fact that god existed. He separated his profesional intellectual work with his personal faith, see?

Much like I do... I have a beliefsystem too, but to force it on others? No way.


I believe that the belief system is vastly overrated...
and I also believe I need to sleep, now.



cheers
CmacQ

[Kadagar_AV]

Goodnight:)

When you get back, please state what the BS kids gets thaught in school is:)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Kukri seems to have touched a nerve here. But his point is a fair one.

Describe it as religion or not at your choice, but science and the scientific method are every bit the "belief system" that religions are.

There are basic "givens" that underly the belief.

There are rules for "living" promulgated therefrom.

There are adherents who not only view the belief as correct, but disparage those who disagree.


Religion, when analyzed by the rules of science and the scientific method, is quickly dismissed as arrant nonsense. After all, very little about religion is testable or replicable any way. The strict scientist will not accept the existence of God until that existence is demonstrated in such fashion that no other explanation of the phenomenon can be made (Work me a miracle now or shut up).

Science, when analyzed by the rules of religion, isn't even addressing the questions that really matter. After all, when dealing with a transcendent entity, attempts to categorize, define, and evaluate are inherently pointless.


That said, this thread involves a bit more of the "scientists" ridiculing those who hold a "religionist" view than it does the obverse. Pity.....

[Kadagar_AV]

Seamus, I dont get you...

First you say:
Describe it as religion or not at your choice, but science and the scientific method are every bit the "belief system" that religions are.


But then you go on and say:
Religion, when analyzed by the rules of science and the scientific method, is quickly dismissed as arrant nonsense. After all, very little about religion is testable or replicable any way.

Well, that is kind of the whole point, isnt it?

Science can be tested and replicated, religion can not.

So in what way does science contain a "belief"?

As mentioned, I am agnostic. I am not atheist, I do believe there is more to life than what science can explain (as of now).

BUT: I am educated enough to know what is blaha-blaha and what isnt.

So basicly:

A) You argue against yourself.
B) No, science doesnt require "faith", either the facts hold up or not, it can be replicated or not. Faith has nothing to do with it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, I think Kukri has expalined it better than I have. Science was originally a philosophy, a search for knowledge and a love of knowledge. Now it is seen as a source of knowledge. The reality is that the Darwinian theory is merely a way of explaining the developement of life on Earth fased on the available evidence, but if you listen to Dawkins or Hichens they have decideded that God does not exist and that Science is the hope for mankind.

One of the best examples I have seen is in The God Delusion (no doubt a deliberately offensive title) where Dawkins claims that man has evolved to worship a higher power and that is why we create God, because he is socially useful. Now I have to say that in the Bible it scecifically says that Man was created to Worship God and that Man is at his best when he does so.

Then you have Michael Hitchens saying that God is evil because of the evil perpetrated in his same (echoed here by Hore Tore). If God does not exist how can he be responsible for the actions of his followers? He doesn't have any followers, after all he doesn't exist.

I have no problem with the body of modern Science conflicting with my religion, it doesn't. I deal with science on its own terms, some of it is convincing, other bits not as much. I have a problem with Scientists producing hack pieces on religion while claiming some sort of objective viewpoint.

[Viking]

One can say what one want to with regards to science and the belief system it is; but it is one producing results and understanding. That's in contrast to religion; can't see I saw a how-to in a holy book with regards to create computers and nukes, or: how stars die.

Science is some sort of belief system too, yes, as 100% certainty is sort of impossible; but it works. Those who are sceptic to science would have an even greater reason to be sceptic with regards to religion (hinting at Navaros). At least science one can test and see that the formulae does indeed predict reality with a great accuracy, which is good enough for me, anyway.

Then there's religion where some people say I should amend my ways because they are immoral. Then I ask "why?", and expect a rational answer in turn. What I instead get, is a belief in that some god created us such that he could have someone to impose morals on. But why would one believe? I quite frankly fail to see why as the text of the religions do not fit with reality as I see it; and if my senses can fail so horribly, then I can only blame whatever creator for his mis-designs and ask he/she/it how he/she/it expected me to arrive on the correct logical conclusion with the rational mind I was provided.

[HoreTore]

Uhm...... Dawkins is a philosopher, not a scientist.

[CBR]

Uhm...... Dawkins is a philosopher, not a scientist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins


...ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and popular science writer

[HoreTore]

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

Yes, people can be more than one thing ~;)

But his claims and thoughts about religion and such clearly belongs in the philosophy department.

[CBR]

But his claims and thoughts about religion and such clearly belongs in the philosophy department.
Some of his arguments might be classed as philosophy, others are within the context of science.


CBR

[Reverend Joe]

If science is a religion, then how come most scientists are religious? How do you explain the fact that the professor who taught me just about everything I know about evolution in college has read the bible cover to cover?

Because it's not a belief system. Yes, it requires basic assumptions to exist, gives directives for living and sets itself up as right, but as I pointed out before, EVERYTHING ELSE DOES. You need to assume that what your eyes sees is what is actually out there in order to be able to see. You use this sight to navigate throughout the world. And if someone else sees dancing pink elephants and you don't, you assume they are crazy.

But is eyesight a religion? No. You would have to be stupid to believe it is.

Religion is something other than just a system based on a belief. It is a system of moral, ethical and philosophical codes that you follow to guide your life with. Science just doesn't have that. It's knowledge, period. And anyone who tries to extract anything religious from science is an ignorant ass, no matter how intelligent they may be.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

People haven't changed much biologically since the days when atheists were scarce. So, a scientist taking a look at the hubble telescope pictures experiences the same feeling that prehistoric people did looking at the sky. Heck, walk outside during a thunderstorm and you'll feel a religious feeling.

But it's false to frame the debate as science vs religion. Saying that science is religious isn't significant to the debate. The argument between science and religion in the usa really comes down to specific christian principles. What would the protestants have said if the catholics had told them, "well you may disagree with us, but you're actually a religion just like we are!", they would have laughed at them (of course modern day sciency folk tend to be offended when science is described as religious which can be pretty amusing :laugh4: ).

Really, the problem with christianity is that it's too static. The teachings don't change quickly enough for modern times. If the bible says something bad about gay people it's going to stay there, in the text. If a scientific study comes out about how gay people use more crystal meth or something, the same bigots will cling to it, but the study will be replaced before too long. People will criticize a scientific study by saying "that study is 20 years old" while the bible is 2000 years old.

[JR-]

............stuff about saturns rings..........

they may in fact be as old as the solar system:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080922-saturns-rings.html

[JR-]

it ain't just the christians at it!

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,579913,00.html

apparently turkey has a snake-oil merchant too.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Mr. Orwell was correct, of course. Except that he missed the point.

Two sheep plus[/] two sheep [u]equals Four sheep. We all agree. Because we first agree with the underlying assumption that "plus" and "equals" always mean the same thing, in every circumstance. But we critically have to make that same assumption/agreement beforehand, for the formula to 'work', that is, for it to explain a perceptual situation with a perceptual result.Why, I would agree. All mathematical knowledge is tautological. The limits of our language are the limits of our knownledge.

All tautology's truth is certain. But no knowledge is certain, only a proposition. And a proposition can not of itself say that it is true.

However that may be, if I believe that these are my hands typing this, I'll grant myself all the rest. So my scepticism does not equal relativism. Scientific knowledge can therefore claim precedence over theological speculation, even if, in the end, science can no more claim certainty than religion.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Seamus, I dont get you...

Neither do I at times.


First you say:

But then you go on and say:

Well, that is kind of the whole point, isnt it?

Science can be tested and replicated, religion can not.

So in what way does science contain a "belief"?...

Science takes as its underlying "belief" the concept that all phenomena can and should be evaluated, tested and explained. While not an unworthy goal, limitations in metrology guarantee that such a goal is impossible -- in the same manner as a personal quest for perfection. Yet those working from the scientific method all too often assert (some implicitly, some explicitly) that anything that cannot be tested/measured/explained through the tools of science is "non-existent" rather than the more accurate labels of "immeasurable" or "unknown."


So basicly:

A) You argue against yourself.
B) No, science doesnt require "faith", either the facts hold up or not, it can be replicated or not. Faith has nothing to do with it.

No, as I am want to do, I was presenting summaries of both perspectives being argued. I consider it inappropriate to argue without acknowledging the basic points made by the other (or both) sides in the discussion.

My point was, really, that the basic approach of science fails in addressing religion because it is not a measurable concept. Conversely, religious belief has, in the past, been used to attack science and deter the development thereof.

I would suggest that NEITHER perspective is useful. Denying religion or denying God as a "result" of science is impossible -- the furthest the scientist may go is to assert that there is no discernible/measurable impact on phenomena resulting from "God" and that science -- as it currently measures things -- offers no proof of the divine. Conversely, since the scientific method has developed numerous useful manipulations of phenomena for our benefit, it would be patently silly for someone to deny its value based on religoius belief.

The kindest course is for both perspectives to "agree to disagree."

[Sigurd]

Really, the problem with christianity is that it's too static. The teachings don't change quickly enough for modern times. If the bible says something bad about gay people it's going to stay there, in the text.
You should think that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God would teach universal truths.
What is truth in God's sphere is truth eternal and not subject to change. If they are not; God is not God.
Unless there is purpose in the change, a learning curve - step by step - precept upon precept - milk before meat, kinda way.

[Rhyfelwyr]

On a side note, the Mahdi the Turkish creationist talks about is not the Messiah, but the antichrist. He is being deceived, but the Bible says this will happen. What are the chances that the Bible would predict the coming of the antichrist at the same time (if you consider this the falling away period - which is clearly the case) that the Koran would, when it was written so long before?

The Bible says that the antichrist will claim to be the Messiah - and even Harun Yahya stated that the Mahdi will be the Christian Messiah. The Bible itself says these claims will decieve even the elect.

If you want proof that the Bible is legitimate, you will find a lot of evidence in end time prophecies.

[HoreTore]

Unless there is purpose in the change, a learning curve - step by step - precept upon precept - milk before meat, kinda way.

I'd say that is just as likely. Especially since the christian god has already changed several of his truths a bunch of times.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'd say that is just as likely. Especially since the christian god has already changed several of his truths a bunch of times.

You are right actually. God had to renew several covenants with Israel because they kept breaking the old ones, in the end He game them the ten commandments and the laws because they lacked the faith to be able to live in an orderly and moral way without them.

[KarlXII]

On a side note, the Mahdi the Turkish creationist talks about is not the Messiah, but the antichrist. He is being deceived, but the Bible says this will happen. What are the chances that the Bible would predict the coming of the antichrist at the same time (if you consider this the falling away period - which is clearly the case) that the Koran would, when it was written so long before?

The Bible says that the antichrist will claim to be the Messiah - and even Harun Yahya stated that the Mahdi will be the Christian Messiah. The Bible itself says these claims will decieve even the elect.

If you want proof that the Bible is legitimate, you will find a lot of evidence in end time prophecies.

I'm having a hard time trying to fit that into this. Science is not a belief if it can be tested and proved again and again. If you weighed yourself on a scale that said you're a ton, but use a different scale that says you're only 200 pounds, you can continue to believe you're a ton, but it isn't true.

[Reverend Joe]

Ignoring Rhyfelwyr's crass and base attempts at baiting...

Kurki, that was the point I was trying to make too: that science and religion are two different beasts, and should not be in the same discussion, ever. I guess I was a little unclear.

[Papewaio]

Uhm...... Dawkins is a philosopher, not a scientist.


Yes, people can be more than one thing ~;)

But his claims and thoughts about religion and such clearly belongs in the philosophy department.

So your first claim is clearly wrong. Dawkins is a scientist and possibly a philosopher too...

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm sorry--- "this is what I believe about the creation of the world" is NOT = "this is a legitimate, objectively verifiable explanation of Earth/human history that should be taught to everyone alongside scientific and anthropologically factual theories." That is what Church is for, Sunday School is for, religious groups are for. Or Christian museums. They have absolutely no place in museums or public education.

[Papewaio]

Why, I would agree. All mathematical knowledge is tautological. The limits of our language are the limits of our knownledge.

Not all languages have the same precision in defining their words and grammar. Maths tends to be far more precise in those definitions.



All tautology's truth is certain. But no knowledge is certain, only a proposition. And a proposition can not of itself say that it is true.

Why not? Wouldn't the sentence printed in black ink 'I am black' be true... true enough in the scientific sense which is never absolute but with a certainty of say 99%. That certainty may slip to 80% for 'I am green' when viewed by the colour blind.



However that may be, if I believe that these are my hands typing this, I'll grant myself all the rest. So my scepticism does not equal relativism. Scientific knowledge can therefore claim precedence over theological speculation, even if, in the end, science can no more claim certainty than religion.

These are different schools of thought. Science includes uncertainty throughout and is never absolute, while religion is touted as absolute truth throughout with a slight amount of uncertainty allowed in some. Let religion claim more certainty then science, that is its onus.

Science by definition will always claim less certainty then religion. And that is not a failing of science, it is its strength.

[m52nickerson]

Science by definition will always claim less certainty then religion. And that is not a failing of science, it is its strength.

Great quote!

[KukriKhan]

Two and a half pages since I posited the proposition: "science is our new religion", we've been treated to the kind of fundamentalist zeal usually seen coming from so-called 'fundie nut-jobs', only this time, from scientists and science-supporters. So my next question is:

Why, if religions are so incorrect about the origin of species and the nature of the universe, does science, and scientists, and science-supporters even care what so-called creationists think, say, or write? Why the hate? Why the "my idea is better than your idea"? Why even give a creationist the time of day, much less argue with him/her?

While stipulating that 'the scientific method' (a relatively recent invention in thought and procedure) trumps Ecclesiological studies in source material, if not determination in focused study habits; and while I do not retreat from my assertion that "science is our new religion", I grant that some great minds here, who's opinions I highly respect, disagree with me; I further assert that in its trappings and its satisfaction of our human curiosity: science and religion serve at least similar, if not identical anthropological functions.

As a side-note, I observe that the so-called "museum" cited in the OP is no museum at all, but rather a trinket shop (http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CreationScienceMovement) with a few sarcastic displays, operated by a skeleton staff of an authorized UK charity, getting a whopping 22 (free admission) visitors a day. Certainly not a convincing testament to creationism - rather an unintentionally Monty Python-ish parody of the creationist 'movement'.

[Koga No Goshi]

I've seen a lot of scientists acknowledge the possibility of god, even if they didn't outright come and say they believed in him. I don't think the drive to "forcibly convince" anyone that "it's all science, there's no god", if it exists at all, is anywhere near what religious people make it out to be. What I see over and over are religious people who act like not allowing them to indoctrinate kids in school in the "equal legitimacy" in formal academia of ONE religion's take on the universe's creation with hard science is oppressing their religion, or "banning it", or "making war on Christianity in America", or insert whatever overblown, over the top political gimmick term gets thrown around in soundbyte world.

Let's not forget that what you see in a lot of religious classrooms are quotes from Albert Einstein, mentioning God, in reference to science and the nature of the universe. The debate over whether or not Einstein was a "real believer" or whatever is an entirely different topic I don't care to get into. The point is, I do not feel there is anything like the drive to "repress" religion from science as there is the opposite movement. And since those same people who want creationism in schools would probably with equal fervor OPPOSE other people's creation stories taught in schools to their kids, their argument about "fairness" is disingenuous and a thin veil for trying to ramrod Christian indoctrination into schools.

[Reverend Joe]

Two and a half pages since I posited the proposition: "science is our new religion", we've been treated to the kind of fundamentalist zeal usually seen coming from so-called 'fundie nut-jobs', only this time, from scientists and science-supporters. So my next question is:

Why, if religions are so incorrect about the origin of species and the nature of the universe, does science, and scientists, and science-supporters even care what so-called creationists think, say, or write? Why the hate? Why the "my idea is better than your idea"? Why even give a creationist the time of day, much less argue with him/her?

While stipulating that 'the scientific method' (a relatively recent invention in thought and procedure) trumps Ecclesiological studies in source material, if not determination in focused study habits; and while I do not retreat from my assertion that "science is our new religion", I grant that some great minds here, who's opinions I highly respect, disagree with me; I further assert that in its trappings and its satisfaction of our human curiosity: science and religion serve at least similar, if not identical anthropological functions.

As a side-note, I observe that the so-called "museum" cited in the OP is no museum at all, but rather a trinket shop (http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CreationScienceMovement) with a few sarcastic displays, operated by a skeleton staff of an authorized UK charity, getting a whopping 22 (free admission) visitors a day. Certainly not a convincing testament to creationism - rather an unintentionally Monty Python-ish parody of the creationist 'movement'.

Wait, didn't I already respond to this? So address me, damnit!

[Papewaio]

While stipulating that 'the scientific method' (a relatively recent invention in thought and procedure) trumps Ecclesiological studies in source material, if not determination in focused study habits; and while I do not retreat from my assertion that "science is our new religion", I grant that some great minds here, who's opinions I highly respect, disagree with me; I further assert that in its trappings and its satisfaction of our human curiosity: science and religion serve at least similar, if not identical anthropological functions.


"Science is our new religion" is not true for scientists with a prior one that they practice. Nor is it true for atheist scientists. The ones who preach science as if it was a religion tend to be those without a scientific understanding.

Having said that... scientists cut each others opinions to shreds in a manner that makes Oscar Wilde look mild. There is no quarter given when scientists review each others experiments and theories. However like a good sports player they play the ball not the man more often then not... however being human they do often rough and tumble each other in the process...even Newton was infamous for making digs at other scientists... the whole standing on the shoulders of giants was a snide remark about another shorter scientist according to some. Rutherford said that there was Physics and the rest was stamp collecting... his reward for that remark was a Noble Prize... in stamp collecting er Chemistry. and there are examples of famous rivalries causing scientists to support ideas based on the proponents personality and/or funding... on the whole they do tend to be more agreeable with each other off the field.

So when a scientist is cutting of ones ideas within science it is seen as part of the process. It does not however justify the personal attacks that occur. It does go somewhat to explain why they can irk religious types so readily.

[Kadagar_AV]

Two and a half pages since I posited the proposition: "science is our new religion", we've been treated to the kind of fundamentalist zeal usually seen coming from so-called 'fundie nut-jobs', only this time, from scientists and science-supporters. So my next question is:

Why, if religions are so incorrect about the origin of species and the nature of the universe, does science, and scientists, and science-supporters even care what so-called creationists think, say, or write? Why the hate? Why the "my idea is better than your idea"? Why even give a creationist the time of day, much less argue with him/her?

While stipulating that 'the scientific method' (a relatively recent invention in thought and procedure) trumps Ecclesiological studies in source material, if not determination in focused study habits; and while I do not retreat from my assertion that "science is our new religion", I grant that some great minds here, who's opinions I highly respect, disagree with me; I further assert that in its trappings and its satisfaction of our human curiosity: science and religion serve at least similar, if not identical anthropological functions.

As a side-note, I observe that the so-called "museum" cited in the OP is no museum at all, but rather a trinket shop (http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CreationScienceMovement) with a few sarcastic displays, operated by a skeleton staff of an authorized UK charity, getting a whopping 22 (free admission) visitors a day. Certainly not a convincing testament to creationism - rather an unintentionally Monty Python-ish parody of the creationist 'movement'.

Read thread topic mate.

I couldnt care less about other peoples view of the universe.

However, when they want to drag their unscientific beliefs into schools... Now THAT is a whole other thing, get my point?

I am a strong believer of everyones right to believe in whatever thay want to. I'd never argue against it in other debates. However, again, draging it into the school system is something different, dont you agree?

[cmacq]

As a side-note, I observe that the so-called "museum" cited in the OP is no museum at all, but rather a trinket shop (http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CreationScienceMovement) with a few sarcastic displays, operated by a skeleton staff of an authorized UK charity, getting a whopping 22 (free admission) visitors a day. Certainly not a convincing testament to creationism - rather an unintentionally Monty Python-ish parody of the creationist 'movement'.


Nice research...

as I noted above, from the opening line of the article, I thought as much.

Schools are also very over rated. I suppose ones radicalizing Pakistani Madrasa deeney, can be another’s NAPOLA, which in a more stable form, may be seen as yet another’s indoctrination at Oxford or Cambridge.


CmacQ