Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 154 (8094 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2014 5:45 PM
189 online now:
Dr Adequate, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, Taz (5 members, 184 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: yudi
Upcoming Birthdays: Bliyaal
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 733,001 Year: 18,842/28,606 Month: 2,113/2,305 Week: 318/671 Day: 50/114 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Science in church?
Logic
Member (Idle past 1388 days)
Posts: 31
From: Australia
Joined: 02-11-2008


Message 16 of 35 (482754)
09-17-2008 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Catholic Scientist
09-17-2008 1:54 AM


And what say you of the belief that god creating species via change over time through natural mechanisms?

This belief doesn’t affect modern science in anyway unlike the belief that everything suddenly appeared. So really this theory can work fine with evolution its basically just slapping a "God helped it" label on. This doesn’t affect the teaching of evolution in anyway.

Do you really believe that this "unfairness" to other theories is evidence enough of them being taught?

I personally would like to keep the two ideas / theories in their respective fields. Leave creationism in church and evolution in science lab. However, what I’m saying is if suddenly for some reason unknown, creationism gets into the science rooms shouldn't evolution also then get into the church congregations.

Evolution should be taught in churches. Controversly, creationism should not be taught in science classrooms because science is held to a higher standard, like I said.

I agree fully, all I want to know is if everyone else on this bored agrees

The churches are not held to the same standard as science. We have this little thing called "faith" that science doesn't have. So, no, they should not be held to the same standar.

I'm talking about the "creationism science" not the actual belief in god. If creationism science was to infiltrate the science classes like they are so trying to do. Then evolution should infiltrate the churches just to keep a happy medium.

I hope you had a good night.

I had a terrible night, couldn't sleep for some reason and woke with headache


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Catholic Scientist, posted 09-17-2008 1:54 AM Catholic Scientist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by johnfolton, posted 09-19-2008 11:41 AM Logic has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 09-19-2008 2:13 PM Logic has responded

    
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1965 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 17 of 35 (482980)
09-19-2008 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Logic
09-17-2008 8:03 PM


Evolution should be taught in churches. Controversly, creationism should not be taught in science classrooms because science is held to a higher standard, like I said.

I agree fully, all I want to know is if everyone else on this bored agrees

No I don't agree for evolution teaches a lie that it took vast amounts of time for natural selection to make trillions time trillions times trillions of mistakes until the fossil record formed all these creatures in the museums that are fully formed fossils.

When the fossil record in the museums shows the fossil record came fully formed meaning the fossils sudden explosion of life came suddenly and fully formed more suggestive that its a young earth.

What we should do is teach the truth that the earth is an young earth. TAKE THE OLD OUT OF THE SCIENCE CLASS not take religion into the science class. Teach ID instead like how complex are the genetic information and leave it up to the churches to give a name to the creator. Just teach science in the science classes like genetics, biology, physics, math, soil sciences, water sciences, natural sciences without teaching the earth is an old one when this is not a scientific fact . Heck the acadamy of science has not been able to disfute Gentry's primordial polonium halo's they won't go there because it only proves the earth is an young earth. If they can not refute Gentry scientifically then its time to take the old out of science. Rewrite Palentology, Geology as its the scientific thing to do when science like the old earth is proven false science should rewrite the science books. Teach the kids the truth instead of teaching them lies like the earth is old and that lie is only used to twists all the evidence even with all the twisting evolutionists are using transistion fossils are not evident. You still have the same species that formed suddenly in the explosion of life in the beginning. Why are not multitudes of new species not coming is why ID should be taught instead of evolution pseudo sciences in the public schools.

TAke the lies out of science and teach science instead of teaching the fully formed fossil record missing links supports science. It might support evolution but being they are still missing certainly are not supporting science! If the fossil record shows a sudden explosion of life then teach this not we have maybe one or two questionable transistional fossils. Weak is the theory of evolution, etc... Strong is the young earthers science but because of separation of church and state just take "the old out of science" and admit in science they have no evidence of fossils coming on the scene unfully developed and that it takes real information to go transistional and they can not support it by the fossil record. Teach ID in the classrooms without the old earth lies then let the children decide if God did or did not create life on this earth suddenly. Why lie to our children and pretend its an old earth.

Here's a link of creation science in church notice it does not teach the lies that evolutionists teach. Truth be told evolution is psuedo science and we all know its not the truth but for this reason evolution should never be taught in church but creation science taught thats based on scientific truths.

http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Logic, posted 09-17-2008 8:03 PM Logic has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by onifre, posted 09-19-2008 12:34 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 19 by AdminNosy, posted 09-19-2008 1:18 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Admin, posted 09-19-2008 4:34 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member
Posts: 4851
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 18 of 35 (482988)
09-19-2008 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by johnfolton
09-19-2008 11:41 AM


john fultron writes:

No I don't agree for evolution teaches a lie that it took vast amounts of time for natural selection to make trillions time trillions times trillions of mistakes until the fossil record formed all these creatures in the museums that are fully formed fossils.

When the fossil record in the museums shows the fossil record came fully formed meaning the fossils sudden explosion of life came suddenly and fully formed more suggestive that its a young earth.

What we should do is teach the truth that the earth is an young earth. TAKE THE OLD OUT OF THE SCIENCE CLASS not take religion into the science class. Teach ID instead like how complex are the genetic information and leave it up to the churches to give a name to the creator. Just teach science in the science classes like genetics, biology, physics, math, soil sciences, water sciences, natural sciences without teaching the earth is an old one when this is not a scientific fact . Heck the acadamy of science has not been able to disfute Gentry's primordial polonium halo's they won't go there because it only proves the earth is an young earth. If they can not refute Gentry scientifically then its time to take the old out of science. Rewrite Palentology, Geology as its the scientific thing to do when science like the old earth is proven false science should rewrite the science books. Teach the kids the truth instead of teaching them lies like the earth is old and that lie is only used to twists all the evidence even with all the twisting evolutionists are using transistion fossils are not evident. You still have the same species that formed suddenly in the explosion of life in the beginning. Why are not multitudes of new species not coming is why ID should be taught instead of evolution pseudo sciences in the public schools.

TAke the lies out of science and teach science instead of teaching the fully formed fossil record missing links supports science. It might support evolution but being they are still missing certainly are not supporting science! If the fossil record shows a sudden explosion of life then teach this not we have maybe one or two questionable transistional fossils. Weak is the theory of evolution, etc... Strong is the young earthers science but because of separation of church and state just take "the old out of science" and admit in science they have no evidence of fossils coming on the scene unfully developed and that it takes real information to go transistional and they can not support it by the fossil record. Teach ID in the classrooms without the old earth lies then let the children decide if God did or did not create life on this earth suddenly. Why lie to our children and pretend its an old earth.

The above post is the very reason why creationism should be left out of science classes.

Enough said... :cool:


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by johnfolton, posted 09-19-2008 11:41 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4742
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 19 of 35 (482991)
09-19-2008 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by johnfolton
09-19-2008 11:41 AM


Stop Repeating
JohnFulton, please stop repeating falsehoods that you have been given time to learn about.

If you can't do that then stop posting in this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by johnfolton, posted 09-19-2008 11:41 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member
Posts: 2615
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 20 of 35 (483002)
09-19-2008 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Logic
09-17-2008 8:03 PM


Hi, Logic.

I think you've got an interesting idea going here. If creationists use the "balance" argument to get creationism into schools, their unwillingness to teach science (not to mention other religious and philosophical ideas) in church kind of constitutes a double standard.

Problems come in when you consider that the ID movement is working hard to make people believe that they are a legitimate science that is not strictly tied to Christian theology.

Also, like Moose said earlier, you have to consider that schools are public institutions, whereas churches are in the private sector. Each system has its way of allowing the individual members to decide what goes on. If you want something different taught in schools, you have to petition and/or vote accordingly, etc. Religion has a way of letting you choose what you are taught, too: you go to a different church somewhere.

Religion has always enjoyed all sorts of immunities, at least in the USA. They are in the unique position of being shielded from attacks from anywhere while also being allowed to meddle in anybody else's affairs by simply claiming that it's part of their belief system. They are permitted, by law, to attack science, but science is not given entirely the same privilege to fight back, except in blogs and seminars. For instance, if a scientist wished to protest the activity of a certain religion in his hometown, he would not even be allowed a hearing in the local court. But, religion protesting the presence of science in its hometown can make it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.

It's unfair. But, really, if you think about it, that's the way science is: the scientific method allows anybody to challenge anything at anytime, and that's why science is so strong. Ironically, the protection that religion has gotten under the US Constitution is the reason why it will never have the strength of science, because it will never have to overcome the challenges to its central axioms that science experiences every year.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Logic, posted 09-17-2008 8:03 PM Logic has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Logic, posted 09-21-2008 8:52 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 11411
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 21 of 35 (483035)
09-19-2008 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by johnfolton
09-19-2008 11:41 AM


Hi JohnFolton,

Clarifying AdminNosey's comments, it's okay to advocate positions others believe are false, but you're advocating for them in threads where they are off-topic. For example, if you want to discuss whether natural selection and time are adequate to explain the diversity of life then you should go to a thread in the Biological Evolution forum.

If you can't post on-topic, please stop posting to this thread.

Edited by Admin, : Grammar.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by johnfolton, posted 09-19-2008 11:41 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by AdminNosy, posted 09-19-2008 7:04 PM Admin has responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4742
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 22 of 35 (483053)
09-19-2008 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Admin
09-19-2008 4:34 PM


More clarification
Actually, I mean more than that.

JohnFulton makes empty assertions but I don't see him backing them up in the appropriate threads with any discussion or evidence.

He is expected to support such assertions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Admin, posted 09-19-2008 4:34 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Admin, posted 09-19-2008 7:39 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 11411
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 23 of 35 (483062)
09-19-2008 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by AdminNosy
09-19-2008 7:04 PM


Re: More clarification
AdminNosy writes:

JohnFulton makes empty assertions but I don't see him backing them up in the appropriate threads with any discussion or evidence.

Good point!


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by AdminNosy, posted 09-19-2008 7:04 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by johnfolton, posted 09-19-2008 8:34 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1965 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 24 of 35 (483068)
09-19-2008 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Admin
09-19-2008 7:39 PM


Re: More clarification
The question was:

Evolution should be taught in churches. Controversly, creationism should not be taught in science classrooms because science is held to a higher standard, like I said.

I said basically no it should not be taught in the churches because of teaching untruths in evolution like an old earth and no transistional.

I then basically said creationism is held to a higher standard and should not be taught with the lies of an old earth, and with the missing transistional fossils.

What should be taught in the churches I said like what Gentry is saying to the church in one of those video in this link! The links supporting evidence why to a creationist evolution is lying about the old earth as if its science. Its all that like wrong in this world the truth being made out as a lie and the lie being promoted as in evolution as if its the truth. The church should always have the right to not be forced to teach lies as the truth, etc ...

http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Admin, posted 09-19-2008 7:39 PM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2008 8:45 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 26 by AdminNosy, posted 09-19-2008 9:27 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2008 10:37 PM johnfolton has responded
 Message 28 by bluescat48, posted 09-19-2008 11:20 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4642
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 25 of 35 (483072)
09-19-2008 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by johnfolton
09-19-2008 8:34 PM


Crank?
I then basically said creationism is held to a higher standard and should not be taught with the lies of an old earth, and with the missing transistional fossils.

It sounds like you are calling me a liar.

1) I do a lot of radiocarbon dating, and have come up with a lot of dates older than 4004 B.C. I do not regard those dates, which I use in my archaeological research, as lies.

2) I studied fossil man and several related subjects in graduate school, for six years. I saw a lot of transitionals, and I personally handled casts of most of the important specimens at that time (a couple of decades ago). Thousands of transitionals exist--I have seen many of them. Are you calling me a liar on that as well?

Seems like your mind has been poisoned by fundamentalism so that you can't evaluate any evidence that contradicts your a priori religious beliefs.

So you just go ahead and call me a liar. I'll just consider the source.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by johnfolton, posted 09-19-2008 8:34 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4742
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 26 of 35 (483077)
09-19-2008 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by johnfolton
09-19-2008 8:34 PM


Take it to the Right Thread
Since dating is basic to much of the debate, you need to go to the Dating forum (especially the "correlations" one) and support your assertions.

Until you are intellectually honest enough to do that you will shut about about old or young earth issues. If you bring them up without support again you will get some suspensions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by johnfolton, posted 09-19-2008 8:34 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4642
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 27 of 35 (483083)
09-19-2008 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by johnfolton
09-19-2008 8:34 PM


You up to the challenge?
AdminNosy writes:

Since dating is basic to much of the debate, you [johnfolton] need to go to the Dating forum (especially the "correlations" one) and support your assertions.

Until you are intellectually honest enough to do that you will shut about about old or young earth issues. If you bring them up without support again you will get some suspensions.

How about it johnfolton? Care to take up carbon 14 dating in the Dating forum? Care to try to show how it is inaccurate and fails to support an old earth?

Can you support your argument, for a change, instead of just making unsupported assertions? Can you debate the issue without relying on the falsehoods and misrepresentations common on the creationist websites?

If so, we'll see you on the Dating forum.

If not, well--see tagline.

Edited by Coyote, : Spelling


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by johnfolton, posted 09-19-2008 8:34 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by johnfolton, posted 09-20-2008 1:13 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 563 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 28 of 35 (483090)
09-19-2008 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by johnfolton
09-19-2008 8:34 PM


Re: More clarification
I said basically no it should not be taught in the churches because of teaching untruths in evolution like an old earth and no transistional.

old earth is a robust theory. Just because is doesn't agree with your biblical beliefs doesn,t make it false. There are loads of transitionals
Ever hear of archaeopteryx, australopithicus or proconsul. If your looking for a crocoduck you are out of luck. birds & crocodilians are on different branches.

Edited by bluescat48, : spelling


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by johnfolton, posted 09-19-2008 8:34 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

    
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1965 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 29 of 35 (483108)
09-20-2008 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Coyote
09-19-2008 10:37 PM


Re: You up to the challenge?
How about it johnfolton? Care to take up carbon 14 dating in the Dating forum? Care to try to show how it is inaccurate and fails to support an old earth?

Can you support your argument, for a change, instead of just making unsupported assertions? Can you debate the issue without relying on the falsehoods and misrepresentations common on the creationist websites?

How many times have I and others tried to explain to you that the RATE BOYS are dating all the fossils young because the fossils are young is enough of a ratio for advanced science to date these fossils thousands not millions of years old.

P.S. I don't mind tagging a bit on dating threads but not a challenge due you continually call all my sources liars and not scientists. ha ha don't take it personally not calling you a liar just the old earth part is a lie. If you believe the old earth then your not a liar even if the old earth is a lie! Its like the saying dead doctors don't lie.;)

We went over this before and you just say this is a falsehood that they are misrepresentating the facts. How about evolutionists are misrepresenting the facts. Here is the information we've went over several times now. So the next time we tag you might have something to say about how they are misrepresenting the facts. Seems the rate boys do quite well with just the facts.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

JOHN BAUMGARDNER, PH.D. LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABRATORY*
D. RUSSELL HUMPHREYS, PH.D.INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH*
ANDREW A. SNELLING, PH.D.INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH*
STEVEN A. AUSTIN, PH.D.INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH*

An astonishing discovery made over the past twenty years is that, almost without exception, when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic samples from every portion of the Phanerozoic record show detectable amounts of 14C! 14C/C ratios from all but the youngest Phanerozoic samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon), regardless of geological ‘age.’ A straightforward conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that all but the very youngest Phanerozoic organic material was buried contemporaneously much less than 250,000 years ago. This is consistent with the Biblical account of a global Flood that destroyed most of the air-breathing life on the planet in a single brief cataclysm only a few thousand years ago.

http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html

Here's more bias about giving PH.D. by acadamia of what an acceptable point of view or not, etc...{thought police?)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Creationist earns Ph.D., gets attacked by scientists
by Krauze

Why can't it be, "Scientist earns Ph.D. Gets Attacked by Athiest Thought Police."

Although his thesis advisor describes his work as "impeccable", some have "argued that his religious beliefs should bar him from earning an advanced degree in paleontology",

Should Marcus Ross have been forced to sign a statement, pledging eternal loyalty to Evolution and an Old Earth? Should he have undergone a polygraph test, ensuring that he didn't harbor any counter-consensus ideas? Myers think that Ross carrying out research he didn't agree with justifies labelling him a "fraud":

Is that how Myers think you get a doctoral degree? Just by "echoing ideas" As for Ross not believing the statements about millions of years from his own dissertation, that's the beauty of science - it doesn't matter whether you believe in it or not. As long as Ross' data and arguments hold up, it doesn't matter one bit what his beliefs are.

Is it a coincidence that Myers wants to force creationists to advocate their creationist beliefs in their scientific work? After all, he is also the one who thinks that researchers who are friendly towards intelligent design should be denied tenure. So if you privately have a telic perspective on the origin of life, you're a fraud, and if you openly advocate this perspective, you will be denied tenure. Head I wins, tail you lose.

Don't forget, PZ Myers and Michael Dini are both scientists. Or, as you also call them, peer reviewers.

http://telicthoughts.com/creationist-earns-phd-gets-attacked-by-scientists/#comment-64650

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2008 10:37 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Admin, posted 09-20-2008 9:16 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 11411
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 30 of 35 (483140)
09-20-2008 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by johnfolton
09-20-2008 1:13 AM


Re: You up to the challenge?
Hi JohnFolton,

Because you're consistently posting off-topic, please stop posting to this thread. If you'd like to discuss dating please take it to the Dates and Dating forum.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by johnfolton, posted 09-20-2008 1:13 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014