Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 76 of 331 (147984)
10-07-2004 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by johnfolton
10-07-2004 12:18 AM


Babbling
Well, AdminMoosesus beat me to it.
Your last post was as good an example of babbling as any we have seen. In some strange way it is even more confused and confusing than Brad's.
To carry on rational debate one must be able to handle logical relationships between things. This doesn't seem to be your forte.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by johnfolton, posted 10-07-2004 12:18 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4305 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 77 of 331 (151849)
10-22-2004 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MexicanHotChocolate
06-15-2004 3:30 AM


Dear Chocolate,
As far as I know there are only three ‘Creation Stories’ that people claim are scientific. All of these Creation Accounts have ties to the Bible.
For arguments sake, I’ll call the first two ‘S C’ and ‘L C’.
That is ‘Short Creationism’ (S C); which purports that an intelligent creator brought out of nothing the Universe created Earth, the Sun, Moon, and Stars, and all life on Earth in six twenty-four hour days.
And ‘Long Creationism’ (L C); which purports that an intelligent creator brought out of nothing the Universe, that our solar system came into existents some time after the ‘Big Bang’, and that the Creator intervened at strategic times and in specific ways to setup not just this Earth but the universe as a whole for the creation of life on Earth. Also that the six creation days of Geneses are six periods of time (eras) after the stars, our sun, and the Earth were already in place.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that brings us to a total of four hypotheses about how the universe came into existence, and progressed to its current state claming to be ‘scientific’.
These are Natural Evolution (N E), Theistic Evolution (T E), S C, and L C.
N E: The hypotheses that all phenomena from the Big Bang to the present can be explained using only the natural conditions and laws we can quantify. (I.E. we do not need an intelligence intervening in, and through, the course of history to explain the universe around us. )
T E: The hypotheses that an intelligence brought it to existence this universe and ether left it to its own devices, or intervened in the natural course of the universe vary rarely.
I’d like to state here, just for the record, that there are many variations on each of these hypotheses; some may even overlap. However, for our purposes these basic hypotheses should serifs.
You state,
quote:
I say evolution belongs in the science classroom and creation belongs in comparative religion...
To make the determination of which one(s) should be taught in science classes would require us to decide which one(s) come closest to fitting all of the available scientific facts, and evidence; would it not? Not just a statement of an opinion.
Unfortunately, we are told from the time we enter school until we graduate collage that Evolution is the only scientifically plausible explanation for the existence of everything we see.
We also know that if you tell a lie long enough most people will eventually believe it; and children are more susceptible to believing lies then adults are.
So even when a scientifically plausible explanation comes along, and is presented, more often then not, it is rejected out of hand. Not on its lack of scientific plausibility; rather because it does not fit the ideas and notions already accepted by peers of the establishment.
This goes doubly for anything that people dislike personally. Yes, scientists try to be unbiased and impartial; however these are people we’re talking about here, and people tend to cleave to their own personal biased whether or not they makes sense, whether or not it can be proven wrong.
The sad fact is we all are more likely to believe something if it is what we want to hear, and less likely to believe it if its something we do not want to hear. This is one of those universal facts (truths); it applies to all people everywhere.
I know, I’m wandering from the point.
O.K. so lets try to determine which, if any, of these hypotheses fits the most facts. Well that could probably fill volumes.
So, how about trying to disprove the basic tenant of each. For instance the idea that species evolved from other species over periods of time; this is one of the basic principles of both N E, and T E.
Adaptation, although it is often called microevolution, is well with in the purview of all four of the hypotheses we’re testing; and only works for traits already in the gene pool of that species. So, we’re not talking about a moth population that goes from mostly white moths with a few black ones, to mostly black moths with a few white ones.
Evidence shows that some 4.25 billion years ago a body at least the size of mars collided, almost head on, with Earth1. So life would have had to begin at some point after that event.
Life seams to have started on Earth some 4 Billion years ago.2; so, is it scientifically plausible that life could come into existence and ‘evolve’ to the point it is at now, in a sort 4 billion year time span?
It sounds like 4 billion years would be plenty of time for life to happen, under just the right conditions, and then progress to the place we see it to day. That is, until you take into account all that has happened from that time to now.
I’ll give you an example from both before life existed and after.
The, a for mentioned, body probably a rough planet had to have been of just the right size, and composition to blow away just enough of Earths atmosphere to allow the just right amount of light and cosmic rays to come through in the future for life to exist and flourish on Earth at some future point.
Not only that, but this rough planet, also had to strike the Earth at just the right angle to throw just enough atmosphere and debris out into space to form over hundreds of millions of years a moon of just the right size and composition to create just the right tidal conditions to support a future ecosystem.
All of these events as astronomers have found out have vary small margins for error. That is, if any one of these variables where out of whack, by just a little, the whole ball game would have been lost.
This could be likened to a watch, if one of the pieces is missing, broke, or just worn out the watch will not keep proper time.
All this and I haven’t even mentioned the fact that our sun, and the Earth itself had to be of just the right type, size, and distance from each other, and other phenomena, for this future ecosystem.
Now, after all of that happened, Life began, and began again, and again several times in the last 4 billion years.
The fact is life has started over after several life extinction eventsA. Each time new species and some of the previous species have come into existence at some time long after the event; when the planet could again support life.
These new species that appear are more suited for the new environment that they find themselves in.
Both of these would seam to argue against a purely naturalistic explanation for life; not only on Earth, but also anywhere in the universe.
The funny thing is that what I have mentioned here are just a small samplings of the things, and conditions that had to happen at just the right time, in just the right way, in just the right place for life to exist and thrive anywhere in the universe.
The shear number of Just Right conditions necessary for life to exist belies N E.
Even laying all that aside, if evolution were so prevalent, would we not see it happening today? After all evolution would have had to been fast a furious in the past to keep up with the changing ecology. So, with no known reason or mechanism for all of a sudden stopping the ongoing quick paced evolution of species, it would seam that if evolution where true we should see plants, and animals going through evolutionary changes in the relatively resent past.
There should be ample transitional forms in the fossil record; not only in the distant past but also in the relatively recant past. Nether exist. Didn’t even Darwin admit if transitional forms could not be found in the fossil record then evolution did not happen?
How about T E, well, the idea that a creator would go through all the trouble to create a universe and then just start life and leave it alone seams inconsistent.
I mean this creator taking the time to create a universe of just the right side making sure that just the right types, and amounts of chemicals, and elements are present, not to mention that this creator took some 4 trillion years to do it, would see it through to the end. Would he not?
So, whether or not you credit a creator for it, evolution’s basic tenants are erroneous at best. The universe, our solar system, and Earth itself show unmistakable signs of being designed by an intelligence, specifically for life to grow and flourish here on Earth. Life itself shows intelligence design.
Since the universe, our solar system, and Earth itself almost scream ‘There is a creator’ It would seam ridicules to say that there is no creator; from a purely scientific perspective. I.E. if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has all of the other characteristics of a duck, science would say it’s a duck.
This brings us to the two ‘Creation’ accounts.
According to S C, the creator brought out of nothing the Universe created Earth, the Sun, Moon, and Stars all in six twenty-four hour days.
This is called the Appearance of Age theory. I.E. The universe only looks 4 trillion years old, its actually a few thousand years old. This breaks with science since it requires a ‘Blind Faith ’ that is not open to testing. (See duck law above)
So, that seams to leave only the L C theory.
An Intelligence brought this universe into existence some time in the finite past, it (The universe) expanded to just the right size for life to exits, and advanced life to manipulate and create civilization at some distant future point from that creation event .
After three or four generations of stars were born and died a star was born in just the right place in the universe and of just the right size, and type to allow just the right types, and sizes of planets to form so that at some point in the distant future this Creator could bring about just the right conditions to make life possible on this blue marble we affectionately call Earth.
The Creator then painstakingly created life, and culled it repeatedly over vast periods of time to get the Earth suitable for the introduction of man.
You say, hold it, how can you say that this Creator was specifically getting all of creation ready for man ?
Glad you asked.
If man had been created earlier than 8 to 24 thousand years ago we would not have had a plentiful supply of crude oil, limestone, salt deposits and other essential elements to support the civilization we enjoy now. In a vary short time from now many of the resources we have now, even if they had never been touched, will degrade to the point that we could not use them. Take Crude oil for example.
This strongly suggests that the Creator designed the universe, specifically so that you would have a place to live and breath, and enjoy His creation around you.
Still not convinced, Ok, try this:
We know that many animal species have language; we know that several use simple tools; we also know that many posses complex social structures. Scientist have spent decades, and billions of dollars to show how alike we are to the animals we see around us, and I do not dispute that record.
However, there are drastic differences that set us uniquely apart form the animal kingdom.
For instance; we are the only creatures that:
  • Seam to comprehend an existence beyond this universe — We see no indication that the land animals, sea mammals, fish, birds, or even insects have any idea, or even care, that there are things beyond our four dimensions of time and space.
  • Worship — Mankind is the only creature that builds temples, does sacrifices and other forms of religious expression.
  • Are capable of manipulating the environment around us to the degree that we have manipulated it.
  • Are capable of designing and creating complex machines — Although it has been demonstrated that animals us simple tools, a stick or a rock, there is no evidence that I’m aware of that demonstrates that animals can constructed even simple tool like tying a stick to a piece of rock. I believe that they could be taught to build simple machines; however to come up with the idea on their own, and implement it seams beyond their capabilities.
All of these require the ability to work with abstract ideas — we can train a dog to do tricks for its supper, but teaching it about morality or quantum physics is beyond its abilities.
The Oil deposits mentioned earlier fuel our advanced technologies; from the gas in our cars to the plastic that our milk comes in.
Had this deposit been much smaller our entire industrialized civilization would grind to a halt when the crude ran out. As it is there is enough to sustain our civilization until the Creator comes and closes shop on this universe.
The Creator introduced mankind in to this universe precisely at the right time so that we would have an abundance of materials to work with when we needed them.
1 — Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question (1998), Pg. 32.
2 — Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question (1998), Pg. 27. Home - Reasons to Believe
A — Please note here that, microorganisms may have survived, and a few member of a few different specie. However, the food chain would have collapsed, and there would not be a large enough population to survive, much less evolve. We can see this today, when man destroys or changes the environment many species numbers are reduced to an unsustainable level and the species ceases to exist. So when I say Life extinction event, I’m speaking of advanced life, not necessarily microbes, bacteria, or even some insects, or small rodents; just anything and everything larger then these.
For more information on what I have termed Long Creationism you can go to Home - Reasons to Believe.
This message has been edited by jrtjr1, 10-22-2004 01:33 AM

For God so greatly loved
and dearly prized the world,
that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son,
that whoever believes in
(trusts in, clings to, relies on)
Him
should not perish
(come to destruction, be lost),
but
have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son
in to the world
in order to judge
(to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on)
the world,.
But that the world
might find salvation
and be made safe and sound
through Him.
John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MexicanHotChocolate, posted 06-15-2004 3:30 AM MexicanHotChocolate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by AdminNosy, posted 10-22-2004 2:17 AM JRTjr has replied
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 10-22-2004 2:32 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 88 by Steen, posted 01-16-2005 6:42 PM JRTjr has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 78 of 331 (151858)
10-22-2004 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by JRTjr
10-22-2004 1:42 AM


Too much in one place
You need to take each of the various claims you have and get them into the right topics. Either existing ones or ones you propose.
This is not the place for everyone to pile on and discuss the various claims you have made. Many of which have been covered here in appropriate topics.
I'll be a bit cranky if anyone does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by JRTjr, posted 10-22-2004 1:42 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 10-22-2004 2:33 AM AdminNosy has not replied
 Message 81 by JRTjr, posted 10-22-2004 2:59 AM AdminNosy has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 331 (151861)
10-22-2004 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by JRTjr
10-22-2004 1:42 AM


This is why atheists are so determined to keep creationism out of public school.
Based on what? What statements of atheists lead you to believe that our purpose is to prevent children from hearing the "truth" that counteracts our "lies"?
That's a pretty bold accusation of dishonesty; as an atheist, you've just called me a duplicitous liar. I challenge you to substantiate that insult, or withdraw it.
Adaptation, although it is often called microevolution, is well with in the purview of all four of the hypotheses we’re testing; and only works for traits already in the gene pool of that species.
Simply untrue. Adaptation both creates new traits, through mutation, and changes their frequency, through selection. Mutation is the source of new traits; adaptation is the process by which trait frequencies are changed through mutation and natural selection.
That is, until you take into account all that has happened from that time to now.
This is simply one large "fine-tuning" argument, and the fatal flaw in that argument is the assumption that the Earth is fine-tuned for life; when it is quite obvious to the most casual observer that life is "fine-tuned" to the conditions of the Earth.
The water does not shape the cup.
The shear number of Just Right conditions necessary for life to exist belies N E.
Life as we know it, you mean. And that's rather the sticking point - we have no idea of the true range of conditions that life can exist under. Certainly, on Earth, life exists under a great range of conditions, from the frozen seas under Antarctica to the super-boiling waters of undersea vents, and every condition in between. There's literally no place on Earth that you cannot find life, except where humans have worked to make it so.
There's nothing "just right" about the Earth - rather, life evolved on the Earth it found itself in. Are we surprised when water takes the shape of its container? Then why should we be surprised when life is shaped by the Earth?
Even laying all that aside, if evolution were so prevalent, would we not see it happening today?
Uh, well, we do. Over and over again, we observe adaptation shaping species and creating new ones. (Actually, it's adaptation plus reproductive isolation that splits off a new species from an old.)
There should be ample transitional forms in the fossil record; not only in the distant past but also in the relatively recant past. Nether exist.
Again, an outright falsehood. There are hundreds of transitional species, at every level of organization. Of course, what survives the best are the vertebrate transitionals, which you can learn about here:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
To say that there are no transitional fossils is outright bizzare, and is as disconnected from reality as someone saying "there is no sun or moon." In fact, every single fossil represents a transitional species, except for those organisms that are the end of their ancestral line.
Life itself shows intelligence design.
In what way?
In a vary short time from now many of the resources we have now, even if they had never been touched, we degrade to the point that we could not use them. Take Crude oil for example.
Please, could you offer support for this assertion? As far as I know, our fossil fuel deposits are already millions of years old; this is the first I've heard of any kind of "expiry date." Do you believe that the oil companies know about this? Don't you think they'd be interested?
Seam to comprehend an existence beyond this universe — We see not indication that the land animals, sea mammals, fish, birds, or even insects have any idea, or even care, that there are things beyond our four dimensions of time and space.
I don't believe that even humans "comprehend" an existence beyond this one - rather, they've simply imagined one. Maybe the reason that the sea mammals don't seem too interested in that is because it's a manifestly stupid idea on the face of it.
Are capable of manipulating the environment around us to the degree that we have manipulated it.
You posited this as a fundamental difference; it can't be both a fundamental difference and a difference of degree. Differences of degrees, by definition, are not fundamental differences.
As it is there is enough to sustain our civilization until the Creator comes and closes shop on this universe.
How do you know? How much fossil fuel do you think there is?
The Creator introduced mankind in to this universe precisely at the right time so that we would have an abundance of materials to work with when we needed them.
Or, more likely, humans are adaptable, and based their technologies on what was around. Had something else been around, our technology would have been based on that. In particular, I have great difficulty believing that an intelligent creator couldn't have come up with a fuel less polluting, better distributed, and easier to obtain than fossil fuels. The fact that fossil fuel has so many critical disadvantages is considerable evidence against its placement by intelligent benefactors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by JRTjr, posted 10-22-2004 1:42 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-16-2005 10:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 80 of 331 (151862)
10-22-2004 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by AdminNosy
10-22-2004 2:17 AM


I'll be a bit cranky if anyone does.
Oops.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by AdminNosy, posted 10-22-2004 2:17 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4305 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 81 of 331 (151866)
10-22-2004 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by AdminNosy
10-22-2004 2:17 AM


Re: Too much in one place
Dear Administrator,
I apologies for the length of my postings; I try to be through, and seem to lack brevity.
However, I do believe that my last posting, for the most part, stayed on the subject at hand. I.E. the question of ‘which theories should be taught in school science classes?’. Did it naught?
This message has been edited by jrtjr1, 10-22-2004 02:04 AM

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by AdminNosy, posted 10-22-2004 2:17 AM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by AdminNosy, posted 10-22-2004 3:16 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 82 of 331 (151867)
10-22-2004 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by JRTjr
10-22-2004 2:59 AM


Re: Too much in one place
But you see, as Crash so carelessly showed, your arguments are both all over the map, have been discussed elsewhere and are generally based on ignorance of the actual facts.
Your arguement for "which religion's creation story" seems to be heavily based on trying to suggest that an enormously well supported scientific concept it wrong.
Even if you did somehow show it to be wrong how does that tell us which of the many, many competing creation stories should be told. There are, I'm pretty, sure many hundreds of them. All with the same claim to validity as yours. How do we pick?
THAT is the point of this thread.
You various other issues should all be taken to the appropriate scientific threads.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-22-2004 02:16 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by JRTjr, posted 10-22-2004 2:59 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
MiguelG
Member (Idle past 1975 days)
Posts: 63
From: Australia
Joined: 12-08-2004


Message 83 of 331 (166782)
12-09-2004 10:53 PM


A question
If we are to have every other creation myth taught as an alternative or even comparative method of determining ultimate origins, when will we find time to teach the actual science of biology??
I'm all for exposing children to the exploration of world beliefs/cultures/philosophies, but would this not be better done within the context of a comparative religion class?
Where will we draw a line? Should crystallomancy or crystalotherapy be taught in geology and first aid??
Saying that, I do understand the point that various other posters were making when they suggested this.
Cheers folks

  
RED WOLF
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 331 (176560)
01-13-2005 1:11 PM


There is Proof of a Global Flood!
I have been doing a paper on the proof and evidence of a global flood. Not only the bible proclaims it but the rest of the ancient world. The babylonians who are totally not christian have a series of tablets, that are the oldest piece of written work on earth, that tell of a story that states on tablet 11 that there was indeed a global flood. Along with many many other remote tribal stories that tell of a Global flood. As well as speaking of fossils they have found fossils on top of mountains worldwide hinting that the water level was once that high. There is no doubt in my mind that there was infact a global flood.

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 1:14 PM RED WOLF has not replied
 Message 86 by Loudmouth, posted 01-13-2005 1:41 PM RED WOLF has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 85 of 331 (176561)
01-13-2005 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by RED WOLF
01-13-2005 1:11 PM


The babylonians who are totally not christian have a series of tablets, that are the oldest piece of written work on earth, that tell of a story that states on tablet 11 that there was indeed a global flood.
But the Gilgameian flood is different than the Noaic flood. And since these tablets predate the Bible, if you were going to believe in a flood, why would you believe the Bible over the Babylonians?
Along with many many other remote tribal stories that tell of a Global flood.
Did you look where these tribes all live? I'll give you a hint - they live near where it floods. Coincidence? You decide.
As well as speaking of fossils they have found fossils on top of mountains worldwide hinting that the water level was once that high.
Or that the mountains were lower. They do still teach plate tectonics in school, don't they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by RED WOLF, posted 01-13-2005 1:11 PM RED WOLF has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 331 (176566)
01-13-2005 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by RED WOLF
01-13-2005 1:11 PM


Re: There is Proof of a Global Flood!
quote:
The babylonians who are totally not christian have a series of tablets, that are the oldest piece of written work on earth, that tell of a story that states on tablet 11 that there was indeed a global flood.
So it would appear that the Bible stole the story from their Babylonian captors. Not too surprising.
quote:
Along with many many other remote tribal stories that tell of a Global flood.
Many of which contradict the others. You can not find one common thread between all of the tribal stories. Some say there was a local flood that they escaped by going up into the mountains. Some others say that it was a global flood. Others say that it was just a really long rainshower. How can tribal stories support a global flood when some of those stories tell of only a local flood. Also, how do we decide which one is correct?
quote:
As well as speaking of fossils they have found fossils on top of mountains worldwide hinting that the water level was once that high.
There are several threads dealing with this. In short, the fossils on mountaintops are from erosion of the mountain. The marine fossils are actually part of the mountain (ie found in the middle of the rock).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by RED WOLF, posted 01-13-2005 1:11 PM RED WOLF has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 87 of 331 (176653)
01-13-2005 5:31 PM


T o p i c !
I think we are starting to wander off topic here. The flood issue belongs in another thread people. Thanks
GIJane, may I suggest you take your discussion of the flood to the forum called, appropriately enough, "Geology and the Great Flood". Thanks.
BTW, welcome to EvC. We are all, believe it or not, happy to have you here. That might get lost when you get a dozen posts argueing with anything you say. Most of us are here because we like to agrue.
If you really, really want to try to produce a water tight (pun intended) argument for the flood this is the place to have it tested. Anything you say will be nit-picked to death; that is a great way to shapen one's arguments.
However, it might help you to read over the flood forum. You might find that all arguments you can think up have already been tried. In addition, you may be surprised at the amount of very solid evidence that shows that the flood simply did not happen. A bit of the history of the development of the science of geology would also be helpful for you.
Have fun!

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 331 (177622)
01-16-2005 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by JRTjr
10-22-2004 1:42 AM


quote:
As far as I know there are only three ‘Creation Stories’ that people claim are scientific. All of these Creation Accounts have ties to the Bible.
Ah, "scientific." Good, that means that you can provide scientific evidence, right?
quote:
That is ‘Short Creationism’ (S C); which purports that an intelligent creator brought out of nothing the Universe created Earth, the Sun, Moon, and Stars, and all life on Earth in six twenty-four hour days.
A story that has absolutely no scientific data to back it up. So right off the bat, you are making claims that don't stand up. You claim scientific evidence for the "S.C.", when we here know that there isn't any such evidence. Would you mind presenting yours?
quote:
And ‘Long Creationism’ (L C); which purports that an intelligent creator brought out of nothing the Universe, that our solar system came into existents some time after the ‘Big Bang’, and that the Creator intervened at strategic times and in specific ways to setup not just this Earth but the universe as a whole for the creation of life on Earth. Also that the six creation days of Geneses are six periods of time (eras) after the stars, our sun, and the Earth were already in place.
And there is still no scientific evidence for this creation story either. Once again, you claimed scientific backing where none exists.
So the chore and task on you is now double. Please provide the actual evidence that these two models you present are actually scientifically based as you claimed, and thus is a valid component of a science curriculum.
As for the rest of your post, branching out into astronomy, the Big bang and a bunch of other stuff that has nothing to do with Evolution or its place in the Science curriculum, I request that you post those in the appropriate forums and topics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by JRTjr, posted 10-22-2004 1:42 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by JRTjr, posted 01-24-2005 4:45 PM Steen has not replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6872 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 89 of 331 (177696)
01-16-2005 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by crashfrog
10-22-2004 2:32 AM


Nothing gets me more uptight than the subject of creation in the American classroom. Any or all or whatever creation story people fondle, belongs in the church school, sunday school, home. But never in the public school, absolutely not. That is so completely against what the Bible teaches to give to the government what belongs to it and to God what belongs to him. This is not a Christian state. This is a state that is home to Christians, and all kinds of other people whose beliefs must be respected and defended.
What kind of Christian would deny a fellow creature self-determination all the while spouting free will for himself?
This is illogical, emotional crap and must be spoken and acted against at all cost.
Yeah, I'm a Christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 10-22-2004 2:32 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by mikehager, posted 01-17-2005 1:22 AM PecosGeorge has replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 90 of 331 (177720)
01-17-2005 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by PecosGeorge
01-16-2005 10:41 PM


Preach on!
I normally don't agree with a word you say, PecosGeorge, but damned if I didn't like the sound of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-16-2005 10:41 PM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-17-2005 10:01 AM mikehager has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024