|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: should creationism be taught in schools? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5626 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Of course that is simply another falsehood that you are repeating Fact, not falsehood.
No one assumes the universe is tens of billions of years old or that the earth is billions of years old, that is the only reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. No it isn't -evolution was proposed as an alternative to creation based on fossils found in rocks and finches showing natural selection -Darwin's old story. Before Darwin, it was proposed by geologists that the fossils and the sedimentary rock layers must represent long ages (rather than a flood, of course -nobody really liked that old flood story and they were in a hurry to replace it with something more 'scientific' ). This was taken on faith by those that could just see that the rocks were old and could imagine how long they took to lay down. A very long way down that path of faith-based age assumptions came the sort of dating techniques that just happen to confirm those sorts of ages in complete contradiction to those aging methods that say that is not so.
So far no one has ever been able to present a dating method that support a young earth other than using a Special Pleading. Absolutely untrue.
The only way that Biblical Creationism can ever become anything more than a bad joke, something to laugh about, is if Biblical Creationists can present models that explain what is seen better than the current models. You obviously have not read the literature, the model that has been proposed and the voluminous evidence in its favour. Perhaps you don't really want to know because there's plenty of it out there -how could you have missed it?
even if you could show the current models wrong, that adds NO support to the Creationist model Even if evolution was shown to be wrong, evolutionists in general would be more likely to go for anything other than the creation model because they don't appear to want to have anything to do with the creation possibility.Creation is written off a priori by definitions of science designed to avoid that possibility.There's something about a creator that causes the majority of mankind to become willfully blind."..in the last days, scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say 'where is this coming he promised?' Ever since our fathers died everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.But they deliberately forget that long ago, by God's word, the earth was formed out of water and by water.By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed." Have we forgotten?Is this evolution the grand delusion of the end times that we are being indoctrinated into from childhood? You should really see how many of the other end time prophecies from the same creator are all lining up - evolutionists will remain blind to what is happening around them as long as they insist that creation is a plebian non-viable, unscientific proposition from a bunch of ignoramouses of the first order.Time as we know it is running out. Wake up!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Beretta writes: You obviously have not read the literature, the model that has been proposed and the voluminous evidence in its favour. Perhaps you don't really want to know because there's plenty of it out there -how could you have missed it? I've spent hours reading on creationist websites, and I've never come across a scrap of scientific evidence for creationism. There's plenty of evidence of superstition and fantasy desires, though. Perhaps you're confusing the two. On the subject of this thread, there's nothing in creationism to teach in school science classes. It would be exactly the same as teaching a flat earth view in geography classes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I'm just curious, Beretta. Instead of the theory of gravity, what would you propose we teach in its place?
Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And yet you posted another message that contained NOT ONE SINGLE THING IN SUPPORT of Creationism.
Biblical Creationism is such a joke. Your little god is not even capable of creating a model much less a universe. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
-evolution was proposed as an alternative to creation based on fossils found in rocks and finches showing natural selection -Darwin's old story. Evolution doesn't need to be viewed as an alternative to creation. It certainly does not conflict with the idea of creation nor with the idea of a Creator. Nor even with the idea that that Creator is YHWH (for the spelling of that name, read jar's avatar). Though it would conflict with some narrow interpretations of what "creation" must mean, especially those interpretations that make assertions about the physical universe that are contrary to fact. Do you believe that evolution conflicts with the idea of creation? Why?
So far no one has ever been able to present a dating method that support a young earth other than using a Special Pleading. Absolutely untrue. Since you are so absolutely sure, that must mean that you do in fact know of dating methods that support a young earth without using special pleading. Do please present them. If creationists actually some real evidence, why have they kept it hidden all this time?
The only way that Biblical Creationism can ever become anything more than a bad joke, something to laugh about, is if Biblical Creationists can present models that explain what is seen better than the current models. You obviously have not read the literature, the model that has been proposed and the voluminous evidence in its favour. Perhaps you don't really want to know because there's plenty of it out there -how could you have missed it? There is an actual creation model? Really? We've been looking for one for decades and trying to get creationists to present one for all that time. Oh please, do present it! And some of that "voluminous evidence in its favour". Why have you never presented it before?
even if you could show the current models wrong, that adds NO support to the Creationist model Even if evolution was shown to be wrong, evolutionists in general would be more likely to go for anything other than the creation model because they don't appear to want to have anything to do with the creation possibility.Creation is written off a priori by definitions of science designed to avoid that possibility.There's something about a creator that causes the majority of mankind to become willfully blind. You completely missed the point there. For all these decades, the creationist approach has been to create a False Dichotomy (AKA "a 'false dilemma'") which artificially and deceptively claimed that there are two and only two mutually exclusive choices such that disproving one would automatically prove the other. Then all that the creationists would do was to attack their strawman caricature called "the evolution model" and thus claim that their own "creation model" had been proven, all without ever having to present this "creation model" or any evidence for it, or discuss their "model" or in any manner try to support it. Indeed, I have found that the surest way to anger a creationist was to take his claims at face value and try to discuss them with him and try to get him to support them. Incredible how utterly hostile they would become because somebody was trying to take them seriously. No, the point that you missed is that every model put forth must stand on its own merit. Each model must be examined and judged according to the evidence. Just because one model is eliminated does not make another model right; each model must be examined. Therefore, even if you were able to show evolution to be wrong, that would do absolutely nothing to show your "creation model" to be right. Your "creation model" would still need to be examined and tested, just like all the other models. As pointed out by philosopher of science Larry Laudan in his article that Dr. Duane Gish thought was so great, the claims of creationism have indeed been tested and they have been found to be wrong. From "Science at the Bar- Causes for Concern" by Larry Laudan, from Science, Technology and Human Values 7, no. 41 (1982):16-19, reprinted on pages 351-355 of Michael Ruse's But Is It Science. It refers to McLean v. Arkansas, the famous 1981 Creationism trial; my copy of the article provided to me by Dr. Duane Gish:
quote: The only reason for rejecting young-earth creationism is because the claims of creationism have been tested and have been found to fail those tests. In other words, that dog won't hunt. But if you are so absolutely sure that there is a real creation model with "voluminous evidence in its favour", then do please present it. Edited by dwise1, : added reference to jar's avatar Edited by dwise1, : corrected typos Edited by dwise1, : removed extraneous sentence fragment at end. {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade,Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made, Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand. The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand. Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed, The truth has left its living word for anyone to read. So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled. Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You seemed to skip over most of the content in my post and just reply with more falsehoods, unsupported assertions and outright nonsense.
If Creationism was taught in school, what would you teach about all of the civilizations that were thriving approximately 6000 years ago, on every continent? If Creationism was taught in school, what would you teach about how sand was formed? If Creationism was taught in school, what would you teach about the great Bantu migration? If Creationism was taught in school, how would you explain Oetzi who would have been alive during the supposed lifetime of the fictional character Adam? How would you explain that genetically, he, all the things he carried, all the things he ate, all the things he wore were pretty much the same as today? If Creationism was taught in school, how would you explain salt beds? Can you produce any evidence that stands up to examination for Biblical Creationism? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Beretta writes: The same basic lack of logic is seen where evolutionists assume a priori that the earth is billions of years old (to support the concept of evolution, you naturally have to have at least 100's of millions of years).
jar writes: Of course that is simply another falsehood that you are repeating Fact, not falsehood. The evidence for an ancient earth is not even the topic of this thread, so I really hope you and jar aren't going to get into an extended "is not, is too" about this. This topic asks whether creationism should be taught in schools, so you first you need to know why it currently is not. That reason is that creationism is understood to be religion and not science. Creationists claim that creationism *is* science that should be taught in school, but what is taught in school is the consensus of scholarly opinion, and there is not at present a scientific consensus in favor of creationism. Physics and chemistry and biology (including evolution) are taught in science class because there is a scientific consensus behind them. Creationism is not taught because no such scientific consensus in its favor exists, and to teach it in school would be to teach something not currently accepted as science. So the next question to ask is why creationism is not accepted as science by the scientific community, and it basically comes down to a lack of evidence. The scientific community examined creationism's evidence between a hundred and a few hundred years ago and decided it was lacking. And that's why the scientific community rejects creationism and why it isn't taught in school. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
You certainly seem to have a great many criticisms of evolution, Beretta, but why should any of that mean that creationism should be taught in schools? You have mentioned nothing (save for bible excerpts) to argue in it's favour. If you are so keen to educate us upon the merits of creationism, why not provide us with some of this copious evidence you mentioned?
Simply, creationism should not be taught in science lessons because it fails to fulfil the definition of "science" used by the scientific community. When the creationist lobby insists that ID is science, they are effectively trying to redefine the word "science" in a disingenuous way. Religious believers do not suffer from scientists lobbying churches and temples to redefine the word "god" or preach Boyle's Law from the pulpits, so why should religious groups be allowed to dictate what is taught in science classes? Most religious pupils already get plenty of religious education from their places of worship and their families. Pupils who independently seek religious instruction will find it easy to come by. The real aim of creationist lobby groups is to win over non-Christian pupils or those doubters amongst their own flock. It is simple proselytising, and it has no place in the classroom. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This was taken on faith by those that could just see that the rocks were old and could imagine how long they took to lay down. This isn't true, and, which you may think rather worse, the audience you're preaching to knows that it isn't true.
... in complete contradiction to those aging methods that say that is not so. Which for some reason you refuse to talk about. What are these "aging methods" of which you speak? Start a thread.
Absolutely untrue. Start a thread.
You obviously have not read the literature, the model that has been proposed and the voluminous evidence in its favour. Perhaps you don't really want to know because there's plenty of it out there -how could you have missed it? Start a thread.
Even if evolution was shown to be wrong, evolutionists in general would be more likely to go for anything other than the creation model because they don't appear to want to have anything to do with the creation possibility.Creation is written off a priori by definitions of science designed to avoid that possibility.There's something about a creator that causes the majority of mankind to become willfully blind. "..in the last days, scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say 'where is this coming he promised?' Ever since our fathers died everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.But they deliberately forget that long ago, by God's word, the earth was formed out of water and by water.By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed." Have we forgotten?Is this evolution the grand delusion of the end times that we are being indoctrinated into from childhood? You should really see how many of the other end time prophecies from the same creator are all lining up - evolutionists will remain blind to what is happening around them as long as they insist that creation is a plebian non-viable, unscientific proposition from a bunch of ignoramouses of the first order.Time as we know it is running out. Wake up!! Ooh, love the apocalyptic sermon. A wannabe preacher, eh? But can you name one of these "aging methods"? Put up or shut up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
While we await, with bated breath, details of at least one method that proves that the Earth is young, here's a list of real dating methods that actually exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
What makes you think that there is only one Creation story? quote: Well, other religious people think their creation story is better than yours, based on their own faith-biased opinions. If we teach one faith-based Creation myth, we have to teach them all. And I would really like to know if you think that Biologists are stupid. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4219 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
I don't think there's only one story but I absolutely believe there is only one that makes sense, that has loads of historical and archeological verification in its favour and lines up with the evidence -not as well as evolution -better than evolution. Oh, really. Yeah it might make sense if the earth was a small, fixed object in the center of the universe and the universe was small enoughso all the heavenly bodies could revolve around the earth every 24 hours or basically what was believed by the men who conceived the story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
...there is only one Creation story? ... but I absolutely believe there is only one that makes ... So you KNOW you are dismissing other beliefs as irrelevant and want others to accept yours without question? Do you know what "special pleading" means? Can you tell me why something you believe should be taught as fact, particularly in a science class (it could be fine in a comparative religion class)?
... has loads of historical and archeological verification in its favour and lines up with the evidence ... Absolutely false. Now you have the opportunity to prove me wrong by presenting evidence. No evidence = no rebuttal. Note the concept of "both" is a logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. There is reality or there are any number (millions) of fantasies. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : one more for the road compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5626 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Can you tell me why something you believe should be taught as fact, particularly in a science class (it could be fine in a comparative religion class)? My point precisely -why should your belief system be taught as fact? Why not the opposing scientific evidence that points to the very real possibility of a creator rather than variation and random mutation creating things that I can only say are exquisitely designed by someone way beyond us. By limiting ourselves to evolution as the only possibility when there is so much evidence against it, you effectively force your belief system down the creator camp's throats and in the process lead children away from the option that the God of the Bible may be real. 'Scientists have proven that evolution is a fact'.Children brought up with the Bible start to look again and somewhere in their subconscious as some point, they realize that if evolution is true, the Bible is untrue -people who hold to both are compromisers.The creator goes out the window with His word to the stupid people.I did that -I know what I'm talking about. When I realized, only in the recent past, that evolution is not proven, it is believed -it all made sense. Fossils are facts -they cannot speak for themselves -you have to interpret what they mean according to what you believe is true.Evolution and creation/ID are interpretations of the facts.Your interpretation should not be the only one allowed. I do not mean at any stage that anything untrue should ever be taught -only that the evidence for and against both positions should be allowed. Not a specific creation story either just the ID position and the evidence against evolution. There is reality or there are any number (millions) of fantasies. Well now we're on the same page.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5626 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Oh, really. Yeah it might make sense if the earth was a small, fixed object in the center of the universe and the universe was small enough so all the heavenly bodies could revolve around the earth every 24 hours or basically what was believed by the men who conceived the story. Luckily the Bible doesn't require that we be right in the middle.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024