I'm trying to talk about what should be taught and yes I'm going off topic but only in order to respond.
But, you're NOT talking about what should be taught. Besides the fact that what should be taught is not the topic.
Why creationsim should be taught is the topic. Why creationism (not ID or whatever amalgam of the two you have created in your mind) should be taught over/alongside evolution.
I'll be happy to discuss what should be taught but in order to get to the evidence, another thread would be needed but I'm having too much fun here and I don't want to go.
There are multiple threads (which have been conveniently linked for you) just waiting for your "evidence." We've all been waiting for you to present some. If you go to one of the other threads to present it doesn't make this thread go away. You can still have your fun here, but at least we would have something to debate in both threads. Or do you just want to throw out generalities and then laugh when specifics are not offered in rebuttal because they are not on topic? You see, most people here respect the forum rules...that is why you have had so many requests to present evidence in other threads.
Do you think that you can win an argument with generalities? Are you afraid of actually presenting evidence in a narrowly focused forum? Is that "fun" for you?
But that is what usually happens. Someone with some great grand spectacular "evidence" for creation comes in and is then asked to debate specifics, but they don't. They debate generalities and don't know enough of the science to support their own arguments. So, they read "blah blah blah" like in their high school science class bored out of their skull and pick up some select phrases they obtained through osmosis and then they plagarize their preachers and think they have "won" because they don't even try to learn. They don't bother to debate specifics because it's so much easier to shout "Mt. St. Helens proves catastrophic geology!" than to actually learn how geologists know the difference between local volcanic activity and the other myriad ways sediments are laid down (not to mention the other fields associated with volcanic activity).
I really truelly believe in the existance of a creator for so many many reasons. I also believe there are more than enough scientific reason to believe that. I also know that being taught evolution helped me push the concept, and I believe reality, of God aside because evolution and the belief in a specific creator, the one in the Judeo-Christian Bible, do not gel. I accepted the one (evolution), I lost the other. You'd probably be surprised how many people have connected the dots the same way.Later when I started to read about the evidence against evolution (not micro), I felt cheated by a system that gave no choice and effectively took away my childhood belief in God by not allowing for that possibility; that taught as fact that which is not provable.
Well, that is not the fault of evolution. Nowhere in my many science textbooks throughout childhood or adulthood was there any mention of "God." Nor was there a prerequisite disbelief in "God" mentioned. Your "childhood belief in God" was your own to cultivate or discard. Don't try to blame science for your own philosophical crisis.
Science by its nature cannot get into the realm of the supernatural even though it exists but then it should stick strictly to what is scientifically verifiable and present clearly as theories those things that are not provable (like pre-historical suppositions, inference and extrapolation.)
Right, so why teach supernaturalism in science class?
The only history that we can be sure about is that found in history books and surprise, surprise, the Bible which discusses so much real verifiable history
Wait...so the history in history books written by people no one has ever met and copied by people no one has ever met should be taught, but biological/geological/chemical/ history is suspect because no one was there to see it?
We should believe the Bible (much of which has no external evidence to support it...although some of it does) because someone wrote it down and we should just trust your (or your preachers) interpretation even though we weren't there to see it?
It also gives geneologies of real people -we cannot prove each and every one mentioned existed by looking at other sources though many are verified by other historical sources.The facts given are very specific and real people cannot suddenly convert into mythological people as you go further back
Well, actually, the further back you go the more likely they are to be mythical (or at the very least the actions attributed to the possibly real person are more likely to be mythical or otherwise exaggerated).
Add up the geneologies and you get around 6000 years
Um...yea, the genealogies for a specific tribe of people, not the entirety of humanity or of the earth. Why are the OT and NT genealogies used for all people and not just the Hebrew people? Because you want it to be true?
a world wide flood to account for the massive fossil numbers with marine fossils making up the bulk (-first things to be covered with sediments?)
You have yet to explain WHY marine fossils would be the first to be buried under the creationist model (and simultaneously appear on mountaintops).
Science is not set back by not believing in evolution. Creationists and evolutionists accept variation and natural selection and science can deal with that and experiment accordingly. I fail to see why evolution as the only alternative should be taught.Creationists and ID proponents for the most part want the downside of evolution presented with evolution and that it should be taught as a theory, albeit a popular one. Most of them do not advocate doing away with evolution. They just want that element of doubt (which should rightly be there) to be presented alongside it.
Yes, learning to doubt and ask questions is essential to growing up. So, since evolution is taught in public schools and creationsim is taught in (many) churches, why do you not bring in a biologist into Sunday school? Because you don't really want children to learn "both sides." Am I right? If you really wanted kids to hear about "the Controversy" then there would be an "evolutionist" in every church teaching science. Of course, many Christian churches and many Christian parents have no problem with evolution, but those that do have a lot to fear because they have taught their children that if one bit of the Bible is false then all of it is and that is what so many children do. They learn that they have been LIED TO and they lose all faith.
Don't project the failings of literalism onto science because it is not the fault of scientists...it is the fault of unbending literalism.
Instead of teaching that the rocks are old, teach how that thinking came about since they do not come with dating labels attached and just how do you see that a rock is old?
Why don't you learn how geologists figure it all out before condemning the whole field based on a Kent Hovind video or an AiG article? You see, students (especially at the higher level) do learn how this is done, but most don't pay any attention and then they think they can debate actual geologists on an internet forum based on an 8th grade Earth Science course and some creationist pamphlets. Do you see how absurd that is?
When I watch national geographic and they try to pass off some sort of ape as an early human, I look and I see an ape all fixed up with a lot of artistic licence
Um...maybe that is because we don't actually have australopithecines hanging around to use as extras in a cable science show.
Unless you believe the theory, you will never artistically turn that ape skull into something supposed to be pre-human. To us who don't believe it, it is like a sick delusion - only problem is too many really clever, absolutely sincere people believe it.
Wow...so you would "imagine" that chimpanzees have no possible similarities to humans? It's all a "sick delusion?" Or that the skeletons of
Homo erectus have no similarities to us? I mean, a chihuahua and a wolf have more structural dissimilarities but you don't deny that the former came from the latter, do you? (that's without the genetic confirmation)
Talk about denial...
That's why I say, teach the controversy, give the kids a choice and let ongoing research have more options.
The kids have a choice. No one is keeping information from them (except for the fanatic fundamentalists who home-school and don't allow their children to read or watch anything which is "dangerous" or "un-biblical").
If you choose to send your kids to public school, then they will be taught the science which is confirmed to be science. They will be taught the history that is confirmed to be history. If you don't accept this, then you can send them to a school which doesn't teach actual science and history or you can home school them. If you can't do that, then you can still teach them whatever you wish in your churches or at home. So, the only reason to "teach the controversy" is to proselytize to kids who don't get taught your poison in church or at school. You have no wish to really "teach the controversy." Just admit it. Oh, wait...you already did.
"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -
The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
™ Version 4.2