Creationism is only indirectly dealing with religion. in fact it deals with ideas about origins.
Well lets teach some other forms of creationism in ones religion the universe began when a giant bird was sitting on an egg so it would hatch and when it did it produced our universe. Hey that sounds like the big bang it must be true put it in the classrooms just dont mention what gods where also spawned from the egg and it should pass, lets make students make the decide whats right the bird and egg creation, the creo creation, or Science.
Banning it is saying its false. Saying its false is illegal.
No watch me its false false false false false a lie a ferry tale totaly false. See nothing to it now you try.
teaching genesis in a science class or any form of creationism is equivalent of teaching the made up language from lords of the rings in your english class.
Anyways its still the law that banns creationism and not a accusation that its not science or rather a equal standard of investigation.
And still it is not science nor an equal standard of investigation.
why let me try and explain it to you as simple as possible.
Science makes theories based on facts, facts are things known to be true, when we have our theory if any fact contradits the theory the theory is false, and a new theory must be made that also explains that fact.
Creos work diferently they have a theory that must be true at all costs before they even look at the facts, when a fact contraditct their theory they ignore that fact, make up silly things to explain how that fact is wrong.... things like that.
If science had been using your method all these years we would still be treating tooth pain with a hot poker stuck in to the ear, common cold with old socs around the neck, killing and burning pigeons to heal various desieases (as instructed by the bible), ...... (actually practiced medicines)
As you can see science is the direct oposite of creationism there fore it cannot be taught in a science class.
Nope. remember there is a clear purpose to why the state should make no establishment about religion. Simply so no faith is made over others and no faith is made under. A excellent purpose. There is no need for the state or the church to interfere with each other.
Then the subject of origins comes up and the state teaches ideas that mean religious ideas are wrong. It breaks the separation. its teaching against religion in its foundations. its doctrines So religion comes up to defend itself and its told CENSORED. Why/ Then told the state can't teach religion. right or wrong. can't say its right. can't say its wrong. Creationism answers YOU ARE TEACHING ITS WRONG. Your banning is a second teaching since you claim the subject is about the truth of origins. A right and a left.
The state therefore has a opinion on religious doctrines. its pushing its opinion onto the kids etc. Its brwaking the very law it invented in the 1900's.
Where is my reasoning wrong here???
The state just cant teach religion period, its not saying it is wrong by not teaching it it just cant teach it if it would it would be braking your constitution. Now as for your cults silly way to get trough the back door well its not science and if it is not science then it is religion and the state cannot teach religion.
Re: "Creation Science" should have its own science class
Or, "The question on the final will be 'How did God do it?' Write on no more than two sides of the paper."
Day 1 he made the light noone knows where it came from cause there where no stars yet Day 2 he made some land water was alredy there Day 3 he made plants noone knows how they could have grown cause no sun yet Day 4 he made the stars it only took him 1 day cause he is god and the fact that there are billions of stars and planets out there matters not he just took his time with erth dint take his time with the stars or he pulled an allnighter day 5 he made animals like they are today Day 6 he made man day 7 he had to rest
Well it comes down to once again if IS the state in banning creationism making a statement its false and if in teaching contrary ideas , evolution, is it making a statement on religion.
No its like this
Evolution = Scienece Creationism, id .... = not science and if it is not science it is religion in essence ANTI-SCIENCE
This by teaching opposite ideas to Genesis and second by banning genesis.
Im so sorry to disappoint you but genesis, creationism, ID,are not accurate explanations of REALITY based on evidence and experimentation. EVOLUTION is!
It is not the states fault that your religions views on "origins" are completely wrong, and if you want the state to teach inaccurate representations of reality, then why stop with creationism demand that they teach Intelligent pulling side by side with gravity, demand that they teach the existence of "cold" particles re add them to the periodic table of elements next to the theory that cold is the absence of heat, teach the flath earth theory also in geography, teach that sin causes sickens alongside medicine .....
If creationism has the right to be taught in science classes then so do all of these theories and more, and if evolution has no right to be taught in science classes then so does no other science field.
Do you really want to live in a country where doctors cant be taught medicine, or where doctors can instead of the medicine you need prescribe you a visit to the priest to repent and say you will be all better afterwards if god wants it or if he does not youl die.
Ive set out an argument which states that creationism cannot fail because it is based in the observation of order, law and purpose in the reality of the natural world.
Well creationist claims fail allot when you compare them to reality here you have a list of creationist claims and their rebuttals id copy paste the list but its way to long.
Creationism is explanatory. It can accommodate all the results of evolution and more. In particular, it can also explain the results of a designer.
rebuttal
Accommodation is very different from explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way and not another. A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities. Accommodating all possibilities also makes a theory exactly useless. Since creationism accommodates all possibilities, it is not explanatory.
AND
Intelligent design theory is science.
rebuttals
1. The terms used in design theory are not defined. "Design", in design theory, has nothing to do with "design" as it is normally understood. Design is defined in terms of an agent purposely arranging something, but such a concept appears nowhere in the process of distinguishing design in the sense of "intelligent design." Dembski defined design in terms of what it is not (known regularity and chance), making intelligent design an argument from incredulity; he never said what design is.
A solution to a problem must address the parameters of the problem, or it is just irrelevant hand waving. Any theory about design must somehow address the agent and purpose, or it is not really about design. No intelligent design theorist has ever included agent or purpose in any attempt at a scientific theory of design, and some explicitly say they cannot be included (Dembski 2002, 313). Thus, even if intelligent design theory were able to prove design, it would mean practically nothing; it would certainly say nothing whatsoever about design in the usual sense.
Irreducible complexity also fails as science because it, too, is an argument from incredulity that has nothing to do with design.
2. Intelligent design is subjective. Even in Dembski's mathematically intricate formulation, the specification of his specified complexity can be determined after the fact, making "specification" a subjective concept. Dembski now talks of "apparent specified complexity" versus "actual specified complexity," of which only the latter indicates design. However, it is impossible to distinguish between the two in principle (Elsberry n.d.).
3. Intelligent design implies results that are contrary to common sense. Spider webs apparently meet the standards of specified complexity, which implies that spiders are intelligent. One could instead claim that the complexity was designed into the spider and its abilities. But if that claim is made, one might just as well claim that the spider's designer was not intelligent but was intelligently designed, or maybe it was the spider's designer's designer that was intelligent. Thus, either spiders are intelligent, or intelligent design theory reduces to a weak Deism where all design might have entered into the universe only once at the beginning, or terms like "specified complexity" have no useful definition.
4. The intelligent design movement is not intended to be about science. Phillip Johnson, who spearheaded and led the movement, said in so many words that it is about religion and philosophy, not science (Belz 1996).
The problem with your statement is that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING POINTING TO ANY CREATOR OR DESIGNER.
Typs like you usualy say nothing can come from nothing so you need a creator well where did the creator come from? oh he is eternal dude he needs no creation. why cant the multi verse be eternal and our universe just a production of that multiverse
You say life is too complex it needs a designer well it has one its called evolution no need for a magical unicorn up in the sky.
you say that order needs a designer why? Order cant arise on its own if you throw a coin up in the sky it will land on heads 50% of the time thats kind of orderly isnt it.
Law as in natural law needs a designer? Why i see 2 possibilities out of numerus universes we happen to be one that is in the ballpark range for life why ours you say well if we where in one that did not have the "right" mix of natural laws we would not be able to ask the question or the other possibility is that the natural laws cannot be any different so fare i saw no evidence that they can be.
If you look at reality for what it is you will see that there is no need for a creator, if you look at it trough bible glasses and a brainwashed mind little to no education then thunder is proof of god enough for you who else but him could be throwing thunderbolts around when he is angry. < ----- You are not objective and whiteout objectivity it is very hard to make theories of how reality works
there is no such thing as religious creationism, again, just another term to help explain the nature of things. there is only a physical explanation, rationally produced, that pitts itself against reality and the natural order
Well YEC goes against reality the second it says the Erth is 6000 years old. <--- explanation.
The purpose is the truth of origins about this or that. To say creationism is banned on subjects that are about truth discovery is a official state opinion creationism and so some religious doctrines are false. A clear line of reasoning.
No the state just cant condone religion being taught in school why look at your damm constitution. And if you do manage to get creationism in your class be prepared for 1000 of other religions pushing their stuff in and 1000 of protectors making religions up and pushing them in to our classes out of protest, i know i would if anyone had the bright idea of putting such gibberish in to our school system.
Besides being a silly lie, the above comment is not the point. its not a matter of your opinion about what reality has to offer, but what it will logically allow, given the available evidence and information.
Does reality alow for a creature that can suspend the laws of nature i have seen no evidence that it does so why do you keep insisting that there is a pink invisible fluffy bunny in the sky that made us.
Its is also not what you can prove, were it, evolution itself or evo by soley natural conclusions would fall to the same fate. its only what can be demonstrated from a scientific approach, which ID and creationism accomplish , having nothing to with religion or the spiritual
You are right to the point where ID and creationism use the scientific approach because that is an outright lie.
Scientific method in its basic form * Ask a Question * Do Background Research * Construct a Hypothesis * Test Your Hypothesis by Doing Experiments * Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion * Communicate Your Results
at best creationism and id get to step 3. Show me some id or creationism experiments that would support id or creationism show me peer rewived papers done on id and creationism.
i can show you tones of experiments and papers supporting evolution.
Again you are geting involved in your opinions, not what is logically and scientifically demonstratable. When you can make this distinction, the light bulb will come on for you
So do it logically and scientifically demonstrate your creator you will get a Nobel prise 100% sure of it and you will get your mambo jumbo ideas in the classroom.
frako, stay with reality and that which is logically demonstratable, not opinions for or against frak my main man, why do you think there are only two scientific logical possibilites. because this is what reality and science will allow. dont get caught up in terms, they are not reality
Evolution is not an opinion it is demonstrate it has been tested for at least 100 years, every piece of new evidence we find supports it.
You are not living in reality you are living in your own little world in your own little head where if you cant understand something then it must be wrong and your ideas are correct. Show me the evidence show me the experiments show me the papers on ID and createnism.
frako, dont be simplistic, be completely rational. Creationism is a rational scientific explanation of only two possible solutions, as such it should be included in any scientific approach. there is no possible way for you to win this argument,
As i have shown you above creationism and ID do not come close to being called science, and there are not only 2 possible solutions it is not if evolution is wrong creationism or ID wins by default there are tones of other explanations that would fit better with the FATCS.
due to the fact you are in contention with reality and rational not simply a theory
I am not rational ???? am i the one claiming that the world and everything in our universe was created by a designer because everything is so complex????? Do you know how complex a being would have to be to make our complex world ??? And he is the exception to the rule ???? And you make this statement whiteout any evidence without any facts whiteout any experimentation claim it is science like science is making shit up along the way and ignoring evidence when it does not fit.
If I where a doctor and you where my patient the next time you would come for a flue shot i would not give you one teech the controversy well the flue mutates and EVOLVES so you need a shot every year if you want to stay immune. You dont believe in evolution no shot for you. If you needed an antibiotic i would prescribe penicillin there is no such thing as evolution right so the particular strain that you have could not have evolved a resistance to penicillin so it should help you.
And if you are one of those who believe that the bible is 100% true then i would infect you with leprosy i would not even give you the old cure for leprosy lets not speak of the new one cause leprosy could not have evolved i would give you the bible cure i would take 2 pigeons kill one dip the other in its blood and sprinkle the blood all over you the bible says you will be cured i say you might contract some other desiese but who cares lets teach the controversy.
The scientific Method saves lives it brings food on your table it gave you the comforts you now have including the PC you are writing on and you and all the other creos have the ordasity to make shit up and call it science because the reality does not fit with your particular belief if it where up to me i would shut the power down to your homes forbid you to buy any tech fuel .... How long would your version of the scientific method need to get us to the scientific progress of today, lets check the last time it was in use we call those times the DARK AGES nothing of use was invented by your method only LOST.
frako, Im not defending creo and ID to see if they pass the present day method and explanation of what constitues science.
Ok ql though this method is very old the foundation of science and that NULLIFIES the second statement you made.
ID and Creationism does not come close to WHAT SCIENCE IS OR EVER WILL BE. AND THEY ARE NOT DEMONSTRATABLE OBSERVABLE.
While both of us dont agree or like the conclusions of eachothers ideologies and examinations, both are atleast tenative scientifc approaches to explanations
Well the thing about science it involves experiments and lots of study and if 2 scientists would disagree on something they would devise an experiment to test witch of their conclusions is right. And the resoults of that experiment would prove witch scientist is correct. CAN YOU THINK OF AN EXPERIMENT THAT WOULD SHOW YOUR CONCLUSIONS TO BE CORRECT AND DISPROVE MY CONCLUSIONS??
Yes about things that are dicoverable and nothing more, so what. if enough "scientists" agree that order and law exist in the universe and they are using a scientific approach, is this sufficient to enough reason for them to conclude design. Ofcourse it is Would they be doing science, sure they would?
Im not saying your method is invalid, im saying your requiring conclusions of myself, you do not require for yourselves
You dont understand that your methods cannot produce anymore than anyother basic scientific approach. You will find more details but it wont be anything more than a simple observation, experimentation and examination
thats all science is at its core
AND SCIENCE WORKS, YOUR ID AND CREATIONISM DOES NOT WE HAD YOUR APPROACH TO DETERMINING REALITY IT LASTED ALMOST 1000 YEARS WE CALL THOSE TIMES THE DARK AGES. SCIENECE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR ONLY 300 YEARS AND LOOK AT WHERE IT GOT US SO STOP DISHING SCIENCE AND STOP DEGRADING IT TO YOUR SIMPLE WIVES OF THE WORLD.
ID AND CREATIONISM ARE NOT SCIENCE THEREFORE DO NOT BELONG IN A CLASSROOM AND ARE NOT A VIABLE MEANS OF UNDERSTANDING REALITY!!!!!!
Its just that willfully ignorant people drive me up the wall, especially arrogant ones, that keep insisting that something is science when it is clearly not, because by doing that they are belittling actual science the work that goes in to it, the progress it has brought us completely ignoring where humanity was before science.
I would have no problem with ID if it actually presented any tangible evidence, i would have no problem with it if it substantiated its claims by experimentation. But what it is actually doing is saying well we want you to teach the stork theory along with the birth theory because it is fair and the stork theory is science and the birth theory has faults in it and there is plenty of evidence for stork theory just look at all the storks making their nests up on chimneys.
We know where that kind of thinking got us you have a tooth ache well let me put a hot poker in your ear sure your ear hurts like hell and you might die of infection but my cure works you no longer feel the tooth pain it is science. And yes this "cure" and many others similar where used in the past because they did not need to apply the scientific method to make up their "science".
And we know that when such silly ideas come on to the forum of our understanding they lead down a very steep hill to the dark ages. we have 2 historical roads that lead down that path. Europe when Christianity took over the abundance of scientific knowledge that was built up by the roman empire was lost, things like its good to take a bath every day, pluming, even a form of steam engine was invented. And the Muslims during the dark ages they where beacon of scientific understanding of the world look at where those countries are now. The creationists and ID ists want to take us down that road again willfully or un-willfully just as long as their precious beliefs in some imaginary being can stay safe.
™ Version 4.2
