Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
26 online now:
Diomedes, GDR, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin), vimesey (6 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,874 Year: 16,910/19,786 Month: 1,035/2,598 Week: 281/251 Day: 9/43 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 331 (120237)
06-30-2004 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by almeyda
06-16-2004 12:55 AM


quote:
I have yet to see real science support the belief of a religon besides the Bible.
Actually, REAL science disagrees with much of the Bible, and certainly with the literal reading of Genesis 1.

Anyway, if you want scientific description of how we got here, then you would have to use science, rather than ANY religion. If you want to use religion, then you are not using science, and therefore it doesn't matter how scientifically aligned the stories are; the only thing that matters is whether they are religious or not.

Are you trying to say that you want creation myth taught in school, but only YOUR version thereoff? That would directly violate the First Amendment to the US Constitution. If that is what you want, then it has to happen in another country.

quote:
Creationists show how fossils, young earth, natural selection, complexity, flood evidence, dinasaurs, design, uniqueness of the Bible & Jesus etc are all consistent with the Bible.
Actually, they don't. They make CLAIMS tot hat extend, but what they have showed us sofar is merely wishful thinking, evidence in the form of "because I say so" or in the form of "it is so because I wish it to be so, and that should be enough evidence." As such, your claim of creationists showing this is frankly outright false.
quote:
If there is Muslim or Hindu qualified scientist doing this also then they should have a right to teach scientific creation.
Given that there are no qualigfied creationist scientists doing so either, your argument essentially is that creationists shouldn't be allowed to teach either. Hmm...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by almeyda, posted 06-16-2004 12:55 AM almeyda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by almeyda, posted 07-04-2004 1:20 AM Steen has responded

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 331 (121894)
07-04-2004 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by almeyda
07-04-2004 1:20 AM


More creationist falsehoods
quote:
Actually, no science disagrees with the Bible, only evolution which is a theory on how things have came to be through natural processes without a designer.
An outright falsehood. Geology disagrees with the Bible. Astronomy disagrees with the Bible. Physics disagrees with the Bible. Biology disagrees with the Bible. Chemistry disagrees with the Bible. And so on. You know, there is no need to lie about science; it merely makes you seem less credible.
quote:
Creation is the science of a religion,...
Not really, "Creation" is a story of the origin of the world and of us. Now, "creationism" is claimed to be a science, but given its near-constant violation of the Scientific Method, that claim is an outright lie. Creationism is claimed to be a science despite violating just about every rule there is to violate about science.
quote:
...use real science to see if our Bible relates to the facts of reality and is consistent with the facts of reality.
Well, THAT has been done, and "real science" has disproved many of the tings in the stories of the Bible
quote:
quote:
Given that there are no qualigfied creationist scientists doing so either, your argument essentially is that creationists shouldn't be allowed to teach either. Hmm...
Ahh yes the old creationists are not scientist argument.
Well, that is a fact, per the creationists violating the Scientific method.
quote:
Have a quick check of this link and then tell me there are no real scientist who believe in creation.
Yes, none of them publish scientific material about evolution or creationism in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
quote:
Creationism has been pushed away from mainstream science as it deals with a designer.
Nope. If you could prove this designer, then there would be no problem with it being mainstream science. It is not that it deals with a designer, but rather that it makes un-scientific claims, claims that can not be proven or disproven. As such, the claims and the foundation for this BELIEF is not scientific. I must conclude that YOU also don't really know what science is, then?
quote:
A bias has arisen since Darwin which is strictly naturalism.
More false claims. The bias is in the mechanisms of science, of working on what can be observed and meassured rather than relying on Faith. This is an advance that dates back to the Greeks, to accepting what could be observed, even if it went against the "The God's made it happen" beliefs of its day. Yes, The antiquity had its fundamentalists as well. We see it later with Kopernicus publicizing the findings of the Earth actually rotating around the Sun, which at that time ALSO was objected to by the fundies, by the creationist literalists. And we have seen it ever since, this objection, every time the Scientific Method of observation of actual data has been applied. All scientific discovery has been made DESPITE the objections by the religious literalists, those whose faith is so weak that it is based on "proof" of God's existence rather than just Faith. They, and apparently you, are the ones who need a tangible God, those who need a "Golden Calf" to justify their faith.
quote:
Therefore anything about a designer is considered supernatural and not science.
Not if you could PROVE a designer. But sofar, the arguments for a designer HAVE BEEN supernatural, and yes, supernatural events are not science. They can not be explored throguh the Scientific Method. Is that a weakness of science, this insistence on facts and observable data? perhaps, but that IS what science does, evaluating observations through the Scientific Method. You might object to the method, but you can not justify calling something "science" if it doesn't confirm to the Scientific Method. As such, your claim is invalid.
quote:
This is a biasness, not a take on what science is and what science isnt.
Nope, your claim is an outright falsehood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by almeyda, posted 07-04-2004 1:20 AM almeyda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by JRTjr, posted 09-12-2004 8:14 PM Steen has not yet responded

  
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 responded

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019