BF2S Forums Creationism, bollox or bollox?

I didnt say i was giving you scientific evidence, i said there was some to back it up. I did read it. I know, if you dont believe in evolution your a bad scientist and nothing you say can be right. He doesnt start off by saying they dont have a testable process, he says that they dont use one enough. Your right, darwinian theory cannot and doesnt predict scientific discoveries. God cannot be tested, but everything else in the physical world can. And it points to a creator. If you want scientific evidence for creatoin you should study these events that they predicted should be there and were.

transcendent creation event
cosmic fine-tuning
fine-tuning of the earth's, solar system's, and Milky Way Galaxy's characteristics
rapidity of life's origin
lack of inorganic kerogen
extreme biomolecular complexity
Cambrian explosion
missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record
fossil record reversal
frequency and extent of mass extinctions
recovery from mass extinctions
duration of time windows for different species
frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
speciation and extinction rates
recent origin of humanity
huge biodeposits
Genesis' perfect fit with the fossil record
molecular clock rates

Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-06-03 13:23:46)

creationalism deems the world to be 6010 years old accoriding to Arch bishop Ussher.
however creationalism also deems it to be millions of years old. There are 2 ways of looking at it young earth creationalists and old earth. It is not dnagerous. However i feel it is important that bth sides are told. Steady state, continous expansion or the big bang or creationalism have yet to be proved. Therefore teaching all of them seems to be a good way of doing it. Missing out the religous area would just produce ignorant students as the would not know about something that billions believe in.

I admire your tenacity Marconius, but I've found that arguing with Jamdude is like boxing a boulder. Nobody wins, and all you're left with is aching hands and a lingering sense of futility.

lowing wrote:

Skruples wrote:

I admire your tenacity Marconius, but I've found that arguing with Jamdude is like boxing a boulder. Nobody wins, and all you're left with is aching hands and a lingering sense of futility.

But I guess that wouldn't go BOTH ways huh???

I imagine it does. All I can say is having intelligent arguments continuously sidestepped or ignored begins to tire rather quickly.

Marconius wrote:

EDIT: @OpsChief - Sorry, that link was posted for the general public...the problem is that we have so many people like that woman in America today who represent the Extreme side of the "christian right" that are trying to remove science itself from schools.

The Scientific Method was not a god-inspired concept in the least.  It spawned from Egyptian and Greek processes that were used to define common sense and every-day phenomenons.  Move that up to Descartes, Galileo, and Pierce properly beginning to write out how thoughts should be organized, and how to properly define and explain something that can be proven later if the need be.  Wee bit of history on it here.

I apologize if I was harsh.  To "Godwin" a thread is to initiate Godwin's law, about how almost any online discussion will eventually have Hitler, Nazis, or the Holocaust brought up in it to varying degrees.  It just wsn't a very good way of bringing about your point of checks and balances in society.  I agree that checks and balances are needed, but not to the point where you start taking science out of a scienc classroom.

Marco, lol np about the religious extremists m8 - any extremist is hard to take as far as i am concerned.

The scientific method is inspired by God. Read your wiki link   (take care with the definitions of God). There is more elsewhere but I need to find it. In summary during the days of Ancient Egypt where the scienctific method is supposed to find its roots, inventions, talents and etc where attibuted to various Godly inspirations or interventions. Follow the links on 3000B.C., Ptah and you will find gods involved everywhere. Even the founders of some schools of thought were at least half-gods and at least one was promoted to godhood later on because of his tremendous impact.

I think reminding people of extreme examples of mindless trust is a good thing. I wasn't using it to gain advantage by insinuation. So we can disagree on that point, I do understand your reasons and I am not always the doom prophet lol

Last edited by OpsChief (2006-06-03 20:19:04)

Adams_BJ wrote:

what is creationism?

There are variations but for a few definitions follow the links earlier in the thread.

I always love seeing you post TrollmeaT - your sig always makes me chuckle

JaMDuDe wrote:

No it cant. Life cannot come from non-life. "It can be done if the circumstances allow" means if something made and controlled perfect conditions for life to form and controlled how the amino acids and everything came together, then some life may form.

To say we made God and think that the universe made itself out of nothing is foolish. Scientists say there had to be an initial creation.

Dude, I am sick and tired of your blatant, assumptious nature. Before you go spouting off, had you ever cared to sit for a brief moment of contemplation and? Organic material can spawn from inorganic material, and thus, life. Go look up the Miller experiment. Is it not typical of the simple minded to just shout out "God did it!" when they haven't the awareness of an actual, observable answer? How hard is it to understand that all that is has had to have just existed at some point in time? YOU DO NOT NEED TO THROW OUT FLAGRANT, INANE GUESSES AS TO HOW THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED. By this point, even after my restating this at least twice, I'm amazed at your inability to comprehend that one single, important aspect.

lowing wrote:

Xietsu wrote:

Well apparently that wasn't the case. You said "Animals react to instinct, humans make conscience choices". Apart from not even making the proper reference to your intended concept of conscious (you know, you and your thoroughly suck-ass spelling ), it's incorrect nonetheless.

NO I meant conscience as in an awareness choices. We think about a problem and react to it....we build better tools that make life easier.....monkeys have been using a stick since the beginning of time. Animals will react scared even when it isn't logical for them to do so.It is their instinct taking over.We react differently depending on the variables of a situation. An animal will ALWAYS react with a survival instinct regardless of the variables.

Conscience....as in the ability to make decisions based on feelings as well as facts

What we do is always instinct as well. Instinct is making use of your sensual facilities as experience has developed (to the degree allowed). You do in fact mean consciousness and not conscience. The idea of the conscience is relevant to the sensation aroused by a moral doing. The point is that animals can not conceptualize, but that they do in fact have consciousness.

Is creationism bollocks ?
I'd never heard of it before
but i found this and after watching it
i would say , ITS A BIG HAIRY NACKER OF A BOLLOCK.
do they teach this drivel in schools in the USA
please say no.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … ad+as+hell

tonybls12 wrote:

Is creationism bollocks ?
I'd never heard of it before
but i found this and after watching it
i would say , ITS A BIG HAIRY NACKER OF A BOLLOCK.
do they teach this drivel in schools in the USA
please say no.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … ad+as+hell

As for the US...

The US has educational and legislative bodies have been scared shitless by the extremists in the country, so
they teach Evolution as but a 'theory' (which saddens me).

The religeous right has come up with 'Intelligent Design' which wraps the voodoo of creationism in a veil of scientific wording (I can put a hat on a poodle - it's still a poodle)

More analytical and even minded individuals have managed to stem the tide of 'Intelligent Design' being brought into the public school system - although it keeps popping up. 

I for one, as a responsible and caring parent, will _not_ stand for anything along it's lines being taught to my children.  Do I want them to know the theory of God? Of course.  I urge that they do, I believe my children and all children should be allowed to pursue their faith and beliefs unadulterated with heresay, rumor, myth, and folklore.

I sound biased, I sound athiestic : Here's my honest position.  Believe what you will - knock yourself out.  For me, if you are a good person and religeon gets your there : I commend and admire you.

You tell my children, or your children, or any child that God is a scientific fact? Well then - yer just an asshole zealot too afraid to manage your own destiny, be solely responsible  for your own life, and to stop meddling in other peroples lives - to go so far as to take advantage of a child, who lacks the ability to evaluate such a complex concept, to de facto brainwash them simply so they believe what you believe.. its shameful and, in my humble opinion, humanly revolting.

Now... ask me about Sunday School.....

Last edited by DeadJim (2006-06-04 01:27:10)

teehee1988 wrote:

OpsChief wrote:

Teehee,

just like science not eveyone agrees on the various prevailing opinions, fortunately. If some people think the world is 6k old they are entitled, but that opinion is based on literal reading of the testaments. That literalism seems extremely hubrisic to me but thankfully represents only a portion of people of faith and they don't speak for me! lol

i realise that. However a great many people do. Why thankfully? What if they are right?
I am not saying they are, but what if they are?
I consider it the right thing to do to teach these theories then people can make up their own minds. Letting them grow up with just theories we consider to be plausable just cannot be the right way about it.

Letting people make up their own minds is one thing. Telling children that God is on the same level as observable phenomena such as physics is quite another. Personally I consider teaching a child about God one of the gravest intellectual sins, as you deprive that child of the chance to make their own decisions. Most of the die-hard christians I've met got their start as children.

Faith in God is one thing. Faith in God because you were indoctrinated at an age when you were incapable of making intelligent decisions about the nature of God is quite another. Religion has no place in schools. I hope that one day religion will be kept away from children in general, but I fear that day will not come for quite some time.

Skruples wrote:

teehee1988 wrote:

OpsChief wrote:

Teehee,

just like science not eveyone agrees on the various prevailing opinions, fortunately. If some people think the world is 6k old they are entitled, but that opinion is based on literal reading of the testaments. That literalism seems extremely hubrisic to me but thankfully represents only a portion of people of faith and they don't speak for me! lol

i realise that. However a great many people do. Why thankfully? What if they are right?
I am not saying they are, but what if they are?
I consider it the right thing to do to teach these theories then people can make up their own minds. Letting them grow up with just theories we consider to be plausable just cannot be the right way about it.

Letting people make up their own minds is one thing. Telling children that God is on the same level as observable phenomena such as physics is quite another. Personally I consider teaching a child about God one of the gravest intellectual sins, as you deprive that child of the chance to make their own decisions. Most of the die-hard christians I've met got their start as children.

Faith in God is one thing. Faith in God because you were indoctrinated at an age when you were incapable of making intelligent decisions about the nature of God is quite another. Religion has no place in schools. I hope that one day religion will be kept away from children in general, but I fear that day will not come for quite some time.

i see your point yes.
However couldn't it be seen the other way as well?
Couldn't introducing children to science be just as dangerous? as if they simply place their faith in science isnt that just as blind as placing all your faith in religion?
religion has no place in school, that i would disagree with. Religion expans a persons knowledge. And for someone to grow up in school without knowledge of any of it would simply produce very ignorant children.