Oddworld Forums
1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Oddworld Forums (http://www.oddworldforums.net/index.php)
-   Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.oddworldforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Creationism Your thoughts (http://www.oddworldforums.net/showthread.php?t=16195)

Havoc 10-25-2007 06:03 PM
:
()
No it isn't. And even if it were: what on earth do you mean by that? On what level are we talking here? A religious person denies the boiling point of water?
There is a very long paragraph after that sentence and if you would have bothered to read more then just what you need to bash me, you would have known exactly what I meant by that. But, just for you:

What I mean by that is that religion, as a system, is not based on science. There are no scientific facts in the bible that support the existence of god, there is no chapter explaining the physics of a prayer going to heaven and there is no page detailing exactly how many degrees Fahrenheit it is in Hell. The bible is a book full of nice stories on things that may or may not have happened but for which is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
The foundation of religion is that it's a belief, not a world wide fact. These people BELIEVE that the bible is a true story. Just like kids BELIEVE Santa is real. If the bible would have any scientific facts, it wouldn't be religion anymore. Hence, religion is by definition the absence of science. But if you want to, go look up the term religion and the term science in the dictionary and see what it says for them. Then try to see if you can take the description for science and put it under religion, see if it still makes sense.

Mutual Friend 10-26-2007 04:55 AM
:
()
There is a very long paragraph after that sentence and if you would have bothered to read more then just what you need to bash me, you would have known exactly what I meant by that.
Incorrect! I read all of your post, and the tone of my reply wasn't actually bashful, I did just wonder what you meant. Stop constantly trying to be on top, if only for the fact I've yet to see you succeed.

:
()
What I mean by that is that religion, as a system, is not based on science. There are no scientific facts in the bible that support the existence of god, there is no chapter explaining the physics of a prayer going to heaven and there is no page detailing exactly how many degrees Fahrenheit it is in Hell. The bible is a book full of nice stories on things that may or may not have happened but for which is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Which is all under the misassumption that religion is all about the fantasy elements when quite clearly, in practice, it isn't. Yus yus, it's all tied to God at the end of it, for which there is no scientific evidence (maybe BM can back me up here, and maybe he'll give us a long word associated with it). But acts of goodness are acts of goodness. I find people's absolutist and proscriptive views of religion (for instance, 'it isn't pick and choose, you know!') somewhat disheartening (heh!).

It isn't just like: I am a religious person, here's the part where I have my feet planted in the dirt, and here, here's where I believe in giant fairies wot live in my eyeballs.

There are scientists who are religious, who see science and marvel at the work of God. Fact. One you know, but it is fact. :)

Adder 10-26-2007 05:15 AM
:
()
What do you think of it being taught in schools, in actual science lessons?
It has a valid place. Evolution theory leaves a nice blank space about how the protocell developed; essentialy how life began, what the first cells evolved FROM.

:
Also what about it being "called" a science?
Well, we don't have any proof that the protocell existed, so it's as valid a theory as any other.

:
People say that Darwinism is utter crap (in many more words) and yet they belive god created mankind by adam and eve.
That is belief. Belief is not science. Science is theory, where the theory is accepted until either disproved (which won't happen until we find out where the protcell came from) or another theory that better fits the evidence is found (evolution has done this in the opinion of most scientists).

:
Do YOU belive it should be taught alongside "proper" sciences like biology or physics?
It is one theory present in biology on how life began. That is all. It should be taught and if used as an answer may be given marks. However, the idea of a "Creator" or "Designor" does not mean "God" (i.e. Jehovah, Jesus' father, Allah). It could have been someone else.


Now, that's the way my responce should be, since I'm learning chemical and pharmacutical sciences and have a little basis in biology and physics.

Here's where the US went wrong:

+ You CANNOT force a group of scientists to accept one theory. Theories are only based on observable evidence, or assumptions based on observations. Saying "This is the truth" is not science, unless it can be proved without the observer or assumption being required.

+ You CANNOT rule all other theories false unless you find a far better theory that can be backed up and that explains the faults in the older theories. This is why E = mc^2 is still accepted even though it is inacurate.

+ You cannot allow religious belief to affect science. This, however, swings both ways. religion and science are 2 different things, but both require belief. I follow the belief that, for example, electrons are wave particals. This could easily be wrong. I follow the belief that a piece of quartz in my pocket benifits me in some way. This could easily be wrong.

Final word: Science should not attack religious beliefs and religion should not attack scientific theory.


----
:
havoc

Religion is by definition the absence of science. It's the belief, blind belief, in something you hope is there but can't be totally sure off. No matter how you twist or turn it, no single belief system out there is based on facts, otherwise it wouldn't be religion anymore.
Just because you can't be sure it's there does not make it blind belief. There's a piece of quartz in my pocket. It makes me feel better when I feel bad. That may be a phycosomatic affect but it does not change my belief. And my belief is not blind since I can perceive the affect of the quartz. It is not scientific (to me it's metaphysical, literally "Beyond Physics"), but it is not blind belief.

Of course, anyone can say "That's stupid and can't possibly be true" and I'll accept that. I know what quartz is made of and how it interacts with matter. I know how my body interacts with its surroundings. I know that crystal should really have no effect.
But, I also know compressing quartz causes an electrical charge. I know electrical charges induce a magnetic field, and visa-versa. Therfore, EM radiation (photons) are being emmited by holding the quartz in my hand. EM raditation and magnetic fields have documented affects on people, so maybe my quartz can have some minor effect. There may be a scientific (as opposed to phychological) reason why my quartz makes me feel better.

Bullet Magnet 10-26-2007 02:46 PM
That post is full of bad science.

:
()
It has a valid place. Evolution theory leaves a nice blank space about how the protocell developed; essentialy how life began, what the first cells evolved FROM.
This is not surprising, since the theory of evolution is NOT, I repeat NOT about how life began in ANY way.

:
Well, we don't have any proof that the protocell existed, so it's as valid a theory as any other.
I refer you to the definition of scientific theory. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis.

:
Belief is not science. Science is theory, where the theory is accepted until either disproved (which won't happen until we find out where the protcell came from) or another theory that better fits the evidence is found (evolution has done this in the opinion of most scientists).
This is good. Except for the "protocell" thing, which is a hypothesis.

:
It is one theory present in biology on how life began.
It is nothing like a theory.

:
However, the idea of a "Creator" or "Designor" does not mean "God" (i.e. Jehovah, Jesus' father, Allah). It could have been someone else.
But they're not fooling anyone. ID is creationism repackaged to exclude direct Biblical references, because they failed to get creationism taught. Case in point: The textbook proposed by ID supporters, Of Pandas and People was shown to be a reprint of a book of the same name, with the words "creationism" and "God" replaced by "Intelligent Design" and "the designer" respectively. Nothing else had been altered. Oops.

:
+ You CANNOT force a group of scientists to accept one theory. Theories are only based on observable evidence, or assumptions based on observations. Saying "This is the truth" is not science, unless it can be proved without the observer or assumption being required.
Nothing can be proven, since proof exists only in mathematics.

:
+ You CANNOT rule all other theories false unless you find a far better theory that can be backed up and that explains the faults in the older theories. This is why E = mc^2 is still accepted even though it is inacurate.
Theories are only considered false if they have been falsified. Until then, Occam's Razor is employed, in that the simplest explanation that takes into account all of the observed facts is considered to be the best one. There are hardly any such examples of such competing theories currently in modern science (at least, none that many people will have heard of).

:
+ You cannot allow religious belief to affect science. This, however, swings both ways. religion and science are 2 different things, but both require belief. I follow the belief that, for example, electrons are wave particals. This could easily be wrong. I follow the belief that a piece of quartz in my pocket benifits me in some way. This could easily be wrong.
Science cannot require belief. The moment you invoke anything that requires anything more than observation, you have left science. That electrons are considered to have wave-particle duality is purely a product of their observed behaviour, and is part of quantum physics. I do not recommend tackling anything with the word "quantum" in it. It's weird, but since when was it selectively advantageous to have brains that can easily comprehend non-determinability?

:
Final word: Science should not attack religious beliefs and religion should not attack scientific theory.
QTF

:
Just because you can't be sure it's there does not make it blind belief.
We cannot be absolutely sure of anything. Technically. But if it is not based upon observation and is a testable principle then it is faith.

:
There's a piece of quartz in my pocket...etcetera...my quartz makes me feel better.
That is classic psychosomatic medicine. You perceive an effect that you assume to be the quartz, but that does not make it so. Quartz is piezoelectric, yes, but so is bone (due to the presence of apatite crystals) but leaning on my arm doesn't make me feel better. Though there is a hypothesis (that word again!) that these electromagnetic fields stimulate bone growth. The electromagnetic field generated by quartz is minuscule, and far from your brain. Any energy carried by the field is lost exponentially. You don't have anything to back up your particular explanation for the effect experienced, and you can devise no test that will test only your hypothesis, not the simpler one (psychosomatic) which Occam's Razor dictates we use for now. I'm not saying that your explanation is impossible, but when there has been no further investigation your preference for your hypothesis is indeed faith.

*spanked by the off-topic fairy*

Nemo 10-26-2007 02:52 PM
:
()
Also what about it being "called" a science?
It's not really a science, it's more of a belief.
Same with gravity.

Adder 10-27-2007 12:38 AM
:
()
This is good. Except for the "protocell" thing, which is a hypothesis.
The whole point I was trying to make is that if ID decided to say "God made the protocell" it would be as valid a hypothesis since it's a bit simpler than an oily bilayer with water and other elements inside spontaneously living. It's easier to understand and does not violate on of the key doctrines of biology, that "life does not come spontaneously from non-life".

:
Nothing can be proven, since proof exists only in mathematics.
This I also accept. Math is the only truth since numbers don't change and are completely devoid of the need of an observer (3 is 3, even if your not looking at it the right way).


:
Theories are only considered false if they have been falsified... There are hardly any examples of competing theories currently in modern science (at least, none that many people will have heard of).
String theory vs. "classical" quantum mechanics re the graviton.
...yeah, I see your point.


:
Science cannot require belief. The moment you invoke anything that requires anything more than observation, you have left science.
Exactly. But, since only math has proof and everything else is theory or hypothesis, how can I use theory to explain things scientifically? Surely I have to assume the theory is true. I have to accept/believe the theory. Or, I have to assume it is not true and find a new theory/belief.
I would say accepting any scientific theory as "true" is believing science. Not accepting new theories which go against the old ones occurs where scientists hold beliefs (best example: Einstein and quantum mechanics)

:
QTF
Fail. The idea that I science should force people to accept it is just as stupid as the idea that creationists should force people to accept ID. Leave faith alone, unless it's being forced down your throat or into your kids.


:
RE: Quartz
That is classic psychosomatic medicine. You perceive an effect that you assume to be the quartz, but that does not make it so.
True, but simple experimentation will show ME that the quartz needs to be there for any affect to be perceived. The assumption appears valid. The Null Hypothesis that "Quartz helps" is held.
Again, it is impossible for this to be considered science. As you said yourself, it is "faith". The idea I was trying to get across is that it is not blind faith. A colour-blind person may believe the sky is green. This would not be based on blind faith, but their personal observation. In both cases the observation may be flawed, but the belief (which by definition isn't science-based, but more based on observation) is based on SOMETHING. It is not blind faith.
People who say they've spoken to Jesus might honestly believe they have (and since you weren't there you can't be sure they have not, even though it's extremely unlikely). They do not need blind faith if they think (or have) spoken to a higher power calling itself JC.


:
It's not really a science, it's more of a belief.
Same with gravity.
Um... gravity exists. It's observable, calculable (to a degree) and we've a reasonable idea that it's caused by matter. The nitty-gritty stuff (i.e. the graviton) is still heavily theory {there's 2 big competing theories at least right now}. It is not a belief... unless you choose to believe one of the theories over a different one... or if you believe it's a pulling force, since it appears to be more of a pushing one.

Hobo 10-27-2007 01:45 AM
It's QFT not QTF

Havoc 10-27-2007 04:10 AM
Quote... the fuck?

Zerox 10-27-2007 08:54 AM
Thought about this alot more when I was much younger, but not less complex at all, being a demented little git.

The main (possibly only) thought of mine back then about Adam and Eve, Noah etc. was "So where are the Dinosaurs?"

Obviously I can think of many other problems now (Adam + Eve = Inbreeding = Whole population gets cancer = Death, as well as the fact they only had two sons...wtf) with those ideas. Religiously, I think ( as in this is 'official') that those older bible stories were a rough way of illustrating how God created things to the people of the time...though I'm still not sure. And that still wouldn't make much sense whatsoever.

The particular areas of the bible observed in this particular argument are among those parts of the bible which have the most holes in, making them completely and utterly wrong...

Main topic: Not fact. That's all we need to know.
When I think about it, how on earth do the teachers in these schools manage to teach Creationism scientifically anyway? It's a physical impossibility. I'd like to see a lesson.

Adder 10-27-2007 11:10 AM
You don't get cancer from inbreeding. You do get large amounts of mutations from a lack of genetic diversity which might result in more cancer... or genetic abnormalities resulting in death. There's an alternative story that God created other people as well, that he started with Woman which failed then tried again with Adam. Still, it's all pretty metaphorical.

:
It's QFT not QTF
If that true, lulz... and sry for flipping out.

Havoc: The difference would be "quoted for truth" and "quit talking, fag".
Reminds me of when 4chan "censored" FTW into SUCKS!

Nemo 10-27-2007 11:26 AM
:
()
Um... gravity exists.
Kay then, show me proof.

Bullet Magnet 10-27-2007 12:55 PM
:
()
The whole point I was trying to make is that if ID decided to say "God made the protocell" it would be as valid a hypothesis since it's a bit simpler than an oily bilayer with water and other elements inside spontaneously living. It's easier to understand and does not violate on of the key doctrines of biology, that "life does not come spontaneously from non-life".
But it does violate the key doctrine of science, which is falsifiability. Also, no one is suggesting that life spontaneously came from anything. The main point of abiogenesis hypotheses is to explain how non-living organic matter can gradate towards living structures. Invoking spontaneity is not an explanation.

:
This I also accept. Math is the only truth since numbers don't change and are completely devoid of the need of an observer (3 is 3, even if your not looking at it the right way).
That's not exactly what I meant, but, yeah. I was thinking of mathematical proofs.

:
Exactly. But, since only math has proof and everything else is theory or hypothesis, how can I use theory to explain things scientifically? Surely I have to assume the theory is true. I have to accept/believe the theory. Or, I have to assume it is not true and find a new theory/belief.
Proof does not exist, but evidence does! Evidence is what supports theories, but evidence is also what theories are explanations of.

:
I would say accepting any scientific theory as "true" is believing science.
We only accept any scientific as true until such time as it is shown to be otherwise. If it were faith then we would be certain of it, but scientifically speaking, we can never be certain. This is another case of a commonly used word having a different meaning in the scientific context.

:
Not accepting new theories which go against the old ones occurs where scientists hold beliefs (best example: Einstein and quantum mechanics)
Scientists are going to support theories based upon their own research. Sometimes different observations contradict earlier ones. This is when science undergoes one of its changes, it is why we have debates, it is why we repeat each other's experiments, it is why we have peer-reviews. It is when we try to solve the problem and come out with greater understanding of the particular field. This is what Einstein was doing when he searched for a Unified theory to reconcile the physics of the very large with the physics of the very small. He failed, and we now know that we cannot so easily do away with quantum physics. He was also old and a human being. People make mistakes! Again, that is why so many people are involved in the scientific method.

:
()
It's QFT not QTF
:
()
Quote... the fuck?
:
Fail. The idea that I science should force people to accept it is just as stupid as the idea that creationists should force people to accept ID. Leave faith alone, unless it's being forced down your throat or into your kids.
I ballsed that one up. I meant QFT.
:
If that true, lulz... and sry for flipping out.
Cool.

:
True, but simple experimentation will show ME that the quartz needs to be there for any affect to be perceived. The assumption appears valid. The Null Hypothesis that "Quartz helps" is held.
Which corresponds to the psychosomatic effect. If it is your belief that the quartz has the effect that actually creates the effect, of course it will only work when the quartz is there. You are as much the subject of the experiment as the quartz, and it does not do to be the subject of your own psychological investigation. You'd also need a placebo as a control, and for that to work you need to be unaware of the placebo (that was a peer-review of your experiment).

:
Again, it is impossible for this to be considered science. As you said yourself, it is "faith". The idea I was trying to get across is that it is not blind faith. A colour-blind person may believe the sky is green. This would not be based on blind faith, but their personal observation. In both cases the observation may be flawed, but the belief (which by definition isn't science-based, but more based on observation) is based on SOMETHING. It is not blind faith.
There may be an observation, but the explanation is indeed faith. We've all seen the Westboro Church claim that various deaths are somehow God's wrath for lax attitudes towards homosexuality. The observation exists (the deaths actually happened) but the explanation is completely unfounded, is not testable, defies all logic etc. This is where science deviates from faith- not at the observation, but at the explanation.

:
People who say they've spoken to Jesus might honestly believe they have (and since you weren't there you can't be sure they have not, even though it's extremely unlikely). They do not need blind faith if they think (or have) spoken to a higher power calling itself JC.
You cannot say that they have nor that they haven't. Not falsifiable, not science, faith. Again.

:
Um... gravity exists. It's observable, calculable (to a degree) and we've a reasonable idea that it's caused by matter. The nitty-gritty stuff (i.e. the graviton) is still heavily theory {there's 2 big competing theories at least right now}. It is not a belief... unless you choose to believe one of the theories over a different one... or if you believe it's a pulling force, since it appears to be more of a pushing one.
The effect of masses attracting other masses is an observation, and effect. Gravity and the explanations of of it are theory. It behaves as an attractive force.

:
()
Kay then, show me proof.
Proof does not exist! Only observational evidence!

Nemo 10-27-2007 01:31 PM
:
()
Proof does not exist!
Then I refuse to believe that it's proven!

Mutual Friend 10-27-2007 02:17 PM
This thread has officially jumped the shark.

Adder 10-28-2007 02:36 AM
I don't know... It's getting slightly into belief/faith (which is understandable) and slightly off-topic (which always happens).

And Nemo, if you're taking that attitude you will have to reject pretty much all science (since no matter how observably correct a theory is, it's still a theory) and rely purely on logic and mathematics to survive.

mudling 10-28-2007 02:49 AM
Actually, Creationism technically is a science, or sciences and religeon can be grouped together, as they are both explanations we use to explain.
Actually, we accept that nearly all science we know is wrong, in fact, that's the point, we keep on trying to get closer to the truth, by presenting more accurate theories with our increasing technoligies.
Take ancient science, when they thought the earth was the center of the galaxy/ universe, technically this was influenced by religeon (Even though it is never mentioned in the bible, so then again, technically it isn't) , but it was still science, and as proved, wrong, yet they thought and believed it was right at the time.
I don't think the theory of evolution is a complete load of crap, maybe mostly crap, but not completly, and that's becuase in how diverse things have become, how things have such design, and yet the similarites are astonishing with say a dolphin to a shark (You could say this is becuase they have adapted, but becuase the process is random, then why the hell are they so alike? Shouldn't there be much more different forms that are just as efficient).
For me the theory of evolution is full of wholes, like the theory that the universe can fold and through worms wholes we can go through the middle, the big bang theory has a few holes, but it seems more believable than the other previous two theories.
Never the less, I believe God created the universe, he could of created the big bang, and is behind the evolution and such, but I just can't believe this is all random.
Oh, and Science still hasn't come up with an answer on how to create life, and seems very far off, so Religeon is as real as Science if not more IMO.
Even if it did, that wouldn't even prove that our Religeons (Well Christianity, I'm not going to speak for the others ones becuase I don't know them that well) would be false.

Zerox 10-28-2007 04:31 AM
:
()
...and yet the similarites are astonishing with say a dolphin to a shark (You could say this is becuase they have adapted, but becuase the process is random, then why the hell are they so alike? Shouldn't there be much more different forms that are just as efficient).
It's called convergent evolution. Similar results have come about, partly through chance, and as presumably, more primitive designs happened to have similar adaptations earlier on, and eventually resulted in the same design. The process of evolution works through the species with better adaptations usually surviving. Sharks evolved an excellent design very early on, long before the dinosaurs, and thus it has changed relatively little over all this time, as it still functions very well in our modern times as it did back then. Dolphins evolved far more recently, and from completely different ancestors, that were originally land living mammals, but evolved similar traits (flaps of skin became fins, etc.), and so became their current form. Sharks and dolphins have more differences than similarities to each other, however.

Bullet Magnet 10-28-2007 06:40 AM
:
()
Actually, Creationism technically is a science, or sciences and religeon can be grouped together, as they are both explanations we use to explain.
No, Creationism is not a science because it does not conform to scientific requirements, as I have explained.

:
Actually, we accept that nearly all science we know is wrong, in fact, that's the point, we keep on trying to get closer to the truth, by presenting more accurate theories with our increasing technoligies.
Pretty close. We accept scienctific theories as being the best current explanation for the applicable natural phenomenons based upon the available evidence.

:
Take ancient science, when they thought the earth was the center of the galaxy/ universe, technically this was influenced by religeon (Even though it is never mentioned in the bible, so then again, technically it isn't) , but it was still science, and as proved, wrong, yet they thought and believed it was right at the time.
I guess, but then we have a prime example of the modern scientific method in action.

:
I don't think the theory of evolution is a complete load of crap, maybe mostly crap, but not completly, and that's becuase in how diverse things have become, how things have such design, and yet the similarites are astonishing with say a dolphin to a shark (You could say this is becuase they have adapted, but becuase the process is random, then why the hell are they so alike? Shouldn't there be much more different forms that are just as efficient).
The input is random, the process and output are not. Do not forget natural selection (that is the part that Darwin contributed after all). Similarities from convergent evolution are astonishing, but so are the differences retained. The fusiform shape is really the only body shape that works for pelagic organisms (we even use it for submarines). Most aquatic body shapes are variations of this design, from plesiosaurs through eels to squid.

:
For me the theory of evolution is full of wholes, like the theory that the universe can fold and through worms wholes we can go through the middle, the big bang theory has a few holes, but it seems more believable than the other previous two theories.
The argument from personal incredulity is about as watertight as a sponge.

:
I just can't believe this is all random.
No one believes it is all random. Do you understand evolution at all?

:
Oh, and Science still hasn't come up with an answer on how to create life, and seems very far off, so Religeon is as real as Science if not more IMO.
Not so far off as you think, actually. Besides, it is better to acknowledge our ignorance and then actively try to do something about it, than to embrace our ignorance and choose the first "explanation" that comes by regardless.

:
Even if it did, that wouldn't even prove that our Religeons (Well Christianity, I'm not going to speak for the others ones becuase I don't know them that well) would be false.
No it would not. Well, it would cause more problems for fundies, but since when did they care what science has discovered?

Nemo 10-28-2007 11:06 AM
:
()
And Nemo, if you're taking that attitude you will have to reject pretty much all science (since no matter how observably correct a theory is, it's still a theory) and rely purely on logic and mathematics to survive.
Yes I do.


D=<

Bitter Buffalo 10-28-2007 11:36 AM
Listen, people. Jesus loves you. Denying him and his glory will only cause you an eternity of pain. Return his love and joy will follow you all the days of your life.

Zerox 10-28-2007 12:48 PM
:
()
Listen, people. Jesus loves you. Denying him and his glory will only cause you an eternity of pain. Return his love and joy will follow you all the days of your life.
How can we return, or truly love someone, who we have got virtually nothing from, they haven't talked to us, we haven't seen them, or anything. It's somewhat impossible to feel that way about someone you've never seen or heard from, surely?

You really could have put that message so much less...spamlike. Sounds like a demented Catholic email, quite frankly. Seriously, reading it just sounds...retarded.

'Jesus loves you' okay, maybe. Where's the evidence for that?

We're hardly denying him totally, either.

Just saying that won't work. You may be able to say 'I am Catholic, I believe in Jesus', but then, deep down at your center, do you truly believe what you are saying? No matter how much you try to persuade yourself, do you really feel like that? Do you believe it really? basically, your subconscious. It's almost impossible to force yourself to feel that way.

And surely only believing in Jesus/God for the sake of not wanting to go to Hell (if it does in fact exist), would basically be only fooling yourself, and wouldn't really be truly believing as I said above, so telling someone to believe in Jesus on those grounds is, ultimately, PHAIL.

Bitter Buffalo 10-28-2007 01:08 PM
He talks to us all the time. Through our hearts.

Mac Sirloin 10-28-2007 01:20 PM
:
()
Listen, people. Jesus loves you. Denying him and his glory will only cause you an eternity of pain. Return his love and joy will follow you all the days of your life.
You blind follower fucks make me sick, you think that by spewing this garbage to everyone else means thet you're a btter person, but you aren't.

Mullet God is displeased.

Nate 10-28-2007 01:32 PM
Whooo... Keep it on topic people. We're here to discuss Creationism, not the existence or love-life of any deity.

Hobo 10-28-2007 03:02 PM
I, for one, agree with Bitter Buffalo

used:) 10-28-2007 07:44 PM
I think creationism should be given the chance to be studied in public schools as an elective but not as a required class. My World Cultures class is almost like Religious Studies as we've been learning much on Islam and all of its goods and bads for history. I think "Religious Studies" is more appropriate. "Creationism" has always had a very Christian connotation for me.

Bullet Magnet 10-28-2007 08:33 PM
That is the difference between teaching Genesis as science, and learning about the world religions, which is what I did at school.

Salamander 10-28-2007 10:39 PM
:
()
believe in Jesus
You really have to put that in context, that can mean more than one thing. It can mean "I believe that Jesus lived" or "I believe that Jesus is God's son and I worship him".

Anywho, Creationism shouldn't be taught in science, it is a belief, it is not a scientific theory. Creationism should be taught as an alternate to evolution, but not in a science class.

mudling 10-29-2007 12:46 AM
Actually Zerox, technically we have got everything from him, since through his sacrifice we can live on forever (Through heaven), rahter than just die as the punnishment for sin is. Also, due to the triolgy thing, some argue that Jesus is God, or a part of God, as is the Holy Spirit and therefore technically Jesus created everything, I guess anyway.
On topic, I agree, creatism should be taught through religeous studies, which should be taught in all schools, yet optional in non religous schools, I guess, but it is important to understand other people's religeons in order to respect them.
Also, on the other hand, theories like the big bang theories and the theory or evolution maybe shouldn't be taught untill science becomes optional (Year 11 in Australia), aslong as they respect the facts that their theories could be false, and explain that it may not be correct, or at least don't completly deny or other theories and religeons.

Zerox 10-29-2007 04:11 AM
:
()
Actually Zerox, technically we have got everything from him, since through his sacrifice we can live on forever (Through heaven), rahter than just die as the punnishment for sin is. Also, due to the triolgy thing, some argue that Jesus is God, or a part of God, as is the Holy Spirit and therefore technically Jesus created everything, I guess anyway.
I understand that point, but can your true thoughts really be forced to believe that this all really happened, since pretty much the only way to know this is people telling you. And considering that almost all the people who say 'I love Jesus, believe in Him' to me are complete and utter retarded fags, quite frankly. Doesn't really inspire you to believe it...

On topic, not much can be said that hasn't already. Teach it in optional (curses, I'm in a Catholic school >.<) religion classes, but not as science, for it doesn't make sense. However they manage to make it look like it makes sense to the pupils...

Laser 10-29-2007 08:41 AM
what about creationism being taught in a totally different lesson altogether?

It can be called "religious sciences" and it is optional when you are allowed options :D

Zerox 10-29-2007 09:15 AM
:
()
what about creationism being taught in a totally different lesson altogether?

It can be called "religious sciences" and it is optional when you are allowed options :D
Creationism isn't nearly a large enough topic for a single lesson.

And regardless, that is not the best choice for a lesson name...still not scientific at all, is it?

Havoc 10-29-2007 10:28 AM
I dunno how creationism is taught in the first place. With science class I can understand how you can fill a few lessons with explaining how life began. How everything connected to each other and stuff like that. With creationism, how does that work? Same story with the words 'made by God' pasted at the end?

Also, and I can't believe I only come up with this now, doesn't creationism directly contradict the bible or am I confusing it with some other religion theory? As in, Adam and Eve were the first two people on the planet, but that doesn't fit the picture if the big bang is supposedly created by god in the first place. For that matter the world wasn't created in 6 days but in just 1, with a really big bang.

EDIT: Going on with a different thing, I just found this in the internet and I must say it reflects my view on the matter pretty clearly. I agree with most the things this guy says for that matter, it's getting scary :p.

:
Folks, we really need to make a concerted effort to extract our heads from our asses on this particular issue. If you support the idea of Intelligent Design being a part of high school science curriculum, then that strange smell you keep wondering about is your colon. Check your fiber intake while you're down there.

The Intelligent Design "Theory" is based on a philosophical premise called the "Telelogical Argument". Basically, this argument states that complexity implies a designer, the universe is complex, therefore the universe has a designer. As a philosophy major in college, this argument was a "point and laugh" issue even to most first year philosophy students. We wondered how it was ever considered valid enough to be written down at all, much less travel through the anals of history to be discussed to this very day. We theorized that perhaps it was chiseled on the same slab of stone with "Mary Had A Little Lamb", and we simply couldn't bring ourselves to throw away such a delightful little tune, regardless of the psudo-philosophical vomit that might have been written next to it.

The argument is terribly easy to destroy. In the first place, the idea that something complex requires a designer is nothing more than speculation. There's simply no evidence to support it. It's just an idea someone's brain puked up because it helped them convince people there is a God. Second, the concept of "complexity" resides entirely within human opinion. "The universe is complex! It must have a designer!" Because it's complex for you doesn't mean it's complex to everyone. In fact, if you believe everything around you is complicated, then it probably just means you're a moron.

Now, I personally don't care what cock-eyed, half baked horse shit people dream up to fool themselves into believing what they want about the universe. And proving that Intelligent Design is not science is child's play. But what I find distressing is the prevailing attitude in the US that the practice of "science" is whatever any turd-beaten yahoo believes it should be.

A great many level-headed people have said, "Intelligent Design should not be taught in science class because it isn't science." What could be more simple? What we forget is that the people who believe in Intelligent Design must, by default, believe that the universe caters to the ideas of man. This includes science. And the response comes back, "Well, I believe it is science!" After which the argument is tossed into the realm of personal opinion in which there is no possibility of right or wrong and we must then weigh what must be done based on the touchy-feely, neurotic sensabilities of the flag-waving, church-going majority.

The fist waving march of this self-serving bullshit must end. Period. "Science" has a definition. And that definition is not shaped by the fickle whimsey of whatever you and your inbred cousin believes it is. There is no "science" tailor made just for you. There is only science. You cannot produce a calculator and begin to add figures incorrectly, claim that "I believe this is math!" and have the PR coach of the day pat you on the back and re-assure you that everyone's ideas are equally as valid. Science is what it is, and if you believe it's something different, then the definition isn't changing for you. You're just wrong.

A "theory" is not a idea you had while scarfing down your chicken tikka marsala for lunch. We hear this on a daily basis. "I have this theory..." No, you don't. A theory is a scientific model that can be backed with evidence and be able to be falsified. The "Intelligent Design Theory" is not a theory, as there is never the possibility that it can be falsified. It doesn't matter what you believe a theory should be. It's not even the "Intelligent Design Hypothesis". An hypothesis must be able to be tested! It's the "Intelligent Design Shit-That-Someone-Dreamed-Up" and nothing more!

Putting aside how valid Intelligent Design may or may not be, it can be shown, without a doubt, that it is not science. In science class, we don't put down our science books periodically to sing a number from "My Fair Lady". We don't suddenly have our papers graded on the basis of how well we design our sentense structure and spelling. Science is taught in science class. And the very notion that "junk philosophy" can and should be nudged into the science curriculum is suggestve that science is simply another unfalsifiable practice, the borders of which blur at the whim of whatever unsubstanciated explanations of the universe that care to rub shoulders with it. It is an outright insult to everything that science stands for.

Folks, Intelligent Design is simply a spiritual penis measuring contest. It's not enough that religious ideas are taught in their own classes. Imaginary bullshit must be tossed in with empirical scientific methods to suggest that "our religious ideas are just as valid as your science". If all the faith-based groups wanted was to have children given "alternative ideas" about where the universe might have come from, they could have it inserted into a number of courses under which it would be valid material. The insistence that Intelligent Design be taught in science class, even though it is not science is simply an attempt to slap science in the face and secure the fears that our children won't grow up to possibly reject the frightened-cave-man explanations of the universe that have made us feel comfortable all our lives.

If it were any other ideas than Christian ones, no one would even think about introducing them into a science class. And personally, I'm completely appauled and somewhat terrified that the very definition of "science" has become a dictate of the moral majority.

- 2 Gryphon

Bullet Magnet 10-29-2007 01:28 PM
:
()
Also, on the other hand, theories like the big bang theories and the theory or evolution maybe shouldn't be taught untill science becomes optional (Year 11 in Australia), aslong as they respect the facts that their theories could be false, and explain that it may not be correct, or at least don't completly deny or other theories and religeons.
Have you read a single post of mine in this topic? Bloody hell. Bloody hell!

:
()
Generic awesomeness
Win.

mudling 10-30-2007 10:21 PM
Hmm, guess I'm wrong.
I don't accept the genisis as fact, I accept it on stories which meaning's are true, and could be based on true stories, like most of the Old Testament.
That being said, I still beleave in God.
So no, creatism shouldn't be taught as it's own subject, but part of religous studies, sure. ;)
So, Havoc, according to my beliefs, God could of created the big bang.

Zerox 10-31-2007 09:57 AM
:
()
Also, and I can't believe I only come up with this now, doesn't creationism directly contradict the bible or am I confusing it with some other religion theory? As in, Adam and Eve were the first two people on the planet, but that doesn't fit the picture if the big bang is supposedly created by god in the first place. For that matter the world wasn't created in 6 days but in just 1, with a really big bang.
The Big Bang theory was come up with by Steven Hawking (who's awesome), and he wasn't around when the Bible was written. Some Christians believe that God created the Big Bang, in preference to some the absolutely ridiculous ideas of Creationism (in scientific terms, that is...though not all of it is science. It is a blatant fact that inbreeding causes problems.) Therefore, that's why Creationism doesn't fit with that.

And one thing while I remember, the Bible's kinda contradictory. God is God. God is everything, literally, and can do anything. So why would it take 6 days to create the Universe? Why would he need to rest, if he's God? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever...

mudling 11-01-2007 12:40 AM
If he's God, we can't he force us to beleave in him?
That we know, free will.
Why did he gives us free will?
We know that too, and you can go on untill you find an answered question, and maybe it's better for us not to know, and besides, would you realy want God to come down from the heavens and tell you?
If you stick by the New Testament in terms of straight facts, you can't realy go wrong there, as I have said many times, the Old Testament contains many stories and symboligy which gives true meanings and can be based on true stories often.

moxco 11-01-2007 01:55 AM
Evolution is right.
Adam and Eve is wrong
I am right.

Strike Witch 11-01-2007 03:51 AM
<.<

Gravity exists because an apple hit Newton on the head.

Duh.


1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page