Creationism being taught in schools is a not all bad

I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking! Is God a mathematician who just goes "let these laws be governed by these numbers", and somehow cause perturbations of spacetime to come about in the form of modern humans?

Does his will suddenly cause particles to come about from lit. nothing, or is he more of an architect that uses pre-existing materials of nature and arranges it in the right order?

Now that's a tale. How is it even possible to believe this?

So in the creationist book, are we the only life in the universe? How will the creationist narrative change if we find evidence of life elsewhere?

BTW - who are these scientists who support creationism? And we are talking about creationism as in God created the earth in 7 days yada yada yada?

We do not know everything and it would be unreasonable to say we do so you don't via evolution and I don't via my belief in God.

You do not know for sure there is life on other planets, I believe there isn't. I do not have proof of that and neither do you, for your thoughts on it are just that, thoughts.

Ahhh - well that is the difference then. You believe there is no other life in the universe. I have no belief one way or other. The current evidence shows that none has yet been found, but it is reasonable to hypothesise that life could exist elsewhere based on observations of micro organisms living in extreme places on the earth. As more evidence is discovered, the hypothesis will either be proved, disproved or continue to be a hypothesis. Where will your belief stand if life is found elsewhere? Will you change your views and then fit them to the Bible, or will you simply deny the evidence staring in your face as most creationists do.

Don't get me wrong. I have no issue with religion or the idea of God. As a manual for living a wholesome and moral life (with a few exceptions) the Bible is a good read. But in terms of laying out how the world works from a scientific point of view, it completely sucks. I believe the church has only just got over the idea that the earth isn't the centre of the universe.

.... the Bible is a good read. But in terms of laying out how the world works from a scientific point of view, it completely sucks.....

Give me an example of what you mean.

.... the Bible is a good read. But in terms of laying out how the world works from a scientific point of view, it completely sucks.....

Give me an example of what you mean.

Well, let's start with the age of the earth. Creationists put it at between 6000 and 15,000 years. But science has it down as 4.543 billion years as a result of radiometric age dating. I have always found the age of the earth argument bizarre. The best answer against concrete evidence like isotope decay and even fossils is, "God made it like that," or, "God put them there." This is the debating equivalent of saying, "Speak to the hand cause the face ain't listening!"

So how old do you say the earth is and what scientific evidence would you present to suggest it is less than 4+ billion years old?

We do not know for example that decay rates have always been constant. There are a lot of assumptions made of which we will never know.

There are people who take the genealogy of the bible and work backwards to a start date. I don't necessarily have a problem with that.

I feel it is unnecessary for the earth to be as old as evolutionist claim it is because I don't see life as a progression requiring that length of time and also there is no absolute evidence for things to be that old anyway, radiometric age dating is not such an exact science. We do not know for example that decay rates have always been constant. There are a lot of assumptions made of which we will never know.

I feel it is unnecessary for the earth to be as old as evolutionist claim it is because I don't see life as a progression requiring that length of time and also there is no absolute evidence for things to be that old anyway

We do not know for example that decay rates have always been constant. There are a lot of assumptions made of which we will never know.

There is no questioning whether the age of the earth is necessary. It is a simple fact, determined through experimentation and observation. There is no reason for any other explanation unless new evidence to suggest one comes to light.



Ummm - we do actually. There is a whole raft of experimentation you can do for yourself to prove it. There is no evidence to suggest that the laws of physics might have been different at some point in the past. However, feel free to propose a theory that they were different complete with your experimentation and observations. Alas, stating fact because you believe it to be true won't cut it I am afraid.

Where do you stand on references in the Bible that suggest the Earth is flat, that the sky is solid and that the Earth is stationary in the universe?

There are people who take the genealogy of the bible and work backwards to a start date. I don't necessarily have a problem with that.

I feel it is unnecessary for the earth to be as old as evolutionist claim it is because I don't see life as a progression requiring that length of time and also there is no absolute evidence for things to be that old anyway, radiometric age dating is not such an exact science. We do not know for example that decay rates have always been constant. There are a lot of assumptions made of which we will never know.

No. Use something like Quakers or Rastafarianism for that.



No. Use the theory of gravity or BBT to help understand what theory means.



No. These same young people can eventually vote. It's in our best interest as a society to keep everybody well educated and to be able to think rationally. If you want to demonstrate that stupid people exist in society...then maybe..sure.

Surely children should be exposed to a plethora of ideas and allowed to choose from the wealth of knowledge which is being imparted on them daily and make their own choice. The occupation of Darwinian evolution in the class room is pretty one sided and it's indoctrinating children to having a very narrow outlook on life.

Research has shown that the most intelligent students and academically well to-do choose their careers around the early age of 10 where children show a strong interest and passion for one area or more over others. Yet children are not being stimulated enough in primary school. We need to make certain elements of the curriculum more stream-lined across the whole country for example more advanced arithmetic than is being currently taught in addition to stressing the need to read books for leisure. And why not also educate children on philosophy and creationism.

Surely children should be set-up to have a well-rounded school experience not what is currently happening right now.

We do not know for example that decay rates have always been constant.

And furthermore, it's an assumption that would essentially render any scientific hypothesising null, void and worthless, because there would be no objectively certain laws by which to judge and test them.