Creationism being taught in schools is a not all bad
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Maker
You are are again reducing religion to a set of fairy tales. Do you really think most Christains believe humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time or the earth is 6000 years old?
Your play with words is the thing that puts people off religion, its so obviously disengenous its embarassing.
Your play with words is the thing that puts people off religion, its so obviously disengenous its embarassing.
"Your play with words is the thing that puts people off religion, its so obviously disengenous its embarassing"
Its actually not but you have to resort to this type of reply because you cannot substantiate your comments.
Original post by Rather_Cynical
It's called faith for a reason - otherwise it would merge with science and no longer be religion. I would argue that by definition, religion cannot have compelling evidence. Racoon's evidence cannot be separated from the delusions of a schizophrenic, so we should treat them as such.
Rude. Schizophrenia is a serious mental illness and shouldn't be joked about.
I think you misunderstand, I wasn't joking at all.
It's the comparison I use because there is no other phenomena that describes the vivid imagery that some of the religious claim to experience that has little founding in reality (eg anything that defies well established laws, like the ability for angels to fly when the aerodynamics of such doesn't work, or the ability to communicate with god if there's no naturalist explanation for the mechanisms of doing so).
It seems reasonable when you look at it from a non-emotional viewpoint, even if it's not socially polite. The rationale for believing is based on a series of logic traps, which the least critical are most accepting of.
I would like to see you argue how you can separate a delusion of the mind to legitimate revelation - prophecies don't count because spewing enough contradictory diatribe would eventually give one prophecy that seems to work.
It's the comparison I use because there is no other phenomena that describes the vivid imagery that some of the religious claim to experience that has little founding in reality (eg anything that defies well established laws, like the ability for angels to fly when the aerodynamics of such doesn't work, or the ability to communicate with god if there's no naturalist explanation for the mechanisms of doing so).
It seems reasonable when you look at it from a non-emotional viewpoint, even if it's not socially polite. The rationale for believing is based on a series of logic traps, which the least critical are most accepting of.
I would like to see you argue how you can separate a delusion of the mind to legitimate revelation - prophecies don't count because spewing enough contradictory diatribe would eventually give one prophecy that seems to work.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Trapz99
Biologists overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution so this should be taught in biology. A lot of Christians support creationism so it should be taught in Religious Studies. Schools should also teach that the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive as a lot of Christians (including me) believe that God may have used evolution as a method to create the world we live in.
You say," Biologists overwhelmingly support evolution........" These same biologists also have families that need to eat and house payments to make so, if they want to go further in the field then dissecting frogs in high school biology classes, they surely will support it. What is thought of scientists who do not support it can be seen here on TSR.
Anyone who can read can look at articles like the Wiki page and see much of what is said to be evidence to support evolution is conjecture. If a fossil is found that doesn't fit the current, " truths" about evolution or would fit nicely if only this or that were the case a little creative writing about classifications and presto!, it fits.
Of course it fits. It has to because the alternative theory is too preposterous to even consider. I am of the opinion that this simple fact is what has given the theory, as incomplete as it is, the credibility to be taught as fact.
If I ask, "Why does this happen", we use science to determine an answer. Science hasn't answered this question to any ones satisfaction. Especially when you consider the fact that there is no reason whatsoever for anything to exist.
The only reason I've been able to come up with is because man is here to appreciate it. Modern man has only been on the scene a few short thousand years and nothing can explain that.
Original post by oldercon1953
You say," Biologists overwhelmingly support evolution........" These same biologists also have families that need to eat and house payments to make so, if they want to go further in the field then dissecting frogs in high school biology classes, they surely will support it. What is thought of scientists who do not support it can be seen here on TSR.
Anyone who can read can look at articles like the Wiki page and see much of what is said to be evidence to support evolution is conjecture. If a fossil is found that doesn't fit the current, " truths" about evolution or would fit nicely if only this or that were the case a little creative writing about classifications and presto!, it fits.
Of course it fits. It has to because the alternative theory is too preposterous to even consider. I am of the opinion that this simple fact is what has given the theory, as incomplete as it is, the credibility to be taught as fact.
If I ask, "Why does this happen", we use science to determine an answer. Science hasn't answered this question to any ones satisfaction. Especially when you consider the fact that there is no reason whatsoever for anything to exist.
The only reason I've been able to come up with is because man is here to appreciate it. Modern man has only been on the scene a few short thousand years and nothing can explain that.
Anyone who can read can look at articles like the Wiki page and see much of what is said to be evidence to support evolution is conjecture. If a fossil is found that doesn't fit the current, " truths" about evolution or would fit nicely if only this or that were the case a little creative writing about classifications and presto!, it fits.
Of course it fits. It has to because the alternative theory is too preposterous to even consider. I am of the opinion that this simple fact is what has given the theory, as incomplete as it is, the credibility to be taught as fact.
If I ask, "Why does this happen", we use science to determine an answer. Science hasn't answered this question to any ones satisfaction. Especially when you consider the fact that there is no reason whatsoever for anything to exist.
The only reason I've been able to come up with is because man is here to appreciate it. Modern man has only been on the scene a few short thousand years and nothing can explain that.
One can also say vicars, priests and other people who rely on people believing in god may believe its all a load of rubbish but they have mortgages to pay and kids to feed so they go along with it even if they don't believe in it themselves.
I don't really think oldercon has any real capacity, or is otherwise qualified to talk about the subject he knows so little about. The only criticism he has is based on dubious grounds, ignoring that fossilisation is a rare event, and accuses biologists of trying to fit everything into the "evolution narrative" with no reasoning/evidence to support his statements or any reason to be suspicious of the fossil record in the first place.
The credibility of biologists are still infinitely better than the credibility of some religious nut on TSR with limited/no background in the sciences.
The credibility of biologists are still infinitely better than the credibility of some religious nut on TSR with limited/no background in the sciences.
Original post by oldercon1953
Absolute tosh - Science works on disproving itself, there's no party line to toe and if a biologist could show that evolution by natural selection is incorrect they'd be a shoe-in for a nobel prize.
Anyone who can read can look at articles like the Wiki page and see much of what is said to be evidence to support evolution is conjecture. If a fossil is found that doesn't fit the current, " truths" about evolution or would fit nicely if only this or that were the case a little creative writing about classifications and presto!, it fits.
Care to give an example of such a fossil? (You can't of course, but put your money where your mouth is).
Of course it fits. It has to because the alternative theory is too preposterous to even consider. I am of the opinion that this simple fact is what has given the theory, as incomplete as it is, the credibility to be taught as fact.
It's taught as fact because it is - the body of evidence as to the diversity of life we see is overwhelmingly in favour of evolution and encompasses all number of disciplines.
If I ask, "Why does this happen", we use science to determine an answer. Science hasn't answered this question to any ones satisfaction. Especially when you consider the fact that there is no reason whatsoever for anything to exist.
Science has answered why we see the diversity of life that we do quite comprehensively. But given the last line I'm guessing you've no idea what evolution actually is and instead are thinking about abiogenesis and the actual origins of life, rather than the origins of species.
Original post by Galadrielll
I stopped reading your post because it became very clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. But you're right, I do owe you a response. Expect one tomorrow. I am too far engrossed in watching this foreign film on Netflix to pay you mind right now.
It reminds me of the childish game where you say to your opponents that you'd beat them up but end up backing out.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Racoon
Hang on! - I have never said I do not accept the big bang theory is a possibility, at the moment of creation.
I really have to laugh at someone who thinks the universe is less than 10000 years old and can accept the possibility of the Big Bang. Why do you think the BB theory has been put forth, it certainly would not be viable under your YEC timeframe.
Original post by Racoon
As I said earlier but you failed to mention, I said the verse doesn't literally mean God is sitting above the earth.
So there is absolutely nothing above the earth, or around the earth, nothing, no space?
So there is absolutely nothing above the earth, or around the earth, nothing, no space?
So you are willing to accept that certain parts of the bible are not literal, but others are. Pick and choose YECism is worse than literal YECism.
Original post by Racoon
Perhaps he will, although I'm sure you can remember he stopped wasting his time replying because of all the personal insults which arose when you were stumped and couldn't come up with a suitably scientific reply which to discuss further.
I never mentioned 'answers in genesis'.
I never mentioned 'answers in genesis'.
I would not expect you to be able to understand whether your 'science teacher/alto ego' was capable of giving correct answers to the questions that were asked, I did expect that a science teacher would understand basic concepts, like the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I also would think that a science teacher would understand what a law means in science. I even asked a trick question on nucleosynthesis, which went completely over "it's" head.
The upshot of all this science teacher crap is what "it" was spouting was indeed the same kind of crap that is found in answers in genesis. I am knowing enough to realise how these christian movements work, I once fell for those lies.
Original post by Racoon
I could almost take that as a compliment 
The common linking of belief in God to believing in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy is a very clever deception and faulty logic. Even if we say Santa doesn't exist there is no reason why God shouldn't, its a weak analogy.
The common linking of belief in God to believing in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy is a very clever deception and faulty logic. Even if we say Santa doesn't exist there is no reason why God shouldn't, its a weak analogy.
Saint Nicholaus did exist he is evidential, now what is the evidence for god, especially a specific god of the jews?
Original post by oldercon1953
A couple questions; The Cambrian Period was roughly 5-6 hundred million yrs. ago. Given the slow pace of evolution, It would seem there has not been sufficient time for life to have evolved from simple, single celled life forms, to the level of complexity of mammals and finally modern man.
Regarding the variety of life. If I understand it correctly, organisms evolve in response to external influences in the environment around them. There have been a wide range of environments on the Earth but, has the variety been sufficiently different, especially given the fact that adaptation allows an organism to respond to small changes?
Regarding the variety of life. If I understand it correctly, organisms evolve in response to external influences in the environment around them. There have been a wide range of environments on the Earth but, has the variety been sufficiently different, especially given the fact that adaptation allows an organism to respond to small changes?
There is no pace to evolution, why do you think the Cambrian period is described as an explosion?
In response to the Italicised question, this must be so otherwise everything was planted on the Earth by god, including the 99.9% of species that are gone, a ridiculous conclusion.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
Absolute tosh - Science works on disproving itself, there's no party line to toe and if a biologist could show that evolution by natural selection is incorrect they'd be a shoe-in for a nobel prize.
Care to give an example of such a fossil? (You can't of course, but put your money where your mouth is).
It's taught as fact because it is - the body of evidence as to the diversity of life we see is overwhelmingly in favour of evolution and encompasses all number of disciplines.
Science has answered why we see the diversity of life that we do quite comprehensively. But given the last line I'm guessing you've no idea what evolution actually is and instead are thinking about abiogenesis and the actual origins of life, rather than the origins of species.
Care to give an example of such a fossil? (You can't of course, but put your money where your mouth is).
It's taught as fact because it is - the body of evidence as to the diversity of life we see is overwhelmingly in favour of evolution and encompasses all number of disciplines.
Science has answered why we see the diversity of life that we do quite comprehensively. But given the last line I'm guessing you've no idea what evolution actually is and instead are thinking about abiogenesis and the actual origins of life, rather than the origins of species.
My last line was a bit off point but surely it's a question any person has to ask himself. Science has not answered anything, "comprehensively". The evolutionary path of every organism extant today and all those that have ever lived should have left an abundance of fossils. It's these gaps that are filled in with conjecture. This isn't something I discovered; I've been reading about this for years. If there were more scientists gathering data on the weaknesses of the theory, more might be found especially if they had the same resources but i doubt there's a lot of grant money available to them.
As long as you've brought it up, abiogenesis may be a different branch of science but it's the obvious beginning of the theory.
Original post by Maker
One can also say vicars, priests and other people who rely on people believing in god may believe its all a load of rubbish but they have mortgages to pay and kids to feed so they go along with it even if they don't believe in it themselves.
I couldn't agree more. The church is full of such people.
Original post by Rather_Cynical
I don't really think oldercon has any real capacity, or is otherwise qualified to talk about the subject he knows so little about. The only criticism he has is based on dubious grounds, ignoring that fossilisation is a rare event, and accuses biologists of trying to fit everything into the "evolution narrative" with no reasoning/evidence to support his statements or any reason to be suspicious of the fossil record in the first place.
The credibility of biologists are still infinitely better than the credibility of some religious nut on TSR with limited/no background in the sciences.
The credibility of biologists are still infinitely better than the credibility of some religious nut on TSR with limited/no background in the sciences.
You don't need a lot of background in science to detect flaws in the theory. The ability to read and some very basic critical thinking skills are all that is needed.
Original post by oldercon1953
My last line was a bit off point but surely it's a question any person has to ask himself. Science has not answered anything, "comprehensively".
Whether you're willing to accept the answers doesn't change that evolution does comprehensively answer the diversity of life.
Wrong. Fossilisation is a sensitive process and only a fraction of organisms will leave fossils.
It's these gaps that are filled in with conjecture.
Genetic analysis and the production of phylogenetic trees isn't conjecture.
Reading where? From legitimate researchers or from con artists and liars like the discovery institute?
There's not a conspiracy and organisations like the discovery institute put up plenty of funding. The real reason not much has been found is because there's not much to find - evolution by natural selection is a comprehensive, multi-discipline theory for which the basis is not in doubt, all that's left is the intricacies of it
As long as you've brought it up, abiogenesis may be a different branch of science but it's the obvious beginning of the theory.
No, it isn't. Evolution occurs completely separately and the actual origin of life is irrelevant to whether evolution occurs.
Original post by oldercon1953
You don't need a lot of background in science to detect flaws in the theory. The ability to read and some very basic critical thinking skills are all that is needed.
Again utter rubbish - the theory of evolution by natural selection is a comprehensive explanation of the diversity of life encompassing evidence from all number of disciplines, and underpins the basis of modern farming and pet breeding (although it's artificial selection in these cases). Your much vaunted critical thinking skills are either incapable of properly assessing evidence, or you've a vested interest in it being wrong if you think it's easy to point out real flaws.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by oldercon1953
You don't need a lot of background in science to detect flaws in the theory. The ability to read and some very basic critical thinking skills are all that is needed.
So prima facia evidence will suggest you lack those very basic critical thinking skills.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by oldercon1953
You don't need a lot of background in science to detect flaws in the theory. The ability to read and some very basic critical thinking skills are all that is needed.
In most logical argument, that's true. For this particular discussion, the premises and axioms you base your arguments on are often simply flat out wrong because you fundamentally misunderstand and misrepresent the scientific view.
It's like trying to convince an anti-climate-change-conspiracy-nut to accept certain premises about the world, it's near enough impossible simply because they lack the mental framework to piece together the puzzle. It will have to be based on answering "how does the mechanisms of this work?" which is based on scientific principles.
If you don't understand them properly, you'll never be qualified to talk about it in any non-superficial way. It becomes harder if you're of an older generation, you have a lot of catching up to do.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
Whether you're willing to accept the answers doesn't change that evolution does comprehensively answer the diversity of life.
Wrong. Fossilisation is a sensitive process and only a fraction of organisms will leave fossils.
Genetic analysis and the production of phylogenetic trees isn't conjecture.
Reading where? From legitimate researchers or from con artists and liars like the discovery institute?
There's not a conspiracy and organisations like the discovery institute put up plenty of funding. The real reason not much has been found is because there's not much to find - evolution by natural selection is a comprehensive, multi-discipline theory for which the basis is not in doubt, all that's left is the intricacies of it
No, it isn't. Evolution occurs completely separately and the actual origin of life is irrelevant to whether evolution occurs.
Again utter rubbish - the theory of evolution by natural selection is a comprehensive explanation of the diversity of life encompassing evidence from all number of disciplines, and underpins the basis of modern farming and pet breeding (although it's artificial selection in these cases). Your much vaunted critical thinking skills are either incapable of properly assessing evidence, or you've a vested interest in it being wrong if you think it's easy to point out real flaws.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Wrong. Fossilisation is a sensitive process and only a fraction of organisms will leave fossils.
Genetic analysis and the production of phylogenetic trees isn't conjecture.
Reading where? From legitimate researchers or from con artists and liars like the discovery institute?
There's not a conspiracy and organisations like the discovery institute put up plenty of funding. The real reason not much has been found is because there's not much to find - evolution by natural selection is a comprehensive, multi-discipline theory for which the basis is not in doubt, all that's left is the intricacies of it
No, it isn't. Evolution occurs completely separately and the actual origin of life is irrelevant to whether evolution occurs.
Again utter rubbish - the theory of evolution by natural selection is a comprehensive explanation of the diversity of life encompassing evidence from all number of disciplines, and underpins the basis of modern farming and pet breeding (although it's artificial selection in these cases). Your much vaunted critical thinking skills are either incapable of properly assessing evidence, or you've a vested interest in it being wrong if you think it's easy to point out real flaws.
Posted from TSR Mobile
If only a fraction of species leave fossils then their conclusions are even more fictitious then I thought. Thanks for the info.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Single men ought to be taught about the reality of being men at a young age
- Should A-level Maths or A-level Statistics be compulsory?
- maths mocks
- Worst 6th Form Colleges in London?
- Am I Muslim if I am choosing not to worship God?
- Is A Level Electronics Obselete?
- Gay and Muslim
- I wish i knew my home language
- What is missing from the school curriculum?
- OCR gcse computer science grade boundaries?
- Resitting A levels? Help pls
- Overwhelmed and demotivated
- How much does low attendance affect my future whilst in sixth form?
- i need help but i feel like im already too far gone
- Is woodhouse college or LAE tottenham better for some subjects?
- Further maths
- bad AS grades
- is going from a private to a state school a big change?
- AQA VS EDEXCEL A-Level Maths
- Teaching
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
