Creationism being taught in schools is a not all bad

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm interested in how creationists think God magic'd up the world. The operative word being how, using what mechanisms to bring about reality. If they accept the challenge, then we can start looking for imprints of Genesis.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rather_Cynical)
    I'm interested in how creationists think God magic'd up the world. The operative word being how, using what mechanisms to bring about reality. If they accept the challenge, then we can start looking for imprints of Genesis.
    What do you mean by mechanisms? Don't you just need intent from an omnipotent being for something to come out of nothing?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rather_Cynical)
    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?
    Those.

    After the creation of matter, His will can bring order to form galaxies, solar systems, life, etc.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Creationism should be taught in schools...as a belief by kooks and Americans.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    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.

    It is a distraction of the main issue to discuss the '7 days' because God is outside of our time realm and outside of our dimension.. Days could mean just that, 7 days. If God is all powerful, as I believe He is, then what is 7 days to Him? But, on the overhand, we get an indication in the bible that days and time are not to be fixed when God says .... 'do not let this one thing escape your notice: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow to fulfil His promise as some understand slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.…' there are other similar references.

    "How will the creationist narrative change if we find evidence of life elsewhere?"
    I think history, time, reveals more and more of the revelation of God and understanding the bible. I don't know what happened during the time God threw a third of angels out of the heavenly realms. I do not care to speculate as it doesn't relate to my relationship with God. Some people think the angels could have inhabited other planets but I feel this is far fetched and borers along Scientology which I see as a false belief.

    God reveals to us enough to know Him and understand His love for us and the future.



    http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...encefaith.html
    http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/...-be-christians
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...and_technology


    Some food for thought.

    http://www.everystudent.com/wires/Godreal.html
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    .... 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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    .... 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.
    • I'm not sure if they're officially endorsed by the Bible verses, but I definitely remember there were some Church ministers who got quite upset at the notion that the Earth was not the center of the Universe.
    • Any mention of splitting the sea.
    • The ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference.
    • The young Earth idea.
    • The creationism aspects.
    • Any mention of miracles.
    • Inconsistency of time required to create the stars relative to our particular solar system.
    • Any references to Flat Earth.
    • The Flood.
    • The concept of death -> rebirth.

    There's many, many more.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    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?
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    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.
    It is ironic that you raise doubts about scientific evidence and theories that stand rigorous testing but never doubt your own belief that is based on nothing more than a book of fairy stories and what your mother indoctrinated you with.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    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.
    1. There's no such thing as an "evolutionist", that's a term exclusively used by fundamentalist creationists such as yourself
    2. Life as a progression requiring that length of time? The Universe was never inevitable for life in the first place. The Earth's existence didn't have to involve life, but it would still have *aged*
    3. The comment suggests you fundamentally lack an understanding of the probabilistic nature of particle decay and the mathematics relating to it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    Many scientists support creationism and in fact lots of the evidence for evolution supports creationism in some cases more so than evolution itself. Take the lack of transitional fossils for example. If all life forms have evolved from simpler life forms there should be millions of transitional fossils available for study. These transitional fossils would be of the type showing the process of one species evolving into another. However, no transitional fossils have ever been found. As such the fossil record actually lines up better with supernatural creation than with macroevolution.
    ROFL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tional_fossils

    I suggest you creationists watch these series before responding:
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...gLK4grEGqFt8oJ
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...3481305829426D
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The arguments against evolution tends to be that there isn't an exhaustive link between each species, is mainly owed to the fact that fossilization is extremely rare for nature to do. It's like if you had to find treasure in a landfill, there's scarcely any there because most of it's already destroyed or incinerated.

    Also, all fossils are transitional between other species. It leads nowhere to the creation myth.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    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
    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.

    (Original post by Racoon)
    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.
    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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    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?
    It's not just the science, it's the philosophy of science he's missing. It's like asking a blind person to see blue by describing it as "like water", he's fundamentally lacking something to be able to do it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    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 don't understand the YEC belief of T-Rexs being around during the time of Adam 6000 years ago.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    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.
    /thread.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 16, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.