[_ Old Earth _] Creationist vs evolutionist, whos the fool?

[pearlz]

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

I was paraphrasing when i said "wont even look at another point of view". Do you really need "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology,can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record" explained to you? It means that no matter how much evidence is ever given, if it dosent fit in with the literal word of the bible, its not true. And if this is the case, do you really think they would bother to even examine it?

And again i ask you, do you really think this is honest? Is this really a place you want to get information from?

 

[Vanaka]

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

I was paraphrasing when i said "wont even look at another point of view". Do you really need "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology,can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record" explained to you? It means that no matter how much evidence is ever given, if it dosent fit in with the literal word of the bible, its not true. And if this is the case, do you really think they would bother to even examine it?

And again i ask you, do you really think this is honest? Is this really a place you want to get information from?

they never said they wont look at it,
let them speak for themselves sheesh.....why dont you email them and find out if:

And if this is the case, do you really think they would bother to even examine it?

And again i ask you, do you really think this is honest? Is this really a place you want to get information from?

do you really think putting word into other poeples mouths is honest? :o

 

[Grengor]

And what do you think their statements means? They'll never change their minds because they'll disregard any contradicting evidence. Do you think purposely ignoring a point is honest? :smt103

 

[Vanaka]

And what do you think their statements means? They'll never change their minds because they'll disregard any contradicting evidence. Do you think purposely ignoring a point is honest? :smt103

how do you know that?
how do you know they wont research it even more?
and you know what I think it means?I think it means they refuse the belive the impossible.


anyway,its pointless to speak for other poeple,any more comments on this,I suggust you direct them to AIG(Awnsers in Genisis),because I willl not awnser your comments about the AIG

 

[unred typo]

By your thinking, math, history, english, social studies, PE, computer courses, (and the list goes on)must all be religions. The reason creation isn't taught is because its a religious belief. And if you want to believe in it, thats fine, but teaching a religious belief in our public school system isn't fine. This is still America, and like it or not, we have a right not to have (your)religion forced down our childrens throats in a public school system.

In public schools, children should be taught how to think, not what to think. They should be taught math, reading, PE, computer courses, grammar, and history. Science should be taught but only the scientific laws and not theories, and nature can be explored without mentioning either God nor evolution. Kids are going through school and not even learning how to read or add simple figures, why is it even important that time be wasted teaching theories or religious beliefs that are not only controversial but cannot be proven? They should be taught other languages instead of things that cause confusion between their religious beliefs and the beliefs of one branch of science. Give them the skills needed to use their minds and let them decide for themselves what to believe.

 

[cubedbee]

In public schools, children should be taught how to think, not what to think. They should be taught math, reading, PE, computer courses, grammar, and history. Science should be taught but only the scientific laws and not theories,

Science without theories would be like memorizing historical dates without learning the reasons for why they were important or memorizing multiplication tables without knowing how to multiply. 95% of what is in any science book is theory, not law, and 99% of modern technology would not exist without the theory you want to throw out. You might want to think again.

and nature can be explored without mentioning either God nor evolution.

And math could be explored without mentioning multiplication or division, but not explored properly. Evolution is the way to scientifically explain nature. Period. Yeah, you could just look at all the pretty animals and talk about them, but that would not be science.

Kids are going through school and not even learning how to read or add simple figures, why is it even important that time be wasted teaching theories or religious beliefs that are not only controversial but cannot be proven?

The same children who can't read or add are not the same children who are put into biology classes. There are different high school tracks for a reason---and only those who are qualified in other areas are put on one with evolution being taught.

They should be taught other languages instead of things that cause confusion between their religious beliefs and the beliefs of one branch of science.

They are. Find me a high school in America that doesn't have a foreign language requirement. Language and science are unrelated, and they should be taught both.

Give them the skills needed to use their minds and let them decide for themselves what to believe.

This is what they currently do.

 

[unred typo]

Cubedbee wrote:

Science without theories would be like memorizing historical dates without learning the reasons for why they were important or memorizing multiplication tables without knowing how to multiply. 95% of what is in any science book is theory, not law, and 99% of modern technology would not exist without the theory you want to throw out. You might want to think again.

You can teach children about gravity, motion, the properties of electricity, motion, sound and light waves, air, water and other chemicals, anatomy, and many uncontroversial things. The only theory I want to throw out is unproven evolutionary belief and it’s supporting ‘ancient earth’ dogma. My daughter home schools her children. She chooses her own curriculum. There are religion-neutral books that teach science with no mention of either God or evolution, just science, pure and simple. But that’s not what you want, is it? You want to influence children into evolution beliefs and poison their minds against creationist views.

Cubedbee wrote:

And math could be explored without mentioning multiplication or division, but not explored properly. Evolution is the way to scientifically explain nature. Period. Yeah, you could just look at all the pretty animals and talk about them, but that would not be science.

Math is learning the facts of numbers and applying them. They are verifiable and undeniable truths of indisputable knowledge. You can prove them true. Science is “repeatable, verifiable knowledge gained from observing God’s creationâ€Â, or didn’t you write that? There are millions of things to learn about God’s creation without once mentioning evolution, in spite of what you may find by watching evolutionary propaganda films masquerading as unbiased educational nature shows.

Cubedbee wrote:

The same children who can't read or add are not the same children who are put into biology classes. There are different high school tracks for a reason---and only those who are qualified in other areas are put on one with evolution being taught.

Nice. That insures that especially the more intelligent children are going to be indoctrinated into your evolutionary cult.

 

[cubedbee]

You can teach children about gravity,

You mean gravitational theory?
t

he properties of electricity,

electromagnetic theory?

sound and light waves

wave theory?

water and other chemicals,

atomic and chemical bonding theory?

anatomy,

another theory.

and many uncontroversial things.

Yes, in science, theories are uncontroversial. And in science, the theory of evolution is uncontroversial. It is the uneducated person's misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, and the half-truths and lies propagated by YECs that cause the public to view it as controversial.

The only theory I want to throw out is unproven evolutionary belief and it’s supporting ‘ancient earth’ dogma.

These theories are as well established as any other you mentioned. None are "proven", because scientific theories aren't proven, but none have been disproven, despite hundreds of years of vast accumulation of data. You can't throw out one theory and keep the others--all are baed on the same methods and all are equally as valid.

My daughter home schools her children. She chooses her own curriculum. There are religion-neutral books that teach science with no mention of either God or evolution, just science, pure and simple. But that’s not what you want, is it? You want to influence children into evolution beliefs and poison their minds against creationist views.

Evolution is science. If you are teaching biology, you must include evolution. Evolution does not contradict the belief that God created the Earth. The two are complimentary.

Math is learning the facts of numbers and applying them. They are verifiable and undeniable truths of indisputable knowledge. You can prove them true. Science is “repeatable, verifiable knowledge gained from observing God’s creationâ€Â, or didn’t you write that? There are millions of things to learn about God’s creation without once mentioning evolution, in spite of what you may find by watching evolutionary propaganda films masquerading as unbiased educational nature shows.

There are millions of things to learn without mentioning math, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't learn math. Evolution is a truth about our world, and we should not exclude that truth from our schools because the misguided religious like you refuse to accept that truth.

Nice. That insures that especially the more intelligent children are going to be indoctrinated into your evolutionary cult.

Yes, thery are going to be indoctinated into the imaginary cult that doesn't exist. Maybe you should see a psycologist about your paraniod delusions.

 

[unred typo]

Cubedbee wrote:

Yes, in science, theories are uncontroversial. And in science, the theory of evolution is uncontroversial. It is the uneducated person's misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, and the half-truths and lies propagated by YECs that cause the public to view it as controversial.

None of those other theories conflict with a religious view that you personally disagree with. The creationist young earth view is as valid as the evolutionary model. I thought this was America where the religious views of others are protected from state sanctioned anti religious bias. Apparently, something has changed or am I hallucinating again?

Cubedbee wrote:

These theories are as well established as any other you mentioned. None are "proven", because scientific theories aren't proven, but none have been disproven, despite hundreds of years of vast accumulation of data. You can't throw out one theory and keep the others--all are baed on the same methods and all are equally as valid.

Is there no other theory than one of how the dinosaurs died, or the cosmos began or the origin of the moon or the various ways that plants and animals evolved? Yet you insist on throwing out the young earth theory because ‘old ages’ evolutionists disagree. Isn’t that showing religious bias against young earth creationists?

Cubedbee wrote:

Evolution is science. If you are teaching biology, you must include evolution. Evolution does not contradict the belief that God created the Earth. The two are complimentary.

The two may be complimentary to your religious views but not to mine. I can teach biology or any other science and not include evolutionary theories or mention God. What is your problem?

Cubedbee wrote:

There are millions of things to learn without mentioning math, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't learn math. Evolution is a truth about our world, and we should not exclude that truth from our schools because the misguided religious like you refuse to accept that truth.

No one is arguing about teaching math or millions of other things to learn. Evolution has not been proven to be true and don’t pretend that it has. As you said, even some people who hold ‘long ages’ views don’t believe in evolution. This is clearly a religiously based issue, just as Atheism vs. Judaism.

Cubedbee wrote:

Yes, thery are going to be indoctinated into the imaginary cult that doesn't exist. Maybe you should see a psycologist about your paraniod delusions.

It is only considered paranoia if it is an unreasonable fear. It isn’t unreasonable and it doesn’t scare me. It isn’t a delusion if it is real.

 

[cubedbee]

Cubedbee wrote:

Yes, in science, theories are uncontroversial. And in science, the theory of evolution is uncontroversial. It is the uneducated person's misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, and the half-truths and lies propagated by YECs that cause the public to view it as controversial.

None of those other theories conflict with a religious view that you personally disagree with. The creationist young earth view is as valid as the evolutionary model. I thought this was America where the religious views of others are protected from state sanctioned anti religious bias. Apparently, something has changed or am I hallucinating again?
[quote:e97ba]

We are protected from state santctioned religious bias. Fortunately, evoluytion is science, not religion. It meets the same standard as any other scientific theory, and just because a small minority disagrees with it is no reason whatsoever not to teach it. A small minority disagrees with most any scientific theory..
[quote:e97ba]Cubedbee wrote:[quote:e97ba] These theories are as well established as any other you mentioned. None are "proven", because scientific theories aren't proven, but none have been disproven, despite hundreds of years of vast accumulation of data. You can't throw out one theory and keep the others--all are baed on the same methods and all are equally as valid.

Is there no other theory than one of how the dinosaurs died, or the cosmos began or the origin of the moon or the various ways that plants and animals evolved? Yet you insist on throwing out the young earth theory because ‘old ages’ evolutionists disagree. Isn’t that showing religious bias against young earth creationists?[/quote:e97ba]No, I throw out the YEC theory because it isn't based on fact. If it took data and made scientific predicitions and was verfied with observation,then I could accept YEC, but alas, it does none of these things.

Cubedbee wrote:[quote:e97ba] Evolution is science. If you are teaching biology, you must include evolution. Evolution does not contradict the belief that God created the Earth. The two are complimentary.

The two may be complimentary to your religious views but not to mine. I can teach biology or any other science and not include evolutionary theories or mention God. What is your problem?[/quote:e97ba]
I have no problem. I simply don't want to leave out essential facts of biology to satisfy the religious fanatics of this country. I can teach math without multiplication, but I don't want to because the students will not learn all of math. For the same reason, I don't want to leave out evolution.

Cubedbee wrote:[quote:e97ba] There are millions of things to learn without mentioning math, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't learn math. Evolution is a truth about our world, and we should not exclude that truth from our schools because the misguided religious like you refuse to accept that truth.

No one is arguing about teaching math or millions of other things to learn. Evolution has not been proven to be true and don’t pretend that it has. As you said, even some people who hold ‘long ages’ views don’t believe in evolution. This is clearly a religiously based issue, just as Atheism vs. Judaism.[/quote:e97ba]
Evolution is just as proven as any other scientific theory, and from what you yourself wrote, you want other scientific theories taught. No, it is not a religious based issue. This is a matter of fact. No person who holds evolution holds it on the bases of fatih.

Cubedbee wrote:[quote:e97ba] Yes, thery are going to be indoctinated into the imaginary cult that doesn't exist. Maybe you should see a psycologist about your paraniod delusions.

It is only considered paranoia if it is an unreasonable fear. It isn’t unreasonable and it doesn’t scare me. It isn’t a delusion if it is real[/quote:e97ba][/quote:e97ba][/quote:e97ba]Well, it is quite unreasonable, and 99% or people will read what you wrote and laugh, dismissing it as a fantasy. Think what you want.

 

[pearlz]

And what do you think their statements means? They'll never change their minds because they'll disregard any contradicting evidence. Do you think purposely ignoring a point is honest? :smt103

how do you know that?
how do you know they wont research it even more?
and you know what I think it means?I think it means they refuse the belive the impossible.


anyway,its pointless to speak for other poeple,any more comments on this,I suggust you direct them to AIG(Awnsers in Genisis),because I willl not awnser your comments about the AIG

You were the one that brought up AiG as a source. They state that anything that contridicts the literal version of the bible is wrong and wont be considered as evidence. If you dont was to be grilled on AiG then dont use them as a source. But if you do, be prepared to defend them.

 

[unred typo]

Cubedbee wrote:

We are protected from state santctioned religious bias. Fortunately, evoluytion is science, not religion. It meets the same standard as any other scientific theory, and just because a small minority disagrees with it is no reason whatsoever not to teach it. A small minority disagrees with most any scientific theory..

Sorry but what you say ‘fortunately is science’ is nothing more than another view of how man came to be here and that is not even close to science but history and when you use it to teach that man was not created in the 6 days of creation, you are biased against a religion that is held by a major section of the population. When they realize the significance of that, your evolution theory will be relegated to science clubs and after school activities as it should be. Right now they are too busy car pooling their children to private schools. Don’t worry though because meanwhile, they will be getting superior teaching. Something to thank evolution for. :

Cubedbee wrote:

No, I throw out the YEC theory because it isn't based on fact. If it took data and made scientific predicitions and was verfied with observation,then I could accept YEC, but alas, it does none of these things.

I’m sure now that you have made that revelation, we all will drop this foolish notion and run to your open arms, confessing our ignorance and extolling the virtues of the big TOE. Or not. Personally, I get my data from the same places you do, I just interpret it according to the creationist model given in the Bible and in Jasher.


Cubedbee wrote:

I have no problem. I simply don't want to leave out essential facts of biology to satisfy the religious fanatics of this country. I can teach math without multiplication, but I don't want to because the students will not learn all of math. For the same reason, I don't want to leave out evolution.

There is no correlation between math without multiplication and science without evolution. A more correct application would be teaching math without mythology.

Cubedbee wrote:

Evolution is just as proven as any other scientific theory, and from what you yourself wrote, you want other scientific theories taught. No, it is not a religious based issue. This is a matter of fact. No person who holds evolution holds it on the bases of fatih.

You just keep right on repeating that until you believe it. The awful truth is it is not fact and never will be because it didn’t happen that way.


Cubedbee wrote:

Well, it is quite unreasonable, and 99% or people will read what you wrote and laugh, dismissing it as a fantasy. Think what you want.

Don’t we all think what we consider to be true? I’m glad to have your blessing though.

 

[cubedbee]

Sorry but what you say ‘fortunately is science’ is nothing more than another view of how man came to be here and that is not even close to science but history and when you use it to teach that man was not created in the 6 days of creation, you are biased against a religion that is held by a major section of the population. When they realize the significance of that, your evolution theory will be relegated to science clubs and after school activities as it should be. Right now they are too busy car pooling their children to private schools. Don’t worry though because meanwhile, they will be getting superior teaching. Something to thank evolution for. :

Huh? Repeating "evolution is not science" will never make it true. Any possible definition of science includes evolutionary theory. Every single scientific organization in this world acknowledges evolution as science. You are wrong, and repeating false statements shows that you are either a fool or a liar. As far as facts not being taught at our school because a significant minority agrees with those facts---simply will never happen. Keep dreaming though.

I’m sure now that you have made that revelation, we all will drop this foolish notion and run to your open arms, confessing our ignorance and extolling the virtues of the big TOE. Or not. Personally, I get my data from the same places you do, I just interpret it according to the creationist model given in the Bible and in Jasher

.
No, you don't intepret data at all--you simly reject it. YEC is not consistent with what we have observed of the world. You have all these fantasies that the Flood could have magically changed millions of different things in nature, making all of science wrong, but that's not an "interpretation" it's a fairytale.

There is no correlation between math without multiplication and science without evolution. A more correct application would be teaching math without mythology.

No, that's actually a pretty stupid analogy. Mythology is not a part of math, evolution is a part of science. You do know how analogies work, correct?

 

[unred typo]

Cubedbee wrote

Huh? Repeating "evolution is not science" will never make it true. Any possible definition of science includes evolutionary theory. Every single scientific organization in this world acknowledges evolution as science. You are wrong, and repeating false statements shows that you are either a fool or a liar. As far as facts not being taught at our school because a significant minority agrees with those facts---simply will never happen. Keep dreaming though.

Here’s your own definition of science: “That's what science is---it is repeatable, verifiable knowledge that we gain by observing God's creation.†Let’s see you repeat the transition of Synapsids (Therapsids (Cynodontia)) to Mammalia, for instance. Or is it when you say “repeatable,†you mean the ability to say the same thing again and again without blinking? Or is it “repeatable†like the ability to copy/paste from another website?
“Verifiable“, I’m assuming, is that something can be documented as happening, provable or demonstrable. Maybe you want to rethink your choice of words…? If the TOE were even true, and you could show that one animal evolved into another from the fossil history record, you still have a matter of the past, not science. Unless you can molecularly, chemically or genetically change a lizard into a chicken, how can you say evolution is repeatable or verifiable? If it even happened once upon a time, it’s not happening in a “repeatable, verifiable†fashion anymore.

As far as the farce of evolutionary beliefs not being taught at our school because a significant number of people realize it has no place in a publicly funded classroom, I still have hope in the fairness and wisdom of the American people.

Cubedbee wrote

No, you don't intepret data at all--you simly reject it. YEC is not consistent with what we have observed of the world. You have all these fantasies that the Flood could have magically changed millions of different things in nature, making all of science wrong, but that's not an "interpretation" it's a fairytale.

You have totally misrepresented my view and apparently have no idea what I believe. My label is YEC because I believe in a earth of approximately 6,000 years old, created by God as recorded in Genesis and Jasher. It is not a fairytale or magic. It’s just as scientific as the ‘big bang’ or the first living creature taking a breath. Would you like to explain those theories in the biggest words possible so we don’t know what you’re really saying? Besides, I don’t believe all science is wrong anyway, just the TOE.

Cubedbee wrote

No, that's actually a pretty stupid analogy. Mythology is not a part of math, evolution is a part of science. You do know how analogies work, correct?

Yes, I do. Do you understand what I mean when I say science without evolution is like math without mythology? I mean that I believe there is no more science in evolution than there is in mythology.

 

[unred typo]

Pearlz wrote:You were the one that brought up AiG as a source. They state that anything that contridicts the literal version of the bible is wrong and wont be considered as evidence. If you dont was to be grilled on AiG then dont use them as a source. But if you do, be prepared to defend them.

Hmmmmn. “if you do, be prepared to defend them.†Where did that rule come from? Sometimes I use Evolutionary sites as a source. I hope I won’t be expected to defend them. :roll:

 

[Solo]

This topic is now locked for a cool down period. Flaming is prohibited and calling someone a derogatory name is flaming indeed. Please fix your problems with individuals in a PM, and DO NOT flame another.
Thanks.


Rule 2 - No Flaming:
You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. This will include misquoting another member out of context. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself.