[_ Old Earth _] Louisiana Unanimously Passes Academic Freedom Bill

[John]

^ like i said many times, how is withholding information beneficial to the kids? If anything explain ID even for just one class then go on teaching evolution for the rest of the year, and let the kids decide. what harm is there in that?

The fact that you're devoting time to pseudoscience in the science classroom. It further blurs the already confused line between the two.

While i disagree with the "pseudoscience" claim, you still did not say why its bad to expose students to other theories. Your withholding information. your Lieing in a sense.

 

[jmm9683]

^ like i said many times, how is withholding information beneficial to the kids? If anything explain ID even for just one class then go on teaching evolution for the rest of the year, and let the kids decide. what harm is there in that?

The fact that you're devoting time to pseudoscience in the science classroom. It further blurs the already confused line between the two.

While i disagree with the "pseudoscience" claim, you still did not say why its bad to expose students to other theories. Your withholding information. your Lieing in a sense.

That is total B.S., the best science is taught. Sorry, but ID is not science by definition. Where is the endpoint to your idea of teaching other theories? Should we teach other creation myths from other religions too? Should we teach other theories for gravity, etc.? Is it withholding information when a teacher doesn't teach astrology?

 

[Snidey]

^ like i said many times, how is withholding information beneficial to the kids? If anything explain ID even for just one class then go on teaching evolution for the rest of the year, and let the kids decide. what harm is there in that?

The fact that you're devoting time to pseudoscience in the science classroom. It further blurs the already confused line between the two.

While i disagree with the "pseudoscience" claim, you still did not say why its bad to expose students to other theories. Your withholding information. your Lieing in a sense.

We shouldn't expose children to failed theories, especially ones that rely entirely upon their practitioners being unaware of the sciences.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

They tried this before. And the court slapped them down the last time. Creationists are frantic to find a way to force their religion in to public schools.

I don't think this one will work, either.

First time someone takes the law to mean "teach creationism", it's a goner. And it won't be long.

I always thought the free flow of ideas was important in a free society. Why stifle the "theory of creationism" but allow the "theory of evolution" in schools, especially in a society where the vast majority of people believe in a higher being?

 

[Snidey]

[quote="The Barbarian":f8d6f]They tried this before. And the court slapped them down the last time. Creationists are frantic to find a way to force their religion in to public schools.

I don't think this one will work, either.

First time someone takes the law to mean "teach creationism", it's a goner. And it won't be long.

I always thought the free flow of ideas was important in a free society. Why stifle the "theory of creationism" but allow the "theory of evolution" in schools, especially in a society where the vast majority of people believe in a higher being?[/quote:f8d6f]

Because one theory is clearly right to anyone who knows what they're talking about (that last part is important). The theory of a higher being is not the topic at hand.

 

[John]

Evolution is not science. Biology is. Evolution is a theory that suggests how everything came to be as we see it today, from the first microbe onward. Biology is the study of living organisms and how they interact with their environment. Yes creatures may adapt thanks to God's genius in his creation, call it evolution if you will But like I've said over and over again there are limits, there is simply no evidence that a microbe can form into human given enough time.

Many evolutionists and atheists alike have - throughout history - shunned Scripture and the lessons learned therein by claiming that Creation Science isn't testable, repeatable, observable, and so forth. As this is true about certain aspects of Creation Science, this is also true about certain aspects of Evolutionary "Science". One cannot deny the overwhelming amounts of assumptions and un-justifiable dedications that materialists demonstrate.

Both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical assumptions. Evolutionists (traditionally) start with the assumption that God has no intervention in this world. This isn't a testable conclusion; they didn't come to this conclusion by science. Creationists have the philosophical position that God has partaken in the history of this earth, and that He has revealed the True history of the earth through His infallible Word.

As you can see, both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical premises. There are many aspects of the Creation Theory that are indeed testable also. For instance, the Bible states that earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago, in six literal days. Evolutionism claims that the earth came into existence some 3-5 billion years ago, over a very long and tedious process of formation. Both of these teachings can be tested to some extent. It's important to also emphasize the knowledge difference between fallible man (who is a fallen creature), and the Omniscient God, Creator and sustainer of all.

When man inspects the earth, the biosphere, the world around us, we formulate hypothesis as to how things came to be as they are today. After data is brought in and analyzed, we can test our hypothesis and see what outcomes we're given. Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old).

Now, we can see that both Creation and Evolutionism have non-testable aspects about them, and also testable aspects about them as well. I do not wish to invite Creation into public schools, but only to have incorrect information extracted from taxpayer-purchased textbooks. Schools have a legal, as well as moral obligation to remain truthful to our students. Unfortunately, many schools today have veered from this path and have accepted voodoo-science as part of their curriculum. Material such as the gill slits, the horse evolution, the human evolution, the evolution of the giraffe, and so much more are still presented to children as facts, and done so dogmatically.

When will the World - wake up and smell the indoctrination. Millions of children everyday are being presented with information that is testable, has been tested, and is now scratched off as untrue in the scientific literature. Even our SAT's are presenting incorrect information to our fervent studiers. Both Creation and Evolutionism are testable in certain areas and un-testable in others, both have been tested, and only one prevails - Creation. We were fearfully and wonderfully created, and we will soon stand before He that creates and give an account for the life we lived. Will you be ready?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Because one theory is clearly right to anyone who knows what they're talking about (that last part is important). The theory of a higher being is not the topic at hand.

Ah, so if you belive in "evolution", you know what you are talking about; a bright sort of fellow. But if you believe in God, you clearly are deluded. Is that how it goes?

You would do well to remember that Western Civilization and all it beautiful artistry was created by such deluded people as myself, while civilizations with atheism as their backbone - such as the Soviet Union - were monstrous creations which are now fortunately in the trash heap of history. Our greatest minds have been men of faith: different faiths, but men of faith all the same. Ah, but a bright chap such as yourself knows they were all deluded but YOU clearly know what you are talking about, right?

 

[Snidey]

lol @ evolution being based upon a philosophical assumption. YECs try so hard to push evolution into the same category as their own beliefs. Sorry, that's not how it works. Caricatures of evolution might make you feel good, but swinging back and forth between saying evolution is a philosophy and creationism is a science won't get you far.

 

[John]

Ah, so if you belive in "evolution", you know what you are talking about; a bright sort of fellow. But if you believe in God, you clearly are deluded. Is that how it goes?

Sadly yes CC, Men of "intellect" believe that what they imagine about this world must be ultimate truth.

But as we know Jesus said "He is the truth", I am glad, for better or worse, to be on the winning side.

 

[Snidey]

Because one theory is clearly right to anyone who knows what they're talking about (that last part is important). The theory of a higher being is not the topic at hand.

Ah, so if you belive in "evolution", you know what you are talking about; a bright sort of fellow. But if you believe in God, you clearly are deluded. Is that how it goes?

You would do well to remember that Western Civilization and all it beautiful artistry was created by such deluded people as myself, while civilizations with atheism as their backbone - such as the Soviet Union - were monstrous creations which are now fortunately in the trash heap of history. Our greatest minds have been men of faith: different faiths, but men of faith all the same. Ah, but a bright chap such as yourself knows they were all deluded but YOU clearly know what you are talking about, right?

If you believe in evolution, you have a modern scientific understanding of biology. It doesn't make you smart (though knowing a lot about it might). I never said anything about believing in any sort of god, you can stop inferring.

 

[Snidey]

Ah, so if you belive in "evolution", you know what you are talking about; a bright sort of fellow. But if you believe in God, you clearly are deluded. Is that how it goes?

Sadly yes CC, Men of "intellect" believe that what they imagine about this world must be ultimate truth.

But as we know Jesus said "He is the truth", I am glad, for better or worse, to be on the winning side.

Yeah good thing Jesus said so, otherwise you'd have no way of knowing.

 

[John]

Indeed snidey. I have my faith, just like you have yours :wink:

 

[Snidey]

I like that creationists try to call evolution faith-based, which it's very clearly not, as it demonstrates that they somehow believe that requiring faith is indicative of a lack of evidence. Which it is.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Ah, so if you belive in "evolution", you know what you are talking about; a bright sort of fellow. But if you believe in God, you clearly are deluded. Is that how it goes?

Sadly yes CC, Men of "intellect" believe that what they imagine about this world must be ultimate truth.

But as we know Jesus said "He is the truth", I am glad, for better or worse, to be on the winning side.

Yeah good thing Jesus said so, otherwise you'd have no way of knowing.

Not so. We can deduce some facts from the life of Jesus Christ. Clearly, he was either a brilliant man or a madman, because no ordinary person could have attained his stature and said such profound things.

It is fair to say, from the things he said that he was not mad, because no madman could have spoken with such clarity and ellegance and profoundness. Therefore, since he was not mad, he must have been quite sane, and this brilliant, sane man claimed to be the Son of God, and I see no grounds to disbelieve him. He was not just some sage or wise man as some have claimed, because a wise man would not have made himself equal with God.

He was what he said He was, the Son of the living God. You will come to know this, sooner... ...or later.

 

[Snidey]

Ugh, please don't start paraphrasing CS Lewis, I might roll my eyes out of my sockets.

You left out "liar" - Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord, according to Lewis. Apparently the first two aren't sexy enough, despite the fact that most self-proclaimed messiahs would fit in one of those categories.

He could have very well been insane to a certain degree but still insightful and/or apparently mentally stable from the outside. Many brilliant people are also a bit off their rockers.

You see no grounds to disbelieve him? How about the fact that basically anyone making those same claims would immediately be disregarded? That his claims had no basis in reality?

Of course, Lewis ignores two plausible options: Jesus did not exist at all, or his story has been inflated/mangled by others.

 

[Deep Thought]

I always thought the free flow of ideas was important in a free society. Why stifle the "theory of creationism" but allow the "theory of evolution" in schools, especially in a society where the vast majority of people believe in a higher being?

The big difference being one is a scientific theory and the other is an ordinary theory (in the common usage).

If you don't know what a scientific theory is, then you really should do some more research to learn the difference.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

[quote="Catholic Crusader":e61bf]
I always thought the free flow of ideas was important in a free society. Why stifle the "theory of creationism" but allow the "theory of evolution" in schools, especially in a society where the vast majority of people believe in a higher being?

The big difference being one is a scientific theory and the other is an ordinary theory (in the common usage).

If you don't know what a scientific theory is, then you really should do some more research to learn the difference.[/quote:e61bf]
You know, I don't appreciate sarcasm. I know what I scientific theory is. Thats great for "science" class. But in any academic setting where the orgin of man or the universe is discussed, all points of view should be allowed. You have no more insight into the creation of the universe than I do. And as for science, history shows us that today's science is always tomorrows voodoo, but faith in God always remains.

 

[Deep Thought]

I wasn't being sarcastic. What you wrote indicated that you were equating scientific theory with the common usage of theory.

We broadly know the origins of humans, so unless there is some earth shattering new evidence to show otherwise, why would we give the same validity to any old non-scientifically supported view?

As for the origins of the universe, of certainly don't know everything, but real science is pushing back the frontiers all the time.

As for allowing all points of view to be allowed in academic settings in regards to the origins of the universe, that would be lead to an unworkable and just plain silly process where every single creation myth in existence (or any new ones that can be dreamed up) would have to be considered. That would waste enormous resources from doing real work of scientific research.

 

[freeway]

Wow, you evolutionist sure put us creationist in our place, I mean boy did you ever prove that only the creationist have blind faith... but wait, lets just see what one of your great ones says himself about evolution and creation....

George Wald, the Harvard biochemist who won the Nobel Prize in physiology/medicine in 1967, made the following statement regarding the theory of spontaneous generation: "When it comes to the origin of life, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is not a third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago [by Louis Pasteur], but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are, as the result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."6

wait did he say " I believe"... again WOW! I thought evolution was above reproach... sounds like somebody has.........................faith :wink:

Wald's belief in the impossible can be explained only by faith, not fact. The biblical definition of faith is found in Hebrews 11:1. It is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." By his own admission Wald places the theory of spontaneous generation, the very basis of the theory of evolution, in the realm of philosophy and religion, not science.

well golly don't that just beat all... Here i was-a thinkin oly us dumb christian had faith... :o

you evolutionist need to get off your high horse and admit it, your theory, religion is based on faith.... I have a lot more quotes from your fearless leaders... well here's one more just for fun.. If it can't be proven 100% well its faith= religion...

Evolution is unproved and is unprovable. We believe in it because Creation is unthinkable.
Sir Arthur Keith..
No, did he just use the word "believe" again... tisk... tisk...

 

[jmm9683]

Wow, you evolutionist sure put us creationist in our place, I mean boy did you ever prove that only the creationist have blind faith... but wait, lets just see what one of your great ones says himself about evolution and creation....

George Wald, the Harvard biochemist who won the Nobel Prize in physiology/medicine in 1967, made the following statement regarding the theory of spontaneous generation: "When it comes to the origin of life, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is not a third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago [by Louis Pasteur], but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are, as the result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."6

wait did he say " I believe"... again WOW! I thought evolution was above reproach... sounds like somebody has.........................faith :wink:

Wald's belief in the impossible can be explained only by faith, not fact. The biblical definition of faith is found in Hebrews 11:1. It is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." By his own admission Wald places the theory of spontaneous generation, the very basis of the theory of evolution, in the realm of philosophy and religion, not science.

well golly don't that just beat all... Here i was-a thinkin oly us dumb christian had faith... :o

you evolutionist need to get off your high horse and admit it, your theory, religion is based on faith.... I have a lot more quotes from your fearless leaders... well here's one more just for fun.. If it can't be proven 100% well its faith= religion...

Evolution is unproved and is unprovable. We believe in it because Creation is unthinkable.
Sir Arthur Keith..
No, did he just use the word "believe" again... tisk... tisk...

The origin of life is a separate issue altogether from evolution. Why is this so hard for creationists to understand? So is the theory of relativity invalid because it doesn't explain how energy and matter formed originally?