Thoughts on teaching Creation in school...

[Mush Martin]

Sorry DT Creationism is a belief not a science

Natural selection is an observable process.

your comparing apples and oranges.

in one proof denies faith
and in the other faith denies proof.

I would shoot myself if those folks actually
ever got in charge

all it takes is for good men to do nothing,

Democracy should guarantee freedom from religion outside
the home, not freedom of it.

[Digital_Trucker]

Sorry Mush, but science is a belief based on what think we know at the moment. I never said I believed in creation either, now did I?

Mikhayl, if history starts at the big bang, what was there before the big bang? Isn't history supposed to cover "everything"? Was there nothing before the Big Bang? If there was nothing before the Big Bang how the hell did the Big Bang occur?

Wait, we don't KNOW that? That's my whole point, we only THINK we KNOW things.

[Mush Martin]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

Sorry Mush, but science is a belief based on what think we know at the moment. I never said I believed in creation either, now did I?

Mikhayl, if history starts at the big bang, what was there before the big bang? Isn't history supposed to cover "everything"? Was there nothing before the Big Bang? If there was nothing before the Big Bang how the hell did the Big Bang occur?

Wait, we don't KNOW that? That's my whole point, we only THINK we KNOW things.

I would encourage anyone to question what they think they know.
at every turn and never take whats handed down to you at face
value.

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Mush Martin

I would encourage anyone to question what they think they know.
at every turn and never take whats handed down to you at face
value.

And I would encourage anyone to do the same. That's exactly my point.

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Mush Martin

Natural selection is an observable process.

Observable over what length of time in the grand scheme of things? If we accept that time started with the Big Bang, we haven't even observed a nanosecond of the first hour.

[Mush Martin]

you wont come down from full scale its all or nothing then?


Ok , there is no object organization or entity that does not
evolve in the presence of time.
not even vacuum as we observe the distance between the
stars Grow litterally even vacuum can expand on itself.

there are no exceptions
headlights
screwdrivers
hotel chains
aircraft
mountains
rivers
lakes
oceans
planets
stars
comets
galaxyies
superstrings.


find a valid exception you can name. :hmm:

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Mush Martin

you wont come down from full scale its all or nothing then?


Ok , there is no object organization or entity that does not
evolve in the presence of time.
not even vacuum as we observe the distance between the
stars Grow litterally even vacuum can expand on itself.

there are no exceptions
headlights
screwdrivers
hotel chains
aircraft
mountains
rivers
lakes
oceans
planets
stars
comets
galaxyies
superstrings.


find a valid exception you can name. :hmm:

That's exactly the freakin' point, there are exceptions that we CAN'T possibly name because they haven't been discovered yet.

[Letum]

Intelligent kids are gonna work out the most rational answer them selves.

Those that can't work it out for them selves probably won't ever need to know
how such things work and may live in ignorance with out any major problems.

One thing that you can be sure will evolve are ideas. Only the fittest survive.
This will be as much of a non-issue as geo-centralism in 50 years.

[Mush Martin]

Human history or canadian history
or earth history or universal history

they sort of all start in different place's

I of course would start human history somewhere
a little before Homo Habilus sure I will go with
austrailopithicus. if were talking human history
but the history of civilization begins later in
the tigris euphrates delta.
(JMO)

[Digital_Trucker]

Letum and I agree on something and he put it a lot simpler than I did. Thank you sir.

Mikhayl I would hardly say something as silly as dinosaur fossils were put there to test our faith. In fact, I've never said what my faith was or whether I believe in creation or not. Give children the evidence that we have and let them make up their own minds.

[mrbeast]

The problem is there is no credible evidence for creationism. All the evidence points to evolution through natural selection. Therefore it would seem a pointless excercise to teach creationism.

[Digital_Trucker]

Evidence does not equal proof (otherwise we wouldn't have debates over whether the death penalty is appropriate or not based on the guilt of the "alleged" offender)

and

Lack of evidence does not equal non-existence (that which we had no evidence of 50 years ago does not disprove what we may discover 50 years from now)

[Blacklight]

This is about the one part of the Constitution that so few people obey. TOTAL SEPARATION of church and state.

Creation is a RELIGIOUS theory. It belongs being taught in a CHURCH. NOT in a public school.

[Sailor Steve]

Very true, but Evolution at least stems from trained scientist looking at the evidence and forming a conclusion; and any reputable scientist lives with the knowledge that today's pet theory might well be tomorrow's bad joke.

Creation, on the other hand, comes from a religious teaching and has no other background. As was said earlier, if you're going to throw Christian Creation into the mix and call it good, then you should also throw in Hindu creation, as well as Ancient Greek and Egyptian Creation stories. Who's to say they aren't correct?

[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

Evidence does not equal proof (otherwise we wouldn't have debates over whether the death penalty is appropriate or not based on the guilt of the "alleged" offender)

Certainly, but there comes a point where the evidence puts a proposition beyond reasonable doubt, ie the weight of evidence suggests a conclusion which is inescapable.

Lack of evidence does not equal non-existence (that which we had no evidence of 50 years ago does not disprove what we may discover 50 years from now)

In that case why don't they teach Bertram Russels giant teapot god theory, the fact that there is lack evidence does not equal its non existance? who know what they will find in 50 years?

does this mean they should teach flat earth theory in science also as a counter to the round earth?