Good luck Texas. - Page 4

Fish · 03-28-09, 09:21 AM

Good for you Texas!

Quote:

A final 13-2 vote approved language that will be printed in textbooks beginning in 2011 and remain there for 10 years, CNN affiliate KPRC-TV in Houston reported:
"In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental observation and testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the students."

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/03/27...ion.evolution/

Platapus · 03-28-09, 11:33 AM

Although it is very unscientific, just simple observation of humans and how they acted through out history and continue to act places serious doubt in my mind about Intelligent Design

Platapus · 03-28-09, 11:38 AM

And in discussing the writings of Charles Darwin, it is important to separate what was written in "The Origin of the Species" and in "The Decent of Man" as the two works were different, albeit related.

Sailor Steve · 03-28-09, 11:39 AM

The problem I have with Creationism is simply this:

Creationists try to dismiss the theory of evolution by pointing out its flaws; and, as with all scientific theory, there are some. The problem is compounded by the fact that there are a lot of people who do treat evolution as though it were a religious belief, and get into shouting matches and arrogant dismissals themselves.

Every real scientist knows that today's pet theory may well be tomorrow's bad joke. It's something they live with. On the other hand, given the acceptance of radiocarbon dating systems and the observed fact of mutation at the cellular level, it's the best theory we have at the moment. If it were to be proven wrong tomorrow, a lot of people would be devastated, but most would say "Okay, how do we explain these phenomena?" and get back to work.

On the other hand, Creationism came about because one man, Bishop James Ussher of the Anglican Church, carefully calculated the date of creation to be 23 October 4004 BC, exactly 4000 years before the accepted date of the birth of Christ. If the Bible is taken literally then this was valid. Most serious biblical scholars today state the belief that parts of the Bible are indeed allegorical, especially the parts that aren't stated to be eyewitness accounts.

But what about Creationism? It is less than theory, relying on a pre-concieved idea (that there is a God, and that he created the universe out of whole cloth), and attempts to apply it to science. This requires the dismissal of any conflicting idea, which is not science, and while Creationists go to great lengths to disprove parts of evolution, the willfully blind themselves to any flaws in their own reasoning.

I once postulated the qestion of what would happen if God appeared to some primitive shepherd and, rather than saying "Write this down as I dictate it" said "Here, let me show you how I did it!"

Big Bang? "And God said 'Let there be light!' And there was light!"

Show him the development of the Earth through the ages? It gets written down as Seven Days.

Just my own ideas, but are they any less valid than anyone else's when speaking of the esoteric? Would proof that evolution is indeed a reality dismiss the possibility that it was all called into being by God? Would the proof of a 'Young Earth' immediately prove that it was created by God?

In both cases the answer is "No". Evolution is an attempt by scientists to explain what they see. They don't insist the Earth is billions of years old just because their ideas require it. Carbon-dating is accepted as reasonbly reliable. Creationists take evolution as a direct challenge to their most cherished beliefs, and for them to not feel threatened by it they feel they have to disprove it.

Creationism is an attempt to force science to adapt to a pre-concieved idea, one which has its own flaws when looked at with scientific means.

Science is discovery. What is discovered needs to be explained. Natural evolution is one such explanation. So is the idea of direct creation by God. One does not preclude the other. But the idea of dismissing natural explanations by insisting that much of what scientists believe is wrong requires more science, and the idea that the universe had a supernatural beginning is one that cannot be proven, and is therefore outside the realm of science.

It may be true, but trying to prove it with half-science is a desparate grasp at something that cannot be grasped. The Christian's faith, and even salvation, don't depend on believing in the Seven Days, or The Flood, or anything else. They only depend on the Atonement.

Biggles · 03-28-09, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The Christian's faith, and even salvation, don't depend on believing in the Seven Days, or The Flood, or anything else. They only depend on the Atonement.

Oh if just everyone thought like this... Kudos to you mate, some very good points in that post!

BTW, honest question, does Texas count into the so called "Bible-Belt"?

03-28-09, 01:52 PM

Quote:

According to Webster's dictionary, the "word" you used isn't a word.

Try a different dictionary

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...term=cretinist

mookiemookie · 03-28-09, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggles

BTW, honest question, does Texas count into the so called "Bible-Belt"?

It does indeed.

And Steve, great points. My opposition to intelligent design or creationism (whatever they want to call it) being in a science textbook is that it's not science. You can't apply the scientific method to it, so therefore it has no place being mentioned in an academic discussion of science. There's no lab test to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Digital_Trucker · 03-28-09, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Try a different dictionary

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...term=cretinist

I'm not a big fan of ebonics, I'll just stick to official words

@Steve Couldn't have said it better if I'd worked on it for a week.

antikristuseke · 03-28-09, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The problem I have with Creationism is simply this:

Creationists try to dismiss the theory of evolution by pointing out its flaws; and, as with all scientific theory, there are some. The problem is compounded by the fact that there are a lot of people who do treat evolution as though it were a religious belief, and get into shouting matches and arrogant dismissals themselves.

Every real scientist knows that today's pet theory may well be tomorrow's bad joke. It's something they live with. On the other hand, given the acceptance of radiocarbon dating systems and the observed fact of mutation at the cellular level, it's the best theory we have at the moment. If it were to be proven wrong tomorrow, a lot of people would be devastated, but most would say "Okay, how do we explain these phenomena?" and get back to work.

On the other hand, Creationism came about because one man, Bishop James Ussher of the Anglican Church, carefully calculated the date of creation to be 23 October 4004 BC, exactly 4000 years before the accepted date of the birth of Christ. If the Bible is taken literally then this was valid. Most serious biblical scholars today state the belief that parts of the Bible are indeed allegorical, especially the parts that aren't stated to be eyewitness accounts.

But what about Creationism? It is less than theory, relying on a pre-concieved idea (that there is a God, and that he created the universe out of whole cloth), and attempts to apply it to science. This requires the dismissal of any conflicting idea, which is not science, and while Creationists go to great lengths to disprove parts of evolution, the willfully blind themselves to any flaws in their own reasoning.

I once postulated the qestion of what would happen if God appeared to some primitive shepherd and, rather than saying "Write this down as I dictate it" said "Here, let me show you how I did it!"

Big Bang? "And God said 'Let there be light!' And there was light!"

Show him the development of the Earth through the ages? It gets written down as Seven Days.

Just my own ideas, but are they any less valid than anyone else's when speaking of the esoteric? Would proof that evolution is indeed a reality dismiss the possibility that it was all called into being by God? Would the proof of a 'Young Earth' immediately prove that it was created by God?

In both cases the answer is "No". Evolution is an attempt by scientists to explain what they see. They don't insist the Earth is billions of years old just because their ideas require it. Carbon-dating is accepted as reasonbly reliable. Creationists take evolution as a direct challenge to their most cherished beliefs, and for them to not feel threatened by it they feel they have to disprove it.

Creationism is an attempt to force science to adapt to a pre-concieved idea, one which has its own flaws when looked at with scientific means.

Science is discovery. What is discovered needs to be explained. Natural evolution is one such explanation. So is the idea of direct creation by God. One does not preclude the other. But the idea of dismissing natural explanations by insisting that much of what scientists believe is wrong requires more science, and the idea that the universe had a supernatural beginning is one that cannot be proven, and is therefore outside the realm of science.

It may be true, but trying to prove it with half-science is a desparate grasp at something that cannot be grasped. The Christian's faith, and even salvation, don't depend on believing in the Seven Days, or The Flood, or anything else. They only depend on the Atonement.

Agreed, but with a small correction. Radiocarbon dating is only good for about 60,000 years. The age of the Earth is determined by other readiological dating methods which show that age to be 4.55. The Moon has allso been dated to the age of 4.5 billion years. Anyway, this is the MINIMUM age of the Earth.
More information on radiometric dating methods can be found here: http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

Schroeder · 03-28-09, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

The Moon has allso been dated to the age of 4.5 billion years. Anyway, this is the MINIMUM age of the Earth.

Could be because the moon was once part of the earth. (or so it is believed... by scientists)

Stealth Hunter · 03-28-09, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Could be because the moon was once part of the earth. (or so it is believed... by scientists)

Could very well be the case. It more than likely was formed when Earth was still molten. Something had to collide with us, however.

03-28-09, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Radiocarbon dating is only good for about 60,000 years.

That means radiocarbon dating is perfect for the job, after all as everyting is only 6000 years old at the most radiocarbon dating will still cover everything for the next 54,000 years to come .

antikristuseke · 03-28-09, 06:58 PM

Tribesman, I hope you are joking. It is nigh on impossible to tell when someone is pretending to be a cretionist.

03-28-09, 08:24 PM

Quote:

It is nigh on impossible to tell when someone is pretending to be a cretionist.

Yep , cretinists are often so crazy its hard to tell if they are being serious
Take Jack Chick for example, serious or spoof ?
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp
What about these fruits ?

Are they serious or a comedy duo ?
Though I think my favourite must be that Kent Hovind muppet where he shows children a picture of a chimp and asks if it looks like their grandfather because the evilutionists say your grandaddy was a monkey .

Stealth Hunter · 03-28-09, 11:36 PM

Chick's Publications has been around for since 1961, publishing this kind of stuff time and time again. Given this and some of the stuff his website says, he's definitely a real fundamentalist (or he's been hosting one of history's greatest spoofs for the past four -soon to be five- decades). Really, he should have been shut down by now for misrepresenting and slandering some of history's greatest scientists, including Albert Einstein, Francis Crick and his associate James Watson, Carl Sagan, and Karl Popper.

And that video, Tribesman, is not at all shocking of that asshat Ray Comfort. Sadly, Kirk Cameron was indoctrinated into their ranks as an adolescent.

Look at what them and their ilk put the children through:

Sickening... just sickening...

03-28-09, 11:33 AM	#47
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,362 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Although it is very unscientific, just simple observation of humans and how they acted through out history and continue to act places serious doubt in my mind about Intelligent Design __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

03-28-09, 11:38 AM	#48
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,362 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	And in discussing the writings of Charles Darwin, it is important to separate what was written in "The Origin of the Species" and in "The Decent of Man" as the two works were different, albeit related. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

03-28-09, 11:39 AM	#49
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	The problem I have with Creationism is simply this: Creationists try to dismiss the theory of evolution by pointing out its flaws; and, as with all scientific theory, there are some. The problem is compounded by the fact that there are a lot of people who do treat evolution as though it were a religious belief, and get into shouting matches and arrogant dismissals themselves. Every real scientist knows that today's pet theory may well be tomorrow's bad joke. It's something they live with. On the other hand, given the acceptance of radiocarbon dating systems and the observed fact of mutation at the cellular level, it's the best theory we have at the moment. If it were to be proven wrong tomorrow, a lot of people would be devastated, but most would say "Okay, how do we explain these phenomena?" and get back to work. On the other hand, Creationism came about because one man, Bishop James Ussher of the Anglican Church, carefully calculated the date of creation to be 23 October 4004 BC, exactly 4000 years before the accepted date of the birth of Christ. If the Bible is taken literally then this was valid. Most serious biblical scholars today state the belief that parts of the Bible are indeed allegorical, especially the parts that aren't stated to be eyewitness accounts. But what about Creationism? It is less than theory, relying on a pre-concieved idea (that there is a God, and that he created the universe out of whole cloth), and attempts to apply it to science. This requires the dismissal of any conflicting idea, which is not science, and while Creationists go to great lengths to disprove parts of evolution, the willfully blind themselves to any flaws in their own reasoning. I once postulated the qestion of what would happen if God appeared to some primitive shepherd and, rather than saying "Write this down as I dictate it" said "Here, let me show you how I did it!" Big Bang? "And God said 'Let there be light!' And there was light!" Show him the development of the Earth through the ages? It gets written down as Seven Days. Just my own ideas, but are they any less valid than anyone else's when speaking of the esoteric? Would proof that evolution is indeed a reality dismiss the possibility that it was all called into being by God? Would the proof of a 'Young Earth' immediately prove that it was created by God? In both cases the answer is "No". Evolution is an attempt by scientists to explain what they see. They don't insist the Earth is billions of years old just because their ideas require it. Carbon-dating is accepted as reasonbly reliable. Creationists take evolution as a direct challenge to their most cherished beliefs, and for them to not feel threatened by it they feel they have to disprove it. Creationism is an attempt to force science to adapt to a pre-concieved idea, one which has its own flaws when looked at with scientific means. Science is discovery. What is discovered needs to be explained. Natural evolution is one such explanation. So is the idea of direct creation by God. One does not preclude the other. But the idea of dismissing natural explanations by insisting that much of what scientists believe is wrong requires more science, and the idea that the universe had a supernatural beginning is one that cannot be proven, and is therefore outside the realm of science. It may be true, but trying to prove it with half-science is a desparate grasp at something that cannot be grasped. The Christian's faith, and even salvation, don't depend on believing in the Seven Days, or The Flood, or anything else. They only depend on the Atonement. __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

03-28-09, 06:58 PM	#58
antikristuseke Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Estland Posts: 4,330 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	Tribesman, I hope you are joking. It is nigh on impossible to tell when someone is pretending to be a cretionist.

03-28-09, 11:36 PM	#60
Stealth Hunter Silent Hunter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Y'ha-Nthlei Posts: 4,262 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	Chick's Publications has been around for since 1961, publishing this kind of stuff time and time again. Given this and some of the stuff his website says, he's definitely a real fundamentalist (or he's been hosting one of history's greatest spoofs for the past four -soon to be five- decades). Really, he should have been shut down by now for misrepresenting and slandering some of history's greatest scientists, including Albert Einstein, Francis Crick and his associate James Watson, Carl Sagan, and Karl Popper. And that video, Tribesman, is not at all shocking of that asshat Ray Comfort. Sadly, Kirk Cameron was indoctrinated into their ranks as an adolescent. Look at what them and their ilk put the children through: Sickening... just sickening...