The dumbing down of America continues...

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Azure

Just because someone believes in creationism, does not necessarily mean someone believes that the world is 6,000 years old. Creationism is simply a belief that God created the earth, the solar system, and the universe. Who is to say he didn't do that with a Big Bang? Or with evolution?

The people that are advocating creationism being taught in school are the young earth creationists. Which basically means that humans were created at our present form and the earth is younger than 10 000 years. I don't believe there is really a push to add the possibility that God kick started the universe with a big bang to a school curriculum. There could be with evolution, but I am not really sure what you would teach. The theory of evolution is a process that works complete on it's own, I haven't heard how God fits into it, beside a role that has him controlling it. I am not sure how that lecture would go, "Evolution is a natural process, but it's guided by God."? It just seems easy to remove a God from such a scenario in my mind.

I'm still trying to figure out who on here has said the earth is flat, and why it keeps coming up. We have all seen pictures of the universe, so we all KNOW the earth is round. Why keep on bringing it up? Seems to me it is the one thing that people can promote...to point out the stupidity of others, so they bring it up again and again.

To me, it is a moot point. And a dumb one to illiterate again and again.

My guess is people are comparing when people thought the earth was flat back in the day (when evidenced had presented itself), to the people of today who think the earth is a young earth (10 000 years or less). People in both times were being ignorant toward evidence and instead relying on a faith or what have you.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Burninator

The people that are advocating creationism being taught in school are the young earth creationists. Which basically means that humans were created at our present form and the earth is younger than 10 000 years. I don't believe there is really a push to add the possibility that God kick started the universe with a big bang to a school curriculum. There could be with evolution, but I am not really sure what you would teach. The theory of evolution is a process that works complete on it's own, I haven't heard how God fits into it, beside a role that has him controlling it. I am not sure how that lecture would go, "Evolution is a natural process, but it's guided by God."? It just seems easy to remove a God from such a scenario in my mind.

You see thats the problem. You think evolution should just remove God from the equation...others think God removes evolution from the equation. You're both wrong.

Might be easy for YOU to remove God, because you don't want to believe he exists in the first place, but for those of us that do....many of us feel compelled to believe that God may have used evolution to create us and the world around us.

Of course, one you try to kick out religion in the name of science, or science in the name of religion, you have a problem.

My guess is people are comparing when people thought the earth was flat back in the day (when evidenced had presented itself), to the people of today who think the earth is a young earth (10 000 years or less). People in both times were being ignorant toward evidence and instead relying on a faith or what have you.

No, people here still believe that there are idiots out there that think the earth is flat, and they keep trying to bring it up in order to prove their point.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Azure

...Creationism is simply a belief that God created the earth, the solar system, and the universe...

Wrong! WRONG! WRONG!! This is absolutely, unequivocally NOT what creationism is! What you have described is a belief in "creation". As I very clearly outlined in an earlier post, creationISM is otherwise the religious conviction that the act of creation was unnatural; that it was miraculously accomplished by the hand of Almighty God. CreationISM is the belief that there are legitimate scientific theories which proove that God magically formed everything from nothing. CreationISM believes that science should make room for a pseudo-scientific alternative to evolution, and that it should be taught as part of the science curriculum. CreationISM is a tool for the propogation of the bad doctrine of biblical inerrency, and for this reason creationISM will NEVER work in science, because everything must be subjected to the pre-scientific, culturally obsolete "plain reading" of Scripture.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Burninator

The people that are advocating creationism being taught in school are the young earth creationists. Which basically means that humans were created at our present form and the earth is younger than 10 000 years. I don't believe there is really a push to add the possibility that God kick started the universe with a big bang to a school curriculum. There could be with evolution, but I am not really sure what you would teach. The theory of evolution is a process that works complete on it's own, I haven't heard how God fits into it, beside a role that has him controlling it. I am not sure how that lecture would go, "Evolution is a natural process, but it's guided by God."? It just seems easy to remove a God from such a scenario in my mind.
My guess is people are comparing when people thought the earth was flat back in the day (when evidenced had presented itself), to the people of today who think the earth is a young earth (10 000 years or less). People in both times were being ignorant toward evidence and instead relying on a faith or what have you.

Are you talking about my junior high science teacher? How he got away with preaching so much nonsense during science class is beyond me. I thought it was illegal to do so in Alberta.

He claimed that the continents were created during The Flood ( The kangaroos mjust have swam to Australia I guess ) and people and dinosaurs co-existed.

When asked why dinosaurs were typically found in lower levels of sediment then human fossils he explained it by saying, "Humans lived on the hills and dinosaurs lived in the swamps."

It still pisses me off to no end that I was forced to sit through that mindless garbage, and it really destroyed my faith in the education system.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Azure

You see thats the problem. You think evolution should just remove God from the equation...others think God removes evolution from the equation. You're both wrong.

Well I'm glad that you're right and have the answer for us.

Might be easy for YOU to remove God, because you don't want to believe he exists in the first place, but for those of us that do....many of us feel compelled to believe that God may have used evolution to create us and the world around us.

Of course, one you try to kick out religion in the name of science, or science in the name of religion, you have a problem.

Well without getting into a debate about the merits of creationism for the dozenth time on this forum, I won't. But I will ask you a question.

How does placing god in the creation or creationism theory help the learning process?

No, people here still believe that there are idiots out there that think the earth is flat, and they keep trying to bring it up in order to prove their point.

Oh, I thought they were getting at something else, I didn't catch that. I've heard something about the Flatters Society before, but I thought they are a joke.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Are you talking about my junior high science teacher? How he got away with preaching so much nonsense during science class is beyond me. I thought it was illegal to do so in Alberta.

He claimed that the continents were created during The Flood ( The kangaroos mjust have swam to Australia I guess ) and people and dinosaurs co-existed.

When asked why dinosaurs were typically found in lower levels of sediment then human fossils he explained it by saying, "Humans lived on the hills and dinosaurs lived in the swamps."

It still pisses me off to no end that I was forced to sit through that mindless garbage, and it really destroyed my faith in the education system.

It's disappointing really. As far as I am concerned people can believe that the earth is young and people walked with the dinosaurs, whatever. But it has no merit being in the science class in that context.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Wrong! WRONG! WRONG!! This is absolutely, unequivocally NOT what creationism is! What you have described is a belief in "creation". As I very clearly outlined in an earlier post, creationISM is otherwise the religious conviction that the act of creation was unnatural; that it was miraculously accomplished by the hand of Almighty God. CreationISM is the belief that there are legitimate scientific theories which proove that God magically formed everything from nothing. CreationISM believes that science should make room for a pseudo-scientific alternative to evolution, and that it should be taught as part of the science curriculum. CreationISM is a tool for the propogation of the bad doctrine of biblical inerrency, and for this reason creationISM will NEVER work in science, because everything must be subjected to the pre-scientific, culturally obsolete "plain reading" of Scripture.

You're oversimplifying. There are many different kinds of creationism; the kind you speak of is Young Earth Creationism (YEC). It is almost exclusively an American, protestant idea which has only really been around for about a hundred years. George McCready Price's (a Seventh Day Adventist) 1923 book The New Geology can be given a lot of credit for its development. YEC adherents are strict biblical literalists.

There are other kinds of creationism though. There are those, like Azure, who hold to the belief that God created the world and life making use of naturalistic methods, the big bang, evolution, etc. These people can and should still be called creationists because of their belief that the universe was created as opposed to having just happened.

A new theory, one which evangelical YEC'ers have latched onto with fervour is Intelligent Design. I think this is the 'pseudo-scientific' theory you refer to which YEC'ers want taught in schoos (under the slogan "teach the controversy"). ID theory basically states that observations seem to indicate that Natrual Selection is not sufficient to explain the diversity and the complexity of life. A common topic in ID theory is "irreducible complexity". Often the eye, or the cell is held up as being something which requires all of its parts functioning in exactly the manner in which they do function in order to exist. This is then said to show that evolution, with its false starts, dead ends, and constant adjustment couldn't possibly have produced something which consists of multiple parts and requires them all to perform specific functions in order to exist. (Of course, both of these examples can be refuted.)

ID theory, thus far, is grossly unsatisfactory as a scientific theory because it totally fails to explain anything. It makes no claims about who the 'designer' is or what methods this designer uses nor does it make testable predictions. Also, ID theory has been almost completely hijacked by right wing, conservative christians.

Also, it is important to note that the Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of life. The TOE explains how and why life changes over time once it is already in existence. Many adherents to the TOE believe that life just happened all by itself, many don't. As of right now there is no compelling evidence for either case. There is, however, overwhealming evidence that, however life did spring into existance on this planet, it did so only once.

[driveway]

Also... to refute a common refrain here. In two ways it is possible to demonstrate that, while not the centre of the solar system, the Earth IS the centre of the universe.

Method one:
Since we are on the earth, and all of our observations are made from here, we are the centre of that part of the universe we can preceive. Therefore, on a perceptual level, the earth is the centre of the universe.

Method two:
1. The universe is infinite.
2. In an infinite space, all points are equidistant from the edge of that space.
Therefore all points in the universe can be said to be at the centre. The Earth is a point, therefore it is the centre of the universe.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by driveway

You're oversimplifying. There are many different kinds of creationism; the kind you speak of is Young Earth Creationism (YEC). It is almost exclusively an American, protestant idea which has only really been around for about a hundred years. George McCready Price's (a Seventh Day Adventist) 1923 book The New Geology can be given a lot of credit for its development. YEC adherents are strict biblical literalists.

There are other kinds of creationism though. There are those, like Azure, who hold to the belief that God created the world and life making use of naturalistic methods, the big bang, evolution, etc. These people can and should still be called creationists because of their belief that the universe was created as opposed to having just happened.

This is wrong.

According to OED, creationism is defined as follows:

creationism: A system or theory of creation: spec. a. The theory that God immediately creates a soul for every human being born (opposed to traducianism); b. The theory which attributes the origin of matter, the different species of animals and plants, etc., to ‘special creation’ (opposed to evolutionism).

Note that "creationism" is the antithesis of "evolutionism". It is technically not possible to be a creationist and to believe in any form of evolution. Creationism is distinguished by its insistence upon "special creation"; that is, that the origins of everything cannot be prooved outside of its emanation from God. I believe in creation, but most certainly am not a "creationist".

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by driveway

Also... to refute a common refrain here. In two ways it is possible to demonstrate that, while not the centre of the solar system, the Earth IS the centre of the universe.

Method one:
Since we are on the earth, and all of our observations are made from here, we are the centre of that part of the universe we can preceive. Therefore, on a perceptual level, the earth is the centre of the universe.

Method two:
1. The universe is infinite.
2. In an infinite space, all points are equidistant from the edge of that space.
Therefore all points in the universe can be said to be at the centre. The Earth is a point, therefore it is the centre of the universe.

Method One: False. Using this rationale, since the Earth circles the Sun the observations are not centred around the Earth but are actually centred around the Sun. Taken to the next step, since the universe is expanding, even out current observations cannot be identified as centred at on specific physical space (as measured across the whole universe). Which leads to...

Method 2 - False. The universe is still expanding. And I'm not sure what logic allows you to say that space is infinite and then state that all points are equi-distant to the edge? If space was infinite then it wouldn't have an edge. For many mathematical calculations you may be able to exclude the edge by saying that as the distance gets great enough, the difference in the relative distances to the edge diminishes to zero, but at no time should you jump from "space is limitless" to "everything is the same distance to the edge of space".

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Well I'm glad that you're right and have the answer for us.

I never said I had the answer. Neither of us have the answer, therefore neither of us can ban one side...like taking God out of the equation...nor could we put God in the equation and say he did everything and science means nothing.

I look at it this way. If God did indeed create us....he created us to become this knowledgeable. Meaning he also created everything we have learned about....which to me means he used scientific methods to do so, because we are learning about this science.

Its sad to say that certain people deny that science, but that is their prerogative. Me and you can look at it, and go wow. Because really, looking at what science has done for us...we SHOULD go wow.

Well without getting into a debate about the merits of creationism for the dozenth time on this forum, I won't. But I will ask you a question.

How does placing god in the creation or creationism theory help the learning process?

What does taking God out of something he is the most important part of help anything? Creation/creationism is defined around God existing. So I don't really know what you're asking.

Are you trying to tell me life would be much better if we removed the side you disagree with, simply because, on your terms, it would not help the learning process? What learning process? Creationism is based around God. Read the definition Textcritic provided.

Oh, I thought they were getting at something else, I didn't catch that. I've heard something about the Flatters Society before, but I thought they are a joke.

We all think it is a joke, so why bring it up?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

^^^^ Give that man a red square or two. Beautiful!!!

Red squares? Gold stars! Well done Daradon.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Azure

What does taking God out of something he is the most important part of help anything? Creation/creationism is defined around God existing. So I don't really know what you're asking.

Are you trying to tell me life would be much better if we removed the side you disagree with, simply because, on your terms, it would not help the learning process? What learning process? Creationism is based around God. Read the definition Textcritic provided.

I'm sorry I worded that poorly. Trying to work and check out CP at the same time. Guess I've already checked out for the long weekend.

Do you think God should be taught as a theory/or included in other theories in terms of creation of the universe? And if so, why is that a benefit in the process of understanding?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I'm sorry I worded that poorly. Trying to work and check out CP at the same time. Guess I've already checked out for the long weekend.

Do you think God should be taught as a theory/or included in other theories in terms of creation of the universe? And if so, why is that a benefit in the process of understanding?

Not in a science classroom. Not alongside scientific theories.

In a theology classroom...alongside the Darwin book, absolutely.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not in a science classroom. Not alongside scientific theories.

In a theology classroom...alongside the Darwin book, absolutely.

Good to hear, very fair.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

No, people here still believe that there are idiots out there that think the earth is flat, and they keep trying to bring it up in order to prove their point.

Nope, that's not it. All references to "believing in a flat earth" are made as a comparison between "Young Earth Creationism" and "flat earth belief".

As in "believing the earth is 6000 years old is like believing the earth is flat. They are both wrong".

Nobody, as far as I can tell, is bringing up flat-earth beliefs just to prove a point. What point would it prove to just casually mention that some people believe in a flat earth?

[Shawnski]

Last time I checked, this was a tiny thread about a televangelist. Looks like it took a left turn at Albuquerque.

This whole thread is a great topic for "Mythbusters"!

Flashpoint: "For example - in Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive cars."
Many can't in Calgary either. Drive Deerfoot lately?

Burninator: "how come no one has committed anything terrible in the name of atheism?"
Hitler perhaps? To say "no one" is a generalization that will fail as most generalizations do.

flip: "a note about noahs ark, in case no one has mentioned it yet, is that most of the cultures in the area of the middle east where noah is thought to have originated have some mention of a great flood at the time that the christians claim that the great flood took place. "
The CO2 levels got out of control apparently.

Photon: "Science makes no claims that it comprehends the universe; quite the opposite, science has demonstrated time and again it will change everything when presented with new evidence."
So hypothetically, they could end up coming complete circle and agreeing with one or more religions on one or more aspects?

MarchHare: "My personal views lie somewhere between agnosticism and weak atheism."
Yup, me too. Personally, it is a choice of good, or of evil. Strangly close to "of God" and "D'evil" (francaisish!), eh?

Stormchaser: "Simply put. If you are to belive any of the Bibles miracles, you will have to accept that it took a miracle to make it happen."
Wouldn't the same be said about the odds that some particles came together and formed life?

On to other items.
Religion is like hockey fans. Flames fans vs Oilers fans vs Canucks fans. Proximity and interaction plays a huge role. Do you really hate the Panthers for any reason? They are like Buddhists. The Oilers and Canucks are definitely the Jehovah's Witnesses of our world.

Speaking of which, when was the last time an atheist or agnostic knocked on your door Sunday morning to push their view on you?

Salesperson 101. Tell someone what the solution is and they will reject the solution. Impose it upon them and they will reject you.

Why is it that so many religious people do get into positions of power? Lack of criminal record, respected by peers for being a "good" person, community service, dedication to their moral beliefs?

Why is it that there are therefore a shortfall in that same position of power from atheists/agnostics? Where is the disconnect?

Why is it that it appears "liberal" people seem to have the most problems with allowing teachings of religions and beliefs, yet they believe that people should have an open mindedness to gay marriage, legalizing marijuana, etc which are considered thinking out of the box situations?

Why is it that we can sometimes have the right "answer" to a question, but not realize it, or have it for the wrong reason? One memorable example is when a teacher asked our Grade 7 class what the plural was for "syntactical"? (This was circa 1978) For whatever reason, I put up my hand and said "syntax". It was the right answer (for him) and he was flabbergausted. He queried how the hell I knew that. " I dunno." One of the only times in any class I said those words. Perhaps I had some connection with "sin tax" as my mother smoked and hated taxation in general. But I had the right answer for the wrong reason. (I didn't even touch a computer to the following year, and your current wristwatch has more power in it than the massive "Basic" box we had then.)

Consciousness.

This one floors me the most.

At what level are we truly conscious, and why? Are amoebas? Viruses? Trees and other plants? How do they attain this level of comprehension?

And what happens if the body itself dies? Does that conscious live on? How do we know it doesn't? What do we know about it?

For those that haven't experienced it, watching someone die, and the life going out of their eyes, is ... well, I can't put the words together. I missed my Mother's passing by an hour, but was there for my Dad's. Man, I am having a hard time finding the words here... Bottom line, his life left him as his eyes went opaque (quite some time after his heart had stopped.) But that didn't stop his body from moving for quite a bit. "Body" and "soul" are separate... if one considers the consciousness your soul. That one, I think I have a hard time understanding, and I can't find any science that helps explain any of it. Did cognizance start in that swampy pond millions of years ago? Or did it kick in somewhere along the line? Why? How? And to what level? What about plants? How do they fit in?

My late input into this discussion, and I won't be back for several days to reply. Sorry!

[driveway]

[quote=Bobblehead;890798]Method One: False. Using this rationale, since the Earth circles the Sun the observations are not centred around the Earth but are actually centred around the Sun. quote]

Technically, the earth doesn't orbit the sun, but rather the sun and earth orbit around their barycentre which is the centre of the combined mass of both bodies. The sun-earth barycentre lies within the body of the sun, but is not at its centre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Orbit4.gif

Also, I don't actually believe that the earth is the centre of the universe, I just was having fun making arguments.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is wrong.

According to OED, creationism is defined as follows:

Note that "creationism" is the antithesis of "evolutionism". It is technically not possible to be a creationist and to believe in any form of evolution. Creationism is distinguished by its insistence upon "special creation"; that is, that the origins of everything cannot be prooved outside of its emanation from God. I believe in creation, but most certainly am not a "creationist".

What you have done here is called an "appeal to authority" and it is a logical fallacy. It is exactly the same thing as saying "it says so in the bible, so it must be true." Just because the OED says something, does not make it so. Also, the OED offers two definitions of creationism, the first of which (The theory that God immediately creates a soul for every human being born) has nothing to do with being opposed to evolution.

[Azure]

Wow Shawnski...that was good.

There are posters on here, and then there are posters.