Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've seen some of the "scientific proof" offered up by creationists. Those that claim to be Phd. One good example is the cause of the great flood. Water spewed forth from "down deep wells"? Is that why Old Faithful blows off steam every hour? They point to the words in the Biblical texts and show an animation as "scientific proof". With that, they can not even prove that the flood actually happened in the first place.
On the other hand, true science can not only prove that a flood of Biblical proportions did happen, but they can also pinpoint a close date by the clay deposits left behind. Even more recently, they've found evidence that a large meteorite or comet splashed into the ocean east of Madagascar nearly 5,000 years ago... It was a Mega-Tsunami that caused the flood, and those "down deep wells" were superheated by the earth's molten core and vaporized into the atmosphere through vents in the earth long before that. If they ever existed in the first place.
So, did GOD create the earth and everything on it? Possibly, but certainly not according to the scenario that's being taught.
Clay depossits? You do realize that clays are depositied in very very low energy environments.
I think part of the actual problem is that some churches and other religious institutions have begun teaching "Creation Science" as actual science. There are even PhD's who've written books about Creationism to give it that extra
"sciencey" flair.
My first thought is that this level of stupidity should be criminal, but then I realize we already have too many people in prison, and quadrupling that number by outlawing willful stupidity is cost prohibitive.
I've seen some of the "scientific proof" offered up by creationists. Those that claim to be Phd. One good example is the cause of the great flood. Water spewed forth from "down deep wells"? Is that why Old Faithful blows off steam every hour? They point to the words in the Biblical texts and show an animation as "scientific proof". With that, they can not even prove that the flood actually happened in the first place.
On the other hand, true science can not only prove that a flood of Biblical proportions did happen, but they can also pinpoint a close date by the clay deposits left behind. Even more recently, they've found evidence that a large meteorite or comet splashed into the ocean east of Madagascar nearly 5,000 years ago... It was a Mega-Tsunami that caused the flood, and those "down deep wells" were superheated by the earth's molten core and vaporized into the atmosphere through vents in the earth long before that. If they ever existed in the first place.
So, did GOD create the earth and everything on it? Possibly, but certainly not according to the scenario that's being taught.
Erm, what? It is NOT true that there is scientific evidence of a global flood ANYWHERE in the geologic column. None, nada, ziltch. Whoever told you that there was lied.
Because there is no controversy to teach. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, the best documented scientific theory, in fact. Creationism is a religious belief, and nothing but a religious belief. As such it does not belong in the science classroom. Aside from the fact that the Supreme Court has already ruled that teaching creationism in highschool science classes is unconstitutional, demanding that it be taught in science class is akin to requiring that Shakespeare to be taught in physical education class.
1. Both sides seem to present what they see the supporting evidence to their sides. I have read books on both sides of the issue.
My conclusion, both have their zealots that have shown to try to block the other sides evidence in one way or another.
There are some very level headed atheist that actually do not mind creationists presenting their evidence in any forum. They do not close their mind with the "creatinism is a religious belief". Because it is a religious belief, it does not mean it cannot have scientific information. Even a scientific fact does start with a belief and starts as...premise? theory? postulate? Whatever.
From there any belief can be put to the test.
The constitutional ruling is irrelevant in my opinion. The court rules on matter of law. Its ruling do not prove something is true of wrong, necessarily. It does not put anything to the test. It simply hears and is decided by men that have their own biases on issues as history has proven.
To me the problem seems to be like in your case a matter of having your mind made up and there is no room for discussion. It is the same as some other religioius individual says about his side of the issue.
Also, many people like you seem to have this mental block that because someone put out there, however little, there is the possiblity that someone help in the creation of things, immediately "Oh! oh! God! trying to teach religion!" with their arms up. Well, that is not necessarily the case on some level headed religioius people just as level headed atheist do. Take care.
1. Both sides seem to present what they see the supporting evidence to their sides. I have read books on both sides of the issue.
My conclusion, both have their zealots that have shown to try to block the other sides evidence in one way or another.
There are some very level headed atheist that actually do not mind creationists presenting their evidence in any forum. They do not close their mind with the "creatinism is a religious belief". Because it is a religious belief, it does not mean it cannot have scientific information. Even a scientific fact does start with a belief and starts as...premise? theory? postulate? Whatever.
From there any belief can be put to the test.
The constitutional ruling is irrelevant in my opinion. The court rules on matter of law. Its ruling do not prove something is true of wrong, necessarily. It does not put anything to the test. It simply hears and is decided by men that have their own biases on issues as history has proven.
To me the problem seems to be like in your case a matter of having your mind made up and there is no room for discussion. It is the same as some other religioius individual says about his side of the issue.
Also, many people like you seem to have this mental block that because someone put out there, however little, there is the possiblity that someone help in the creation of things, immediately "Oh! oh! God! trying to teach religion!" with their arms up. Well, that is not necessarily the case on some level headed religioius people just as level headed atheist do. Take care.
Of course there is room for discussion, as long as it is understood what it being discussed. The scientific theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. The religious claim that "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything. End of story.
1. Both sides seem to present what they see the supporting evidence to their sides. I have read books on both sides of the issue.
My conclusion, both have their zealots that have shown to try to block the other sides evidence in one way or another.
There are some very level headed atheist that actually do not mind creationists presenting their evidence in any forum. They do not close their mind with the "creatinism is a religious belief". Because it is a religious belief, it does not mean it cannot have scientific information. Even a scientific fact does start with a belief and starts as...premise? theory? postulate? Whatever.
From there any belief can be put to the test.
The constitutional ruling is irrelevant in my opinion. The court rules on matter of law. Its ruling do not prove something is true of wrong, necessarily. It does not put anything to the test. It simply hears and is decided by men that have their own biases on issues as history has proven.
To me the problem seems to be like in your case a matter of having your mind made up and there is no room for discussion. It is the same as some other religioius individual says about his side of the issue.
Also, many people like you seem to have this mental block that because someone put out there, however little, there is the possiblity that someone help in the creation of things, immediately "Oh! oh! God! trying to teach religion!" with their arms up. Well, that is not necessarily the case on some level headed religioius people just as level headed atheist do. Take care.
You say you've read books on both sides of the issue but have you read empirically reviewed scientific papers on both sides of the issue? No, you haven't, because an empirically reviewed scientific paper supporting Creationism does not exist. That goes not just for the theory of evolution but any and all branches of science Creationism has decided to usurp in order to meld its fantasy worldview into the mix.
Michael Behe wrote a book called "Darwin's Black Box," and it was no more scientific than any person sitting down and writing a book on a given topic. Yeah, sure, he made it look like science by adding "PhD" to the cover, and I think he even had a bibliography. But, none of his findings and none of his work followed the scientific method... It was all based on his little fantasy land of irreducible complexity.
Irreducible complexity, and the mechanisms by which it works free of Creationism, were discovered in 1918 by Herman Mueller, long before Behe's birth. Behe merely modified a section of evolution to his liking, was dead wrong about it, and then presented it as fact. Creationists are notorious for this but the general public wouldn't know any better because they keep the science at a level just slightly above their heads. A level, might I add, that is probably high enough for a fire ant to leap over but still...
As well, the courts' ruling on teaching Creationism was based on whether or not Creationism was actual science, whether or not Creationism went through the same processes and procedures as actual science and whether or not it was trying to pull the wool over the school board's eyes just to sell textbooks with Creationist clauses in it.
What happened in that Supreme Court trial was something that bordered on the verge of contempt of court. Of the 12 creation "scientists" asked to show up to testify and lay their claims out, only 3 appeared. Of those three, two were summarily dealt with in rather embarrassing fashion and the third, Michael Behe, was almost found in contempt of court and charged with obstruction of justice as his lies stacked up one after the other.
The fact is that this was the "big moment" for Creationists to present their case. If they were really on to something they would have thrown the whole armada into it. But, as soon as the trial went to the Supreme Court, they backed down, sent three lying hack jobs to support their arguments, and provided absolutely nothing but lies to the Court. The Supreme Court justice, again a very religious and conservative man, had no choice but to consider their case not worthy of the slightest attention.
Yet, most people don't know that and people such as yourself will blather on about how both sides present an argument and that you're not willing to make a decision because both sides have an argument. That is really just a stance based on ignorance and a general lack of knowledge about the topic itself.
To add to what GCS said, Behe was presented with 56 peer-reviewed scientific papers on the topic of evolution and simply REFUSED TO READ THEM. That's right: REFUSED. So, if were talking "biases," you need to understand where the bias really rests.
Furthermore, the court was presented with the discovery that human chromosome number 2 contains telomeres in its center; an occurance that could only be possible if two "ape" chromosomes had fused some time in the distant past, since telomeres are only located on the ends of chromosomes. And how did Behe respond? He didn't. He didn't cross-examine; he never brought it up. He simply had nothing to say.
Furthermore, a graph was shown during the hearing which plotted the number of times that the word "creation" was used in the crestionist text book, "Of Pandas and People," relative to the number of times the phrase "intelligent design" was used. That graph clearly demonstrated that the word "creation" had been omitted from the text almost exactly as many times in 1988 as the phrase "intelligent design" had been added. And why is this significant? It's significant because, in 1987, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Aguillard v. The State of Louisiana that the teaching of creationism in public schools is unconstitutional, prompting the creationists to simply edit out the word "creation" and replace it with the words "intelligent design," which was nothing more than a very dishonest re-packaging of creationism.
Furthermore, your assertion that "both sides" have their supporters and dissenters is severely complicated by the fact that, at the trial, the number of scientific societies who endorsed Intelligent Design to the court was zero; out of dozens. Your position is further complicated by the fact that, in 1987, an independent polling agency polled 480,000 scientists with the question, "Do you give any creedance to the claim that life appeared abruptly on Earth," only to find that a mere 700 answered, "yes." As if that staggering disproportion weren't enough, closer scrutiny revealed that not one of those 700 was a biological scientist. In other words, though you claim that there are credible proponents on both sides of this issue, the truth is that there are effectively NO credible proponents on the side of Intelligent Design and quite possibly millions on the side of evolution
Furthermore, speciation, the generation of entirely new species from parent species, has been observed, documented and even REPLICATED IN CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS. The *** is up. The fate lady has sung. The party's over.
Of course, evolution deniers now admit speciation, but charge that evolution stops there, as if some magical barrier exists to keep new species from becoming new genera, and new genera from becoming new families, and new families from becoming new orders, and new orders from becoming new classes, and so on. But these imagined restrictions to evolution only have the ring of desperation, as they are the death knell of a line of thinking disproven by virtually every, single branch of science.
And in my book, there was nothing wrong with you being uninformed on this topic; but now that you are informed, it's your responsibility/duty to adjust fire.
Of course there is room for discussion, as long as it is understood what it being discussed. The scientific theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. The religious claim that "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything. End of story.
I must admit it is somewhat funny how both sides of the story are so sure and end up with comments like "End of story". That is my main point in my messages. No room for discussion on the extremist on both issues. Take care.
You say you've read books on both sides of the issue but have you read empirically reviewed scientific papers on both sides of the issue? No, you haven't, because an empirically reviewed scientific paper supporting Creationism does not exist. That goes not just for the theory of evolution but any and all branches of science Creationism has decided to usurp in order to meld its fantasy worldview into the mix.
Michael Behe wrote a book called "Darwin's Black Box," and it was no more scientific than any person sitting down and writing a book on a given topic. Yeah, sure, he made it look like science by adding "PhD" to the cover, and I think he even had a bibliography. But, none of his findings and none of his work followed the scientific method... It was all based on his little fantasy land of irreducible complexity.
Irreducible complexity, and the mechanisms by which it works free of Creationism, were discovered in 1918 by Herman Mueller, long before Behe's birth. Behe merely modified a section of evolution to his liking, was dead wrong about it, and then presented it as fact. Creationists are notorious for this but the general public wouldn't know any better because they keep the science at a level just slightly above their heads. A level, might I add, that is probably high enough for a fire ant to leap over but still...
As well, the courts' ruling on teaching Creationism was based on whether or not Creationism was actual science, whether or not Creationism went through the same processes and procedures as actual science and whether or not it was trying to pull the wool over the school board's eyes just to sell textbooks with Creationist clauses in it.
What happened in that Supreme Court trial was something that bordered on the verge of contempt of court. Of the 12 creation "scientists" asked to show up to testify and lay their claims out, only 3 appeared. Of those three, two were summarily dealt with in rather embarrassing fashion and the third, Michael Behe, was almost found in contempt of court and charged with obstruction of justice as his lies stacked up one after the other.
The fact is that this was the "big moment" for Creationists to present their case. If they were really on to something they would have thrown the whole armada into it. But, as soon as the trial went to the Supreme Court, they backed down, sent three lying hack jobs to support their arguments, and provided absolutely nothing but lies to the Court. The Supreme Court justice, again a very religious and conservative man, had no choice but to consider their case not worthy of the slightest attention.
Yet, most people don't know that and people such as yourself will blather on about how both sides present an argument and that you're not willing to make a decision because both sides have an argument. That is really just a stance based on ignorance and a general lack of knowledge about the topic itself.
The point I am stating is not whether creationism or evolution is fact or not. I am focusing on how both sides of the issue have their zealots witht the same close mind attitude. No more no less.
Scientifically reviewed literature? The science field has its people that will block anything that goes against present beliefs. It is a fact that there have been test on many other areas that have been erased, covered-up, etc. for the sake of not admitting something disproves present day theories by those that support something. It may be due to ego, funding, prestige, etc.
Of course, like any group I see people that make claims, "X don't do this". Well, people, including scientists do that just as religious people claim the same because they say they do not lie because God does condemns it and the other side because scientists only look for facts.
Have you read of cases where some scientists have accepted an argument for discussion and later give in under the pressure of many more prominent scientist. After all loosing prestige is bad so why go against the grain.
How about some school teachers that simply have tried to discuss in the class evidence and put it to the test and see what conclusions the class comes up with? In some cases the school district have approved the class but once some scientist hears about it goes out there and lobby for it to be banned? Afraid of anyting? Let the kids or college studetn argue. Is that not training students to analyse and come to conclusions? The facts you claim will surface and guess what? If what you claim is correct then more people will benefit from it and probably say "Well, afte all there is no God". In some cases some may conclude there is God. It does not matter as long as all learn to investigate, question, debate, etc.
There are a lot of highly educated people in the sciences that do believe in God and live their lives according to their beliefs just as their are those that believer in evolution. No problem either. The zealots are the ones that get bent out of shape.
Example: Look at your message. You go on talking about the irreducible complexity. I already explained what I think about Supreme Court decisions. They do not really establish something is right or wrong, correct or incorret. They simply conclude and set a law on the issue. If the Supreme Court in the future with conservative judges decides to reverse the case, will now you accept irreducible complexity as valid, will you now agree with me if I then cite it? Heck no! You will not so it is irrelevant to quote it to me.
If that was the case I venture to guess that you will simply dismiss those judges as ignorants. Why? Because they did not agree with you.
Also, your reaction to my message, I am not willing to make a conclusion? What did I write saying so? If you are so interested in facts don't state your conclusion as a fact because you do not know that. You assumed that and you know what they say about the word assume, right? Take care.
The point I am stating is not whether creationism or evolution is fact or not. I am focusing on how both sides of the issue have their zealots witht the same close mind attitude. No more no less.
Scientifically reviewed literature? The science field has its people that will block anything that goes against present beliefs. It is a fact that there have been test on many other areas that have been erased, covered-up, etc. for the sake of not admitting something disproves present day theories by those that support something. It may be due to ego, funding, prestige, etc.
Of course, like any group I see people that make claims, "X don't do this". Well, people, including scientists do that just as religious people claim the same because they say they do not lie because God does condemns it and the other side because scientists only look for facts.
Have you read of cases where some scientists have accepted an argument for discussion and later give in under the pressure of many more prominent scientist. After all loosing prestige is bad so why go against the grain.
How about some school teachers that simply have tried to discuss in the class evidence and put it to the test and see what conclusions the class comes up with? In some cases the school district have approved the class but once some scientist hears about it goes out there and lobby for it to be banned? Afraid of anyting? Let the kids or college studetn argue. Is that not training students to analyse and come to conclusions? The facts you claim will surface and guess what? If what you claim is correct then more people will benefit from it and probably say "Well, afte all there is no God". In some cases some may conclude there is God. It does not matter as long as all learn to investigate, question, debate, etc.
There are a lot of highly educated people in the sciences that do believe in God and live their lives according to their beliefs just as their are those that believer in evolution. No problem either. The zealots are the ones that get bent out of shape.
Example: Look at your message. You go on talking about the irreducible complexity. I already explained what I think about Supreme Court decisions. They do not really establish something is right or wrong, correct or incorret. They simply conclude and set a law on the issue. If the Supreme Court in the future with conservative judges decides to reverse the case, will now you accept irreducible complexity as valid, will you now agree with me if I then cite it? Heck no! You will not so it is irrelevant to quote it to me.
If that was the case I venture to guess that you will simply dismiss those judges as ignorants. Why? Because they did not agree with you.
Also, your reaction to my message, I am not willing to make a conclusion? What did I write saying so? If you are so interested in facts don't state your conclusion as a fact because you do not know that. You assumed that and you know what they say about the word assume, right? Take care.
Wow, you just effectively understood nothing that was explained to you.
It boggles the mind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.