U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 12-24-2011, 11:40 PM
 
Location: South Africa
5,359 posts, read 3,264,207 times
Reputation: 1630
Awhile back I started a thread to ask creationists what exactly their creation science curriculum would entail and on woman came on and posted a woo curriculum which was ess junior school and then moved on to the flood and posed it as fact.

When I started HS, we started learning of the birds and the bees and had to know and be able to sketch a vagina, uterus, penis, testes etc. We even got to view sperm and ovums under the microscope but that was cattle or pigs as I think there were still some guidelines in place not to look at the human samples other than on slides or 16mm film. That was at age 13. We also had to learn how photosynthesis worked and to sketch, the eye and then the other internal organs as to what they did. The evolution side was covered in about a week and we were not tested on it as back in the early 70's, this science was pretty newish. We moved onto other stuff. Of course in the evolution side we learned of the various species and kingdoms but nowhere in detail as it is now done at colleges these days.

From my perspective, the schools would have to take the bible on its own, teach that w/o any corroboration from real science. Photosynthesis for one is impossible as far as creation account goes. Women should have more ribs than men, women menses is an unclean thing and a secret fountain. Pollination and reproduction of plants would be untouched as the bible really does not cover any of this. Of course the mustard seed would need to be shown in ID studies as the smallest seed in the world and in real science, the smallest seed shown to the class under a microscope, that should not be too difficult. Rainbows are NOT caused by light diffraction but are gods covenant with man not to re-flood the earth again (or the new gay flag colours)

It sounds ridiculous I know. Now really are we so afraid of creationism? What possible content is there in the bible that would challenge real science? Move onto geography. Present the biblical side of the world aka flat earth and four corners, dome in the sky. then teach real geography with plate tectonics and a spherical orb for the earth.

Unless kids in the US are really dumb, I cannot see how they would NOT come to the conclusion which "science" is true and which is not. The ID curriculum would be very short in duration.

Maybe while you are about amending the curriculum, add English to it. It seems that Americans battle with the simple their, there, they're, your, you're

As a 13 year old, I actually would have loved to have had both. It would really have placed the seed of proper critical thinking and encouraged me to study up on the OT claims and saved me years of wasted time and effort.

Because the ID course would be so short, counter claims and real science will not require that much extra content to disprove the ID myths. After all, in real science we can take a prism and actually demonstrate light diffraction and what makes rainbows.



Unless god also embedded this rainbow effect in glass, oil on water too

The ID class can try and learn alchemy and turn water into wine, thunder and lightning comes from clouds bumping into each other and other phun phaktz

Don't believe me, just go and look at the type of questions posed on YahooAnswers and better still some of the answers given by American kids.

Make one wonder
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-25-2011, 03:42 AM
 
Location: London, UK
14,975 posts, read 6,772,179 times
Reputation: 2489
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
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 religious people just as level headed atheist do. Take care.
We would love those who pile into the evolution debate to present their evidence for creation. In fact all that we get is copy and paste of poor and often outdated and refuted objections to the findings of science. Succinctly, we get faith - based polemic rather than discussion. We would much rather argue the science and I repeat again that the evolution debate is actually irrelevant to the religion debate.

As to the legal aspect I gather that the question is about whether Creation theory is valid science that could reasonably be taught in the science class. While scientific advice would be and I gather, was, taken by the law bods, their ruling was that it was not valid science (which is true) and had no place in the science class. They were the appropriate body to rule on that and ought to an independent body for seeing whether the science seemed equally sound on both sides. It wasn't. ID turned out merely to be Creationism without any sound scientific support.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2011, 09:57 AM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,141 posts, read 2,082,502 times
Reputation: 2363
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpc1 View Post
Wow, you just effectively understood nothing that was explained to you.

It boggles the mind.
It is funny because I just had the same wow looking at your message.

I only am focusing on the close mindeness of both sides, no more no less. Maybe you missinterpret no understanding what you wrote. I simply filtered and focused on what I said, not probing either way.

Hopefully this is more clear to you. Take care.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2011, 10:06 AM
 
Location: USA - midwest
5,714 posts, read 2,493,935 times
Reputation: 2443
Default How Much Science Education Is Required To Believe In Creationism?

Required?

Zero.

But then, belief is the opposite of knowledge. No belief requires education. A belief is accepted on emotion.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2011, 10:09 AM
 
8,691 posts, read 4,627,375 times
Reputation: 8432
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
It is funny because I just had the same wow looking at your message.

I only am focusing on the close mindeness of both sides, no more no less. Maybe you missinterpret no understanding what you wrote. I simply filtered and focused on what I said, not probing either way.

Hopefully this is more clear to you. Take care.
How is expecting creationism to be held to the same rigor of any other "scientific" idea BEFORE it is taught as a valid theory "close-mindedness"?

If creationists want to engage in some sort of research to support their idea, if they want to meet the established protocols of science, if they want t postulate theories that are actually theories (meaning they make testable predictions, are falsifiable, and have a body of evidence) than they are welcome at the endless discussion we call science. BUT, that is not what creationist want. They want to surplant evolution as the currently accepted theory without meeting any of the scientific requirements.

Why should anything that does not meet the requirements to actually be SCIENCE be taught in the science classroom?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2011, 02:09 PM
 
16,311 posts, read 13,242,235 times
Reputation: 7927
How Much Science Education Is Required To Believe In Creationism?

Precious little, and there seems to be a lot of that going around.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2011, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Richardson, TX
7,642 posts, read 5,947,196 times
Reputation: 3103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville Native View Post
How Much Science Education Is Required To Believe In Creationism?

Precious little, and there seems to be a lot of that going around.
I would probably discourage persuing any real science education in a related field because its "folk science" stature would become all too apparent.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2011, 03:38 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,141 posts, read 2,082,502 times
Reputation: 2363
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
How is expecting creationism to be held to the same rigor of any other "scientific" idea BEFORE it is taught as a valid theory "close-mindedness"?

If creationists want to engage in some sort of research to support their idea, if they want to meet the established protocols of science, if they want t postulate theories that are actually theories (meaning they make testable predictions, are falsifiable, and have a body of evidence) than they are welcome at the endless discussion we call science. BUT, that is not what creationist want. They want to surplant evolution as the currently accepted theory without meeting any of the scientific requirements.

Why should anything that does not meet the requirements to actually be SCIENCE be taught in the science classroom?
Sorry, I wrote a reply and had to leave for a while, left the computer on and when I got back I finished the message. When I clicked the submit I got some message telling me it could not go throug and to click the return button. Guess what? It got erased. I will reply later. I admit a am little bit frustrated after putting my thoughts and later it was all for nothing. I will get back to you, sorry. Take care.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2011, 03:18 AM
 
Location: London, UK
14,975 posts, read 6,772,179 times
Reputation: 2489
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
Sorry, I wrote a reply and had to leave for a while, left the computer on and when I got back I finished the message. When I clicked the submit I got some message telling me it could not go throug and to click the return button. Guess what? It got erased. I will reply later. I admit a am little bit frustrated after putting my thoughts and later it was all for nothing. I will get back to you, sorry. Take care.
That's always annoying. It's not a bad idea to do a text off-line or copy it before you try to post it. Look forward to your further response.

I'll just mention the point that the Creationist case is not only weak because the science is flawed at best and usually hardly deserves to be called science at all, but it seems to have very little evidence of its own. It seems to make its case by trying to discredit evolution in a very wide sense (pulling in abiogenesis, geology and cosmology as well) by finding things that it can't explain or which don't add up or are false if not faked.

Even if that could be made to stick, it would not do a darn thing to prove Creation, which is what I repeatedly ask for - the case and evidence FOR Creation, not just against evolution.

Without that, just picking holes in evolution theory gains them precisely nothing, in scientific terms. though of course I see that they are trying to force it through using litigation and popular support. I believe they know that making support of creationism a vote - winner would do it, and never mind the science.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2011, 12:32 PM
 
573 posts, read 170,131 times
Reputation: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
That's always annoying. It's not a bad idea to do a text off-line or copy it before you try to post it. Look forward to your further response.

I'll just mention the point that the Creationist case is not only weak because the science is flawed at best and usually hardly deserves to be called science at all, but it seems to have very little evidence of its own. It seems to make its case by trying to discredit evolution in a very wide sense (pulling in abiogenesis, geology and cosmology as well) by finding things that it can't explain or which don't add up or are false if not faked.

Even if that could be made to stick, it would not do a darn thing to prove Creation, which is what I repeatedly ask for - the case and evidence FOR Creation, not just against evolution.

Without that, just picking holes in evolution theory gains them precisely nothing, in scientific terms. though of course I see that they are trying to force it through using litigation and popular support. I believe they know that making support of creationism a vote - winner would do it, and never mind the science.
Well said.

I think, for me, the strongest case against creationism isn't the total lack of science; it's the "so what" factor? I mean, let's say we grant it all; let's say we grant that God -- even the god of the Bible -- created this universe in seven literal days, precisely 6,214.18 years ago: That knowledge still accomplishes absolutely nothing and adds absolutely nothing to our ability to survive and thrive on this planet.

Science has increased the average life expectancy on Earth from a few dozen years to, in some pockets of the landscape, upwards of eighty. It has all but trivialized what used to be cataclysmic physical illnesses. It's made crop growing and harvesting an incalculable success. It's produced infrastructure, global transportation, global communication, disease innoculation, and even the ability to fend off pathogens against whose ability to invade animal organs our only defense has come directly from our understanding of Darwinian evolution. In other words, science HELPS us.

Creationism does absolutely nothing of the sort. Who among us, if he or she walked in to the emergency room of a local hospital, would do anything less than throw a right cross to the attending physician's jaw if he approached us about our dying children and said, "Well, the bad news is that we have no cure for your child's virus, but the good news is that the virus incontrovertibly appears to have been created by God!"

Creationism does nothing. It cures no one. It gives us no time. It accomplishes zero. On a world-wide scale, it is the equivalent of walking in to an open-heart surgery and shouting, "This surgery is from the devil! The human cardio-pulmonary system was created by God; not by CHARLES DARWIN!"

I mean, seriously, at the end of the day, WHO GIVES A CRAP?!
Quick reply to this message
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.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top