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.
Yes, if the subject interests me. An example would be the "transitional fossil" or "missing link".
I visited the Denver Museum of Natural History in 1997 and looked at human fossil evidence on display and concluded that they still did not have evidence that linked humans to anything other than humans. I wondered if they were finding healthy fossils or fossils of a deformed humans. Did some sort of ritual have anything to do with the shapes or sizes. I also felt I could find living humans that would closely resemble anything they had on display. I walked away thinking that yes, we have changed and still are but there was nothing to make me believe they we are not created.
Actually, there's much more to it than what is on display at the National History Museum. The scientists can tell if it's simply a deformed human skeleton or if it has been preserved correctly. Have you read anything about fossilized teeth? You may find that very interesting.
There's a GREAT series on NOVA called 'Becoming Human' that you may be interested in... NOVA | Becoming Human Part 1
There's also a wonderful video (on that page, actually) that deals with using fossilized skulls to recreate faces.
It explains a lot of the basics of human evolution, but it's a very 'layman' documentary and there's still a lot more out there.
I'm referring to a history of hoaxes and/or supposed missing links. There have been more than one.
Yes, science is full of hoaxes... that's part of science... figuring out what is real and what isn't. Science is great because they study things and if they're wrong, they file it away and stop worrying about it so they can go out and find more stuff to study.
Creationists on the other hand have a conclusion and they go around trying to find evidence to prove their conclusion...that's not how it's supposed to work.
And speaking of hoaxes, there's a great thread on Noah's Ark going on in the R&P forum.
My dogma fears nothing, the questions science raise for me are how do scientific findings and theories fit with God and in all cases, science is merely discovering how God did it and to that I say, knock yourself out. I just do not always buy the "conclusions" of some theories.
Like you said, "scientist spend plenty of time trying to disprove current theories, because if they do they will earn their bit of fame and contribute to the advancement of the human race." To me, that speaks for itself and backs up my feeling about some theories.
You fear the word "God" missing from education. As I asked you yesterday, would you be okay with creationism if it referred to the creator as "something" instead of using a religious word "God"?
Scientists, and science in general, doesn't stop with assumptions. It is about exploration into possibilities, not a dead end that is religious dogma where you don't question anything, just accept it.
So, what exactly would you like to see in this curriculum on creationism? For example, scientific argument on Big Bang opens a wide range of conversation pieces that are explored, including the attempt to debunk the idea of Big Bang itself. Scientists are busy trying to recreate what could have triggered such an event, as they also try to understand, and leave the door open for thinking for the rest of us, to try and understand space-time continuum and everything else that goes with it. It can be, then, said "this" created the universe as we know it.
I'm referring to a history of hoaxes and/or supposed missing links. There have been more than one.
What is biblical story of creation but a hoax?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
I'd be ok with stating that due to the level of order and apparent design in the universe, some people theorize that the universe was created.
The universe, as we know it today, was created at some point alright. The problem isn't that. As one of the great scientists and an atheist (Carl Sagan) once said: "to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe".
The problem is that you seem to know who created it, and how, and want to make it a part of the school curriculum. Would you elaborate on that?
Yes, if the subject interests me. An example would be the "transitional fossil" or "missing link".
I visited the Denver Museum of Natural History in 1997 and looked at human fossil evidence on display and concluded that they still did not have evidence that linked humans to anything other than humans. I wondered if they were finding healthy fossils or fossils of a deformed humans. Did some sort of ritual have anything to do with the shapes or sizes. I also felt I could find living humans that would closely resemble anything they had on display. I walked away thinking that yes, we have changed and still are
Fossils are not the only type of evidence for evolution.
In fact every field in science supports evolution (biology, physiology, physics, geography, geology, paleontology, anthropology, etc.).
But your 'different conclusions' are only that what you saw was not enough evidence to support evolution by itself. But the theory takes in all evidence, not just fossils that are on display at one particular museum.
Quote:
but there was nothing to make me believe they we are not created.
False dichotomy - it's not either created or evolution. Many people believe that evolution was put in place by a conscious creator.
I'm referring to a history of hoaxes and/or supposed missing links. There have been more than one.
Of course, creationism has it's own history of hoaxes. I refer you to "Paluxy Man," "Calaveras Man," the "London fossilized hammer" and others. But my point is not to offer a bald tu quoque, as if the hoaxes are comparable.
In every case where an evolutionist hoax has been debunked, it was evolutionists that did the debunking, and the scientists involved immediaetly acknowledged the hoaxes and abandoned the claims.
In contrast, creationist hoaxes are lies that never die. Even long after being conclusively debunked, creationists continue to maintain that their hoaxes are true. "Paluxy Man" for example was conclusively debunked more than 30 years ago, and yet can still be found touted by creationists to this very day.
That is a key difference between science and creationism. Science is self correcting. Creationism is immune to correction.
I'd be ok with stating that due to the level of order and apparent design in the universe, some people theorize that the universe was created.
You don't have to get into who or what did it...but a simple statement that it is another, viable theory is appropriate.
the level, degree and seriousness of the flaws in nature, both plants and animals, renders intelligent design absolutely impossible.
However, Stupid, Half-Assed Design might be an acceptable name for their theory which they erroneously label as "Intelligent Design"
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 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.
