The Big Think Creationism debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-08-2013, 12:39 AM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
What I really hate is when a creationist says, "we should teach the controversy and let the student decide.".

It's a backdoor to further indoctrination.


[Image: mrhanky.jpg]

Wind's in the east, a mist coming in
Like something is brewing and about to begin
Can't put my finger on what lies in store
but I feel what's to happen has happened before...


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
20-08-2013, 03:39 AM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
I've been reading up on evolution lately and that has lead me to discover this whole ID/Creationism thing. It is quite astounding that there are people that believe that the Universe is less than 10,000 years old.

But they believe it and they have been convinced, so there is no point in ridiculing them. Trying to understand why they believe as they do is quite interesting too.

From what I have read they feel the world is less moral today, rife with swearing, prostitution, pornography, etc.
So somehow they blame this all on evolution.

Well, the "somehow" is also interesting to understand. From what I have read there is a very strong movement, and some key players. They are word smithing and playing a very intelligent PR and political strategy. Possibly born from the "Wedge".

They use words such as methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Phrases such as "Evolution is a theory not a fact", "teach the controversy", "show evidence against evolution", "micro-evolution", "macro-evolution", "kinds", "theistic science", "irreducible complexity". They equate evolution to atheism, atheism to evil communism etc.

Politically they are manouvering people onto school boards so they can teach creationism in schools. No doubt they are trying to politically maneuver the politicians and judicial system.

They have smart scientists who understand biology, discussing technical aspects of it and then pointing to the issues facing science today. Then stating science can't explain it so it must be god.

The average person doesn't understand this low level technical science, thus they must choose to accept what the scientist says. But there are scientists who are anti-evolution and some that are pro-evolution.

It seems beside the point that ID have not published any peer reviewed science papers. Their proponents have come to believe there is strong scientific evidence for ID. The PR and propoganda is working.

I really think people need to learn what science is, why theology isn't science, how hard scientists are on themselves, how they try to debunk all theories. That science is an ongoing process of learning about the universe, if all were already known then we wouldn't need scientists.

I think rather than pointing at the gaps in scientific knowledge, the gaps in evolution the proponents of ID ought to look to their leaders and demand a falsifiable scientific theory to back up ID.
They ought to ask hard questions of their leaders. e.g. If we redefine science does this mean we will have ID science, Creationist science, Catholic science, Anglican science, Mormon science, Muslim science? How will the different groups ever agree?
Does it mean when a difficult scientific problem comes up that we won't investigate natural cause but will instead look to insert theology?
Does this mean we will stop learning about the natural world?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2013, 03:56 AM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(20-08-2013 03:39 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I've been reading up on evolution lately and that has lead me to discover this whole ID/Creationism thing. It is quite astounding that there are people that believe that the Universe is less than 10,000 years old.

But they believe it and they have been convinced, so there is no point in ridiculing them. Trying to understand why they believe as they do is quite interesting too.

From what I have read they feel the world is less moral today, rife with swearing, prostitution, pornography, etc.
So somehow they blame this all on evolution.

Well, the "somehow" is also interesting to understand. From what I have read there is a very strong movement, and some key players. They are word smithing and playing a very intelligent PR and political strategy. Possibly born from the "Wedge".

They use words such as methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Phrases such as "Evolution is a theory not a fact", "teach the controversy", "show evidence against evolution", "micro-evolution", "macro-evolution", "kinds", "theistic science", "irreducible complexity". They equate evolution to atheism, atheism to evil communism etc.

Politically they are manouvering people onto school boards so they can teach creationism in schools. No doubt they are trying to politically maneuver the politicians and judicial system.

They have smart scientists who understand biology, discussing technical aspects of it and then pointing to the issues facing science today. Then stating science can't explain it so it must be god.

The average person doesn't understand this low level technical science, thus they must choose to accept what the scientist says. But there are scientists who are anti-evolution and some that are pro-evolution.

It seems beside the point that ID have not published any peer reviewed science papers. Their proponents have come to believe there is strong scientific evidence for ID. The PR and propoganda is working.

I really think people need to learn what science is, why theology isn't science, how hard scientists are on themselves, how they try to debunk all theories. That science is an ongoing process of learning about the universe, if all were already known then we wouldn't need scientists.

I think rather than pointing at the gaps in scientific knowledge, the gaps in evolution the proponents of ID ought to look to their leaders and demand a falsifiable scientific theory to back up ID.
They ought to ask hard questions of their leaders. e.g. If we redefine science does this mean we will have ID science, Creationist science, Catholic science, Anglican science, Mormon science, Muslim science? How will the different groups ever agree?
Does it mean when a difficult scientific problem comes up that we won't investigate natural cause but will instead look to insert theology?
Does this mean we will stop learning about the natural world?

Sure.

But then came this...




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2013, 09:55 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
Here be dragons!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15...r=Religion

Manifest Insanity @ Amazon
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2013, 08:11 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
I vote we replace "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" and all other TLC shows with this. The only downside would be that I'd probably end up watching TV way too much if we had actually good shows on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes southernbelle's post
23-08-2013, 05:22 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(30-03-2013 08:33 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(25-03-2013 12:59 AM)Zombie Killer Wrote:  I'm new to this forum. Hi everybody.... I do think it is strange how one can feel that the earth is about 6000 years old when scientific data clearly says otherwise.

Welcome to the forum. Smile

Fundamentalist Christians think that the scientists are biased, in much the same way that we view scientists who attempt to reckon a young Earth to be biased. It's based on this idea that "whoever is not with us is against us", the rallying cry of victimization. One of the main problems with convincing them to "see the evidence for themselves" is that it's not something that the typical person can understand or accept.

I personally like to demonstrate the universe's old age with the commonly accepted notion that many visible stars are millions of light years away, suggesting that their light took millions of years to get here. Obviously a theist will not accept this (cognitive dissonance at work) and will probably argue that we can't be certain that light always remained the same speed or will argue that the distance of these stars has been miscalculated (though anyone with an understanding of trigonometry can do the calculations himself)... but once they presume this uncertainty, that makes the claims of those who have "calculated" a young Earth equally uncertain since they've also had to necessarily induce past patterns as constant.
It is true that the stars are commonly accepted to be millions of light years away from us. However this is itself a philosophical construct with no proof of this being the case.The fact that most theists have sold out to a lesser or greater degree to the ravages of anti-Scripture, anti-Church and anti-Christian precepts of modern thinking is a disgrace. As for me. If the whole world abandons the truth of the special revelation, I WILL NOT and will remain true.
This is not to say that I must set aside my own reason to do so. In fact I have reasoned it all through and confirmed that the stars are not millions of light years away and have built a model of the universe which is not opposed to my reason at all and is in agreement with all the scientific and natural facts that I am in a position to verify for myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 05:28 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(08-04-2013 01:54 AM)Diogenes of Mayberry Wrote:  I don't believe "think" and "creationism" belong in the same sentence together.
On the contrary, creationism requires independent thought. Most people who believe in evolution are facebook morons who never watch a decent informative TV show or read a book. They just go along with the pap they are spoon fed in science class and occasionally hear grunted on facebook.
Most thinking evolutions and atheists were brought up in a Christian home and had a falling out with Daddy and so have a massive chip on their shoulder and an axe to grind. They are probably sleeping with their girlfriend and so they adopt a worldview which suits their rebellion.
They are so deluded as to imagine that by assembling clever arguments against God that they are justifying themselves.
To use our capacities for intellect and thought to construct arguments against the creator who gave us these faculties is shameful and there will be an accounting for such people at the last day of judgement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 05:39 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(25-03-2013 07:23 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I have a father-in-law who remains convinced that he (as a young earth creationist) knows enough science to argue with me (geologist/paleontologist) about geology, evolution, and fossils. The arrogant ignorance is quite astounding indeed.
Unfortunately the modern scientific system is actually designed to teach young people how to lie to the future generation and perpetuate an evil system of lies and deceit.
The fact is that you have been corrupted by your course of science and your teachers. It is arrogant of you to imagine that you could not be deceived because you have been educated. In fact you have gone to the hothouse of deceit and it is starry eyed students trusting and innocent that are the victims here.
Don't write your father off. To assume arrogance of your opponent is the path to failing to see it in yourself.
(14-08-2013 02:13 PM)foxholeatheist Wrote:  Once you start with the answer (god did it), you really have nowhere else to go...so no amount of scientific fact/evidence will ever suffice...this is, of course, the antithesis of science, where we start with an hypothesis and (hopefully) generate evidence in support of the hypothesis...thus ideas/hypotheses will live and die on the quality and quantity of the supporting evidence...this is anathema to creationists
On the contrary, when you start with the answer that God did not do it you are really left with nowhere else to go.
We are talking here about what is the starting paradigm, the framework within which all scientific endeavuor should be conducted? In your case, when you encounter observations which seem to be contrary to your world view of atheism and conventional anti-God scientific system, you are forced to find alternative explanations or theories (however absurd) to explain them away.
The creationism sites point these out to great effect.
What if the reality of the matter is that a great many of the things we have observe have no naturalistic mechanism to cause them and are actually perpetual miracles of God. If that is the truth of the matter science will never discover them.

On the other hand if we go from the paradigm that God exists we can learn and strive to discover natural forces to understand them without having to come up with absurd and outlandish counter arguments for things which do not fit the accepted conventions of our science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 05:44 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(19-08-2013 11:33 PM)Paranoidsam Wrote:  At least in the US, the constitution prevents these lot from invading the classroom. The new free schools in England are out of the national curriculum, and can basically teach whatever they want.

Grindon Hall free school has a "Creation Policy" stating...

"We believe that God, as sovereign Lord of the universe, is capable of creating the world in a few 24-hour days… We will teach creation as a scientific theory and we will always affirm very clearly our position as Christians, ie that Christians believe that God's creation of the world is not just a theory but a fact with eternal consequences for our planet and for every person who has ever lived on it. We will affirm that to believe in God's creation of the world is an entirely respectable position scientifically and rationally."

And all of this is paid for with our taxes...
If it were not free to have such a policy then it would not be a free school would it. If the US government imposed policies on schools which limited free thought then you would not be living in a free society. Is that what you want?
If you don't like the free policy of the school then you are free to take your children out of the school and put them into an anti-God, anti-Scripture, anti-Christian school that has the policy that the earth is billions of years old.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 05:46 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
This is so painful to watch.
There is no debate, Creationism is wrong wrong wrong WRONG.
It should never be anywhere near a school.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: