Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Creationism in Private Schools


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
226 replies to this topic

#217 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • Joined: 20-May 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 9,051
  • Reputation: 1,484
HUDDLER

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:44 PM

some creationists like to loop the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution(descent with modification) into "neo-darwinism" or some other catch all label, then attempt to refute one particular aspect of one particular theory as a way to discredit theories that are distantly related at best.


Wow , so if they can refute evolution by natural selection then they also think they've disproved the big bang theory. I would be surprised but that is typical creationist logic, highly flawed.

edit: personally i've never heard or read a creationist (author) or apologist use this tactic or sound so completely ignorant.

#218 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,997
  • Reputation: 2,366
HUDDLER

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:53 PM

The Asimov quote is basically my inspiration when I address goofy topics like this and other conservative "ideas".


Also explains the Obama election in 2008

#219 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,152
  • Reputation: 2,341
HUDDLER

Posted 26 June 2012 - 05:05 PM

Wow , so if they can refute evolution by natural selection then they also think they've disproved the big bang theory. I would be surprised but that is typical creationist logic, highly flawed.

edit: personally i've never heard or read a creationist (author) or apologist use this tactic or sound so completely ignorant.


None of the decent creationist "authorities" do it, but it is why you will so often have people bring up things like "oh yeah well who BANGED the Big Bang?" or "how do you make life from nothing?!?!?!" when evolution versus intelligent design is being discussed. I think that is more out of not understanding what falls into what scientific theory, because if you believe God did everything and made everything, then it's all basically the same in that regard.

#220 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • Joined: 24-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,923
  • Reputation: 1,342
HUDDLER

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:10 PM

Who is to say that that EVOLUTION continues and that God is in fact real? None of us.

I accept that I don't know all of the answers.....something that those on here bashing religion refuse to do.

Just because you might not be able to comprehend it now does not make it invalid.

I am not argueing for or against religion....just that you "I can't touch or see it" reasoning could very well be flawed.


I have accepted at least twice in this thread alone that I don't know certain things. <_<

You're right. Lack of comprehension does not mean lack of validity. Lack of empirical evidence makes it invalid.

#221 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • Joined: 24-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,923
  • Reputation: 1,342
HUDDLER

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:14 PM

But through out history, science has continued to prove and disprove many things that people believed to be absolute truths.

Just like today. Scientists "think" they know what black holes are (or even if they exist). The fact that people (many who post here) believe the existence of worm holes/time travel/etc to be true....even though it can't be proven or touched. Yet, those same people will say with complete absolute that a diety does not exist.

Point is we don't know what the truth or reality is....just our perception of what we believe it to be.

I don't know whether God exists or not. I am one who tends to believe what he can touch/feel/prove. Yet, as I fully support critical thinking, I am the first to admit that I don't know what said truth is.


There isn't a single scientist worth his salt that deals in absolute truths about much of anything. We know gravity, evolution, etc. are indeed facts, and we have theories that make sense and have evidence to back them up. If new evidence arrives that contradicts an existing theory and it is studied and found to indeed be correct, then a new theory is formed or the old one is revamped based on the new data. It is not that hard.

#222 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • Joined: 24-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,923
  • Reputation: 1,342
HUDDLER

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:19 PM

I can buy that. At the end of the day, even though one theory has more evidence, they are both still theories. And I am against either being taught as fact until more evidence is gathered.

I still think that this issue has less to do with learning, and more to do with religious beliefs though. Religion doesnt not belong in science class unless there is evidence that gives it credibility.

Evolution has evidence, and Creationism doesnt, so evolution should be the standard theory until something else proves to be more correct, and parents who do not want their children to learn about it, should have the right to have their children in another classroom that explores other possibilities.



I hate the segregation idea. No. There are teaching standards for a reason. You don't get to slink out on science because it makes you uncomfortable. If you don't want your kid taught it, GO TO A PRIVATE, CHRISTIAN SCHOOL!


Simply put, teaching creationism AT ALL in public school is unconstitutional. Now, on the subject of private schools (since this thread doesn't have anything to do with public schools), if they want to rob kids of an education and have to hire another teacher entirely for a SINGLE UNIT (maybe a few days worth of material), then fine. fug em. Don't care. Just saddens me that we will change the standards of what is learned in science classes based on those who cry "this doesn't line up with my deeply held religious beliefs". And people wonder why our education system is failing and why the US is so far behind in the scientific community.

#223 SmootsDaddy89

SmootsDaddy89

    Just Say No To Boo

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 10,478
  • Reputation: 1,021
HUDDLER

Posted 26 June 2012 - 10:18 PM

Atheists want us to believe monkeys evolved into humans over millions of years. Seems plausible.


. . .wait, that's right. . .MONKEYS DON'T LIVE FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS.

#224 BBQ&Beer

BBQ&Beer

    The good actor

  • Joined: 20-April 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,965
  • Reputation: 716
HUDDLER

Posted 26 June 2012 - 10:21 PM

Atheists want us to believe monkeys evolved into humans over millions of years. Seems plausible.


. . .wait, that's right. . .MONKEYS DON'T LIVE FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS.


... What?

#225 SmootsDaddy89

SmootsDaddy89

    Just Say No To Boo

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 10,478
  • Reputation: 1,021
HUDDLER

Posted 26 June 2012 - 10:27 PM

Refute that, heathens. Show me a million year-old monkey.

#226 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,152
  • Reputation: 2,341
HUDDLER

Posted 26 June 2012 - 10:32 PM

I don't know about you but my mother's no goddamn chimpanzee!

#227 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • Joined: 24-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,923
  • Reputation: 1,342
HUDDLER

Posted 26 June 2012 - 10:37 PM

Refute that, heathens. Show me a million year-old monkey.



If you want to be technical (and scientifically accurate), we (humans) are indeed apes. <_<