Creationists, what do the worlds universities know that creationists don't?

[mzungu]

Interesting; Terminator is coming: YouTube - ASIMOs new artificial intelligence. (ASIMO is learning!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIn-sMq8-Ls&feature=relmfu

 

[Inan3]

I was NOT trying to "explain" anything. I was merely stating a fact. I am not out to "explain" biology. Believe it or not, I leave that to scientists to do. It is ONLY when scientists or biologists or evolutionists or atheists or teachers inject THEIR anti-religious convictions and say that science or biology "concludes or proves" that God did not create it as stated in the Bible, that I disregard their conclusions and speak out against them.

My point was that it is YOUR side, rather than Christians, who are always making the distinction that there is no physical, natural evidence presented, therefore, the existence of God cannot be. It is YOUR side who is always discounting and insulting God BECAUSE supposedly "evolution" provides evidence that we all came from sludge or chaos or whatever (which it really does NOT have, it is only "speculation" to that end) and therefore, the Biblical account cannot be true. But, neither the speculation nor the conclusion can be proved nor borne out. IN TURN, Christians respond to YOUR "shoving this down our throats" and then you cry that we are shoving it down yours.

It's a straw man to say that evolution is the reason atheists are atheists.

How could you possibly get THAT out of what I said????

Evolution is simply science and tells us about the real world. You can accept evolution and believe in a God (most people who accept evolution do). It is creationism that is utterly false and had its claims completely rebutted. If creationism = God for you, well, yeah I guess you would have to reject God to accept evolution. But don't blame me for that.

How is creationism "utterly false"? It is not my opinion that creationism has had it's claims completely rebutted. Just because there have been some legal cases won does not mean anything was proved. Court cases are won on technicalities more than evidence. I don't know where you are getting your info but it's wrong.

First of all, without evolution, we can't really make sense of why DNA is the way it is, why animals are distributed the way they are on the planet, why microorganisms become virulent, etc. We could understand a lot about biology but never understand why.

Perhaps you should read my post again to see what I was really saying.

But if you want specific applications of evolution, I'll give you a couple.

1. Microbial resistance. Pathogens become resistant to therapies rather quickly, which is clearly evolution. We've had pretty good success in combating this because of our understanding of this process. The new flu vaccine every year is because of this, and the new generations of antibiotics.
2. Gene identification and discovery. Looking at the evolution of genetic material gives us clues at protein structure and function. Homology of different genes gives us insight into normal physiology and how to treat pathologic states.
3. Phylogenetics and epidemiology. With evolution, we can learn a lot about populations of pathogens. The evolution of SIV to HIV marked the introduction of AIDS into humans. Currently, a new strain of malaria is brewing in Indonesia, and close surveillance of its epidemiology and diversity will hopefully help us be ready for it if it jumps to humans.
4. Directed evolution breeds new drugs for various diseases, as well as biopolymers and pigments.
5. Evolution is the foundation for many algorithms used in engineering, computer science, architecture, drug design and discovery, etc.

Read up on more if you feel like it
CA215: Practical uses of evolution.

Thank you, very interesting.

 

[theFijian]

what should it be used for, if the accuracy of its content is
a problem?

So only scientific text books have 'accuracy of content' do they?

 

[mzungu]

So only scientific text books have 'accuracy of content' do they?

One can hardly use the Bible to judge the accuracy of a science textbook. Perhaps you can define as to what is the accuracy of the Bible referring to? If it is referring to something spiritual then no one can challenge that but if the Bible is used to challenge the accuracy of any scientific textbook then I am afraid that you have no idea as to how science works!

Have a nice day

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

How is creationism "utterly false"? It is not my opinion that creationism has had it's claims completely rebutted. Just because there have been some legal cases won does not mean anything was proved. Court cases are won on technicalities more than evidence. I don't know where you are getting your info but it's wrong.

There are many, many claims of creationism that have been utterly refuted. I'm not just talking about the Dover trial, if that's what you're referring to with the "court cases" stuff. That's the tip of the iceberg. Everything creationists have claimed, be they ideas pet theories like irreducible complexity or what they see as fatal flaws in evolution, has been completely demolished by people who know what they're talking about.

Look no further than the site I already linked you:
An Index to Creationist Claims

Thank you, very interesting.

But apparently unconvincing.

 

[theFijian]

One can hardly use the Bible to judge the accuracy of a science textbook. Perhaps you can define as to what is the accuracy of the Bible referring to? If it is referring to something spiritual then no one can challenge that but if the Bible is used to challenge the accuracy of any scientific textbook then I am afraid that you have no idea as to how science works!

I'm sure putting my reply into context will help...

They know that the Bible is not a science textbook. People should stop trying to use it as such.

what should it be used for, if the accuracy of its content is
a problem?

I wasn't claiming the bible was ought to be used to challenge the accuracy of any scientific textbook, I was wondering why not using the Bible as a science textbook would automatically mean it has issues with 'accuracy of content'. I'm not a scientist by trade just a layman, though visiting forums like this has helped my understanding of how science works no end.

Have a nice day

And yourself

 

[mzungu]

I'm sure putting my reply into context will help...


I wasn't claiming the bible was ought to be used to challenge the accuracy of any scientific textbook, I was wondering why not using the Bible as a science textbook would automatically mean it has issues with 'accuracy of content'. I'm not a scientist by trade just a layman, though visiting forums like this has helped my understanding of how science works no end.



And yourself

Using the Bible as a science textbook automatically means that there will be major issues, the least of which will be accuracy. Genesis alone has been totally refuted by science. You cannot use a spiritual guide as a science textbook. Science is not faith based nor spiritual. Science is based on the falsifiable whereas any religion is based on the unfalsifiable.

Science uses evidences and theories to explain those evidences. The Bible by any account contains nothing of scientific value.

Science has very strict rules that it has to abide by in order to function properly and faith is not one of them.

 

[Hespera]

So only scientific text books have 'accuracy of content' do they?

The texts that i have seen used in high school are pretty bad.

Full of mistakes, and always out of date.

Thing is, its an industry, big business, who gets to sell the books. Very competitive... there is a story about how the Calif board adopted a new biology text one year. They were supposed to read and review all the submissions, then meet again and vote. All but one voted for a certain book. He ws the only one who had read it, or tried to.

he voted against it as all the pages were blank. he was the only one who noticed.

Only a cynic would suggest that any bribery was involved in text selection.


What indeed does one do with a book whose accuracy is problematic.

 

[Hespera]

I'm sure putting my reply into context will help...


I wasn't claiming the bible was ought to be used to challenge the accuracy of any scientific textbook, I was wondering why not using the Bible as a science textbook would automatically mean it has issues with 'accuracy of content'. I'm not a scientist by trade just a layman, though visiting forums like this has helped my understanding of how science works no end.



And yourself

would automatically mean it has issues with 'accuracy of content

'.

hmm, if you had said that instead of going off on something about science texts i could hve respopnded more on topic.

It in no way a case of "automatically". just saying that the bible very clearly has accuracy problems in some areas.

That does bring some degree of question about the accuracy of the rest of it, in my mind; that only seems reasonable. And if you cannot trust the accuracy of it, then, what use is it? (not meaning it has no use, but, it asks the question about what exactly the use is)

 

[Hespera]

There are many, many claims of creationism that have been utterly refuted. I'm not just talking about the Dover trial, if that's what you're referring to with the "court cases" stuff. That's the tip of the iceberg. Everything creationists have claimed, be they ideas pet theories like irreducible complexity or what they see as fatal flaws in evolution, has been completely demolished by people who know what they're talking about.

Look no further than the site I already linked you:
An Index to Creationist Claims



But apparently unconvincing.

It is not my opinion that creationism has had it's claims completely rebutted.

Honestly, as much as the different schools of creoism are
at odds with eachother, at the very least the claims of all but one of them are refuted by the others!

 

[Cabal]

How is creationism "utterly false"? It is not my opinion that creationism has had it's claims completely rebutted. Just because there have been some legal cases won does not mean anything was proved. Court cases are won on technicalities more than evidence.

Except in the court cases for both YEC and it's cousin ID, the science was presented from the evolution side, and the creationists umm'd, ahh'd and floundered. It was the perfect chance for the alternative hypotheses to present their evidence and they failed.

I don't know where you are getting your info but it's wrong.

The fact you made the claim in the quote above about technicalities rather than evidence shows you aren't even aware of what happened in these court cases. Perhaps you should actually, you know, READ about what happened in the trial instead of declaring it wrong because it's inconvenient for you.

 

[theFijian]

Using the Bible as a science textbook automatically means that there will be major issues, the least of which will be accuracy. Genesis alone has been totally refuted by science. You cannot use a spiritual guide as a science textbook.

umm can you point out where I said anything to the contrary? I've not been advocating the use of the bible as a science textbook, nor was I advocating using the Bible to critique any scientific literature. Are you getting me mixed up with another poster?

Science is not faith based nor spiritual. Science is based on the falsifiable whereas any religion is based on the unfalsifiable.

What are the philosophical assumptions underpinning the scientific method? Are they fasifiable?

Science uses evidences and theories to explain those evidences. The Bible by any account contains nothing of scientific value.

Well since the Bible is not trying to convey scientific information....

Science has very strict rules that it has to abide by in order to function properly and faith is not one of them.

Don't remember saying it was

 

[theFijian]

The texts that i have seen used in high school are pretty bad.

Full of mistakes, and always out of date.

That does bring some degree of question about the accuracy of the rest of it, in my mind; that only seems reasonable. And if you cannot trust the accuracy of it, then, what use is it? (not meaning it has no use, but, it asks the question about what exactly the use is)

If we cannot trust the accuracy of science textbooks then what use are they? maybe we try to discern where they are correct and where they aren't. Or maybe we try to make sure they're actually saying what we think they're saying. Likewise, maybe the Bible doesn't say what we think it says.

 

[mzungu]

umm can you point out where I said anything to the contrary? I've not been advocating the use of the bible as a science textbook, nor was I advocating using the Bible to critique any scientific literature. Are you getting me mixed up with another poster?

Well what did you mean by this?:

I was wondering why not using the Bible as a science textbook would automatically mean it has issues with 'accuracy of content'.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

If we cannot trust the accuracy of science textbooks then what use are they? maybe we try to discern where they are correct and where they aren't. Or maybe we try to make sure they're actually saying what we think they're saying. Likewise, maybe the Bible doesn't say what we think it says.

"out of date" means there is new info out there that we can look at. So go and get the new version of the textbook to get access to the corrections. There is no need to "discern where they are correct and where they aren't" if you're prepared to put in the effort and funds to get a new version.

This is not so with the bible. There is no bible2.0 with corrections. So in that case you have no choice but to try to discern for yourself what is correct and what isn't. Which is needless to say a really stupid way of doing things.

 

[Hespera]

If we cannot trust the accuracy of science textbooks then what use are they? Or maybe we try to make sure they're actually saying what we think they're saying. Likewise, maybe the Bible doesn't say what we think it says.

Im referring to the texts used in public middle schools and high schools, whether they are history or science, they are nor very good.

They are of great use in the industry, less useful for imparting good information.

maybe we try to discern where they are correct and where they aren't.

that would be quite useful, and printing better editions would be a real good goal.

Or maybe we try to make sure they're actually saying what we think they're saying. Likewise, maybe the Bible doesn't say what we think it says

Public school texts dont seem to present a translation problem for people who can read, i am unaware that it is a situation that needs much attention.

The bible..the translation, the archaic language, the cryptic statements, etc all present tremendous problems figuring what it says...hence the 37,000 sects, and the endless debate over what it all means.

Id agree that its not likely that much of it actually means what anyone today thinks it means.

 

[mzungu]

The bible..the translation, the archaic language, the cryptic statements, etc all present tremendous problems figuring what it says...hence the 37,000 sects, and the endless debate over what it all means.

Id agree that its not likely that much of it actually means what anyone today thinks it means.

You hit it on the nail head. Imagine if I were to go back in time to 1965 and asked someone to translate a document referring to the IRANGATE scandal! Well by the title alone he would think that it had to do with some gate in Iran that caused some scandal or that a scandal took place on or near some gate in Iran. But if I were to travel back to 1978 then he would know that it was a political scandal!

We do not know the nuances of the ancient Hebrew nor the Greek to know what exactly they meant. Although some are easy to understand: "It is easier for a camel to go through........." but other parts cannot be taken at face value.

 

[Inan3]

You hit it on the nail head. Imagine if I were to go back in time to 1965 and asked someone to translate a document referring to the IRANGATE scandal! Well by the title alone he would think that it had to do with some gate in Iran that caused some scandal or that a scandal took place on or near some gate in Iran. But if I were to travel back to 1978 then he would know that it was a political scandal!

We do not know the nuances of the ancient Hebrew nor the Greek to know what exactly they meant. Although some are easy to understand: "It is easier for a camel to go through........." but other parts cannot be taken at face value.

And yet, for both the Bible and Irangate we have information available to us to help us discern what is what. One only needs to seek and they will find. Especially the Bible because it has it's own information. Scripture interprets scripture. And then there's the eternal God. He's His own vast source of information and He makes it readily available to those who seek Him.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scripture interprets scripture.

You sound like an educated woman --

 

[Hespera]

And yet, for both the Bible and Irangate we have information available to us to help us discern what is what. One only needs to seek and they will find. Especially the Bible because it has it's own information. Scripture interprets scripture. And then there's the eternal God. He's His own vast source of information and He makes it readily available to those who seek Him.

yep seek and ye shall find 37,000 sects worth of difference about what the thing means.

but of course only the true christians get it right. you will know who they are because they will tell you they -thro' luck, inspiration, study, or such divers means as there may be-got it right.

not like the others. the others do it wrong. how could they think a bit of a sprinklin' would baptize when ever so clear its gotta be full immersion?

but all of them got it right. so they say.