Could anyone tell me if this is true?

[juvenissun]

Most things that are argued by creationists are argued against evolution. It's a ploy to trick others into making YECs look more credible to those on the sidelines who don't know anything either. If you want to give your ideas at least a small amount of real credibility you need to switch over to old Earth creationism and admit that Genesis is not the literal truth.

If, as you said, there is not much content in Creationism, then how could it be a threat to the quality of science education? How would a science textbook in creationism look like? Only a one-page book?

Think about it. You really do not know anything about creationism.
Give you an example: How many science topics/chapters could be related to the idea of a 6000-year earth? None?

 

[bhsmte]

If, as you said, there is not much content in Creationism, then how could it be a threat to the quality of science education? How would a science textbook in creationism look like? Only a one-page book?

Think about it. You really do not know anything about creationism.
Give you an example: How many science topics/chapters could be related to the idea of a 6000-year earth? None?

Most certainly. You won't find too many chapters in a science book, dedicated to something that isn't science.

Why would you, it is a science book?

 

[juvenissun]

Prove it, with objective evidence.

I wonder if jails collect religious affiliation of inmates? I think they should.

 

[juvenissun]

Most certainly. You won't find too many chapters in a science book, dedicated to something that isn't science.

Why would you, it is a science book?

Because many topics in Creationism ARE closely related to science.
Can you name a few?
I gave you an example already: the 6000-year old earth.

 

[bhsmte]

I wonder if jails collect religious affiliation of inmates? I think they should.

Trust me, you don't want to look that up. But since you did bring it up:

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-a...americas-scientists-and-07-percent-its-prison

 

[Givemeareason]

It is quite painful to watch and is again, one major reason real scientists don't bother with these types of folks.

And then these people think they have won their debate because real science doest want to bother with them. That's where that woman and others like her get the idea there is this big anti-god conspiracy cover-up taking place. Yeh, like for the last 150 years!

 

[bhsmte]

Because many topics in Creationism ARE closely related to science.
Can you name a few?
I gave you an example already: the 6000-year old earth.

How is a 6000 year old earth, closely related to science, when there is no scientific evidence, to support it?

 

[juvenissun]

There aren't enough hours in a day and enough teachers in the world to do that.





Perhaps we can also let them choose between "making babies as explained by stork theory" and "making babies as explained by embryology".

I'll take the latter to care for my pregnant other half. You can have the first.

Appreciated that you pick up my posts and gave back so much argument.

The OP is not a very reasonable one. As a consequence, my arguments are also partial and are not logically tight either. And I am not a politician, nor a sociologist. So, I do not bother to make my argument very precise. As a result, I don't even want to review what I said. Let along your arguments against them. Very sorry.

Nevertheless, if you like to learn something about the relationship of Creationism to science, you are very welcome to contribute. And I will respond.

 

[RickG]

How is a 6000 year old earth, closely related to science, when there is no scientific evidence, to support it?

Or when ALL the scientific evidence debunks a 6,000 year old earth.

 

[Givemeareason]

How is a 6000 year old earth, closely related to science, when there is no scientific evidence, to support it?

It's a 6000 year old universe too. The sun, solar system and cosmos wasn't created till after the earth.

 

[juvenissun]

How is a 6000 year old earth, closely related to science, when there is no scientific evidence, to support it?

OK, thank me if you learned:

There is such an idea of a 6000-year old earth. How do you argue against it? How many basic concepts, data, techniques and hypotheses are needed for a science student to argue against such a suggestion? It would make at least 10 chapters content in a science book of college level right there.

What if I suggest: Ooops, not 6000 years, but 6 million years (still a young earth, isn't it?). Then how much more background knowledge is needed to argue against that one? Not even one with a Master degree in geology could successfully attack that suggestion.

See the value of one simple idea of Creationism in the study of science?
There are at least hundreds of such scientific concepts included in the Bible.

 

[RickG]

It's a 6000 year old universe too. The sun, solar system and cosmos wasn't created till after the earth.

5,999 years, 362 days, I guess.

 

[juvenissun]

It's a 6000 year old universe too. The sun, solar system and cosmos wasn't created till after the earth.

Aha, now the Pluto is the hot one recently.
Is the Pluto formed before the sun or after the sun?
No need to reply if you do not know. Just remind you that what says in the Bible is REALLY wonderful.

 

[Givemeareason]

I don't know about Pluto but I have an idea that before I wanted to argue against a 6000 year old earth, I would like to see the idea in favor of it to see if it was worth arguing against. The observed life spans and types of stars out there would be a pretty good argument against your 6000 year universe.

 

[Givemeareason]

I wonder if jails collect religious affiliation of inmates? I think they should.

I would guess that more criminals are christians than athiests because christians can feel good about being forgiven even when their bad.

 

[bhsmte]

I would guess that more criminals are christians than athiests because christians can feel good about being forgiven even when their bad.

See post 85 for the data on that.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Trust me, you don't want to look that up. But since you did bring it up:

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-a...americas-scientists-and-07-percent-its-prison

That's the thing about being a Christian all you need do is say you are a Christian to be one.
That's why there must be millions of Americans who say they are Christians because it's either easier or convenient for them to say that they are, it's easy in the US where Christians do not even need to be nice or decent people to be seen as Christians.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Atheism is just a religious belief as well and it's founded on very little real evidence, just loads of bluff and bluster.

If atheism is a belief (religious or otherwise), then "barefoot" is a shoe.

If you knew anything about the creation organisations and scientists you would know that they have masses of materials in all the popular media formats.

"popular media formats" being youtube and such.
Filled with nothing but attacks on actual science.

I have yet to encounter any creationist trying to offer positive evidence for his/her beliefs.

What's more, they go to great lengths explaining complex subjects so that non-scientists can understand. I can't wait to see the DVD I have ordered where a creation scientist debates an evolution-believing scientist. I expect it to be quite an eye-opener.

And that's how these guys become millionairs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There are no known natural laws that create specified complexity (information). Only intelligence has been observed creating specified complexity.

It's called evolution.

Spontaneous generation of life, which Darwinism requires to get the theory started, has never been observed.

Evolution only requires life to exist. It doesn't matter how life arose.

It is believed in by faith

First, no, you don't need faith when you have evidence.
Second, funny how you feel faith is a "bad" thing in this context.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If, as you said, there is not much content in Creationism, then how could it be a threat to the quality of science education?

The threat is that students wouldn't be taught proper science, but religion instead.

How would a science textbook in creationism look like? Only a one-page book?

It would be a bible. What else?

Think about it. You really do not know anything about creationism.
Give you an example: How many science topics/chapters could be related to the idea of a 6000-year earth? None?

Actual science topics? Indeed, none.