Creationism/Creation Science... approved by Arkansas house

[TLK Valentine]

Self awareness might be a good place to start. Can you express the chemical reaction that takes place to yield self awareness?

Are plants self-aware?
Is bread mold?

Every cell in your body is "alive," but none of them are self aware... or are they?
Truly you would be Legion, for you would be many... trillions, in fact.

 

[HARK!]

Are plants self-aware?
Is bread mold?

Every cell in your body is "alive," but none of them are self aware... or are they?
Truly you would be Legion, for you would be many... trillions, in fact.

I said this would be a good place to start. We're just getting started. As you have not expressed the chemical reaction that would explain self awareness; we're getting off to a very slow start.

As I was writing that; I had predicted plants might be used to diminish the validity of the question.

Can you explain the chemical reaction that takes place to make predictions of the future?

 

[MIDutch]

Observation is essential in science.

So you are claiming that scientists do not have eyes with which to examine, study, measure, compare, etc. the fossil evidence that's right in front of them. Or are unable to see the changes that occur in living species because of environmental pressures occurring in real time. Or are unable to study the genetics of living species and how they are genetically related to but different from each other.

Odd, then that you demand that everyone accept the occurence of events that no one has ever seen evidence of and are only found in a religious book.

 

[MIDutch]

Observation is essential in science.

So you are admitting that creationism is therefore not science since none of it has ever been observed.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I said this would be a good place to start. We're just getting started. As you have not expressed the chemical reaction that would explain self awareness; we're getting off to a very slow start.

As self-awareness is not a requirement for life, we're starting off in the wrong direction.

As I was writing that; I had predicted plants might be used to diminish the validity of the question.

Perhaps I should be asking if you consider plants to be "life."

Can you explain the chemical reaction that takes place to make predictions of the future?

Well, it's definitely not 6CO2 + 6H2O —> C6H12O6 + 6O2... because I've yet to see a tree predict the future.

 

[Jimmy D]

No one’s has answered me and it’s possibly the most pertinent questions thus far (not to blow my own trumpet)..

Specifically what scientific evidence supports creationism? What research do it’s supporters find most compelling? You need to teach something in a science class, what would such a curriculum include?

If creationists can’t answer these questions they have no right supporting the teaching of creationism outside of the RE class. The silence is telling though, creationism is in no way scientific... and other than badmouthing science that contradicts it, it offers exactly nothing outside of the religious groups who support it.

 

[durangodawood]

....If you can find a scientist to refute this statement; I'll consider the credibility of your statement.

You can observe evidence from the past.

Thats what observable means in this context. It doesnt mean you have to watch the actual event occur.

For instance, what do scientists make of various large craters on the earths surface? The scientific understanding is that many of them are from ancient cosmic collisions. Is that all bogus because no one was there to see it happen?

 

[HARK!]

As self-awareness is not a requirement for life, we're starting off in the wrong direction.

As self awareness is a facet of life; I think that it's an awesome place to start. Thinking is a facet of life too.

Perhaps I should be asking if you consider plants to be "life."

I do.

Well, it's definitely not 6CO2 + 6H2O —> C6H12O6 + 6O2... because I've yet to see a tree predict the future.

So in other words you don't know that the ability to predict the future is a chemical reaction?

I'll say that it's not, until it can be demonstrated that it is.

 

[Whyayeman]

Observation is essential in science.

There is direct evidence from observation. Lots of it.

As an example, Richard Lenski's work on bacteria, cited above, has demonstrated evolution in the laboratory. He began with cultures of E. coli and ended up 20 years later with cultures of a new bacterium, directly descended from E. coli but demonstrably a different creature.

If direct evidence were required in science that would put the theory of creationism firmly in its place as unscientific. It cannot by Hark!'s definition be an alternative to (proper) science.

 

[TLK Valentine]

As self awareness is a facet of life; I think that it's an awesome place to start. Thinking is a facet of life too.

The plants disagree -- or at least they would, if they were capable of self-awareness and thinking.

I do.

And yet you won't find the chemical reaction for self-awareness in them...

So in other words you don't know that the ability to predict the future is a chemical reaction?

I'll say that it's not, until it can be demonstrated that it is.

And so long as the ability to predict the future is not a requirement for life (and it's not; just ask the mold), I'll say I don't care.

So what is life, again?

 

[Whyayeman]

What distinction would you draw between religion and Secular Humanism.

You should ask a humanist.

(I think such a question is out of place here.)

 

[HARK!]

You can observe evidence from the past.

Thats what observable means in this context. It doesnt mean you have to watch the actual event occur.

For instance, what do scientists make of various large craters on the earths surface? The scientific understanding is that many of them are from ancient cosmic collisions. Is that all bogus because no one was there to see it happen?

Craters are observable, repeatable, and testable. I have seen no evidence that macroevolution meets these criteria.

 

[HARK!]

You should ask a humanist.

(I think such a question is out of place here.)

I find it to be perfectly in place; as this belief system is a foundation of what is being taught in some of our public schools.

 

[HARK!]

The plants disagree -- or at least they would, if they were capable of self-awareness and thinking.

I try to avoid presenting logical arguments to plants.

 

[durangodawood]

Craters are observable, repeatable, and testable. I have seen no evidence that macroevolution meets these criteria.

No one has ever observed the formation of one of these craters. Yet we all readily admit scientific explanations of them. Why? Because we have observable evidence from the past.

 

[Whyayeman]

I find it to be perfectly in place; as this belief system is a foundation of what is being taught in some of our public schools.

I didn't know this. In what part of the curriculum is humanism taught? (Our school system is more different from yours than I had appreciated.)

 

[DaisyDay]

You said observation was necessary to establish facts. Not documentation.

There is observation and direct observation - not necessarily the same thing. For instance, one cannot see a glacier's movement - it is way too slow - but that doesn't mean we can't observe the evidence of its movement. We draw conclusions of the movement even though we cannot see it in real time.

The attitude toward a factual past is identical.

Nothing in the past is observable. I cannot see it. You cannot see it. Therefore the past is speculation. Thats where your approach leads.

Except in astronomy, what we see is the past. In our own present, we see light and events from the past.

In evolution, we see evidence of what has passed and we can draw conclusions as to what is currently happening.

 

[durangodawood]

There is observation and direct observation - not necessarily the same thing. For instance, one cannot see a glacier's movement - it is way too slow - but that doesn't mean we can't observe the evidence of its movement. We draw conclusions of the movement even though we cannot see it in real time.

Except in astronomy, what we see is the past. In our own present, we see light from the past.

In evolution, we see evidence of what has passed and we can draw conclusions as to what is currently happening.

In astronomy we only see light now. Its pure (and valid) reasoning that gets us to conclude its picture of past events.

 

[HARK!]

No one has ever observed the formation of one of these craters. Yet we all readily admit scientific explanations of them. Why? Because we have observable evidence from the past.

On 15 September 2007, a chondritic meteor crashed near the village of Carancas in southeastern Peru near Lake Titicaca, leaving a water-filled hole and spewing gases across the surrounding area. Many residents became ill, apparently from the noxious gases shortly after the impact.

Impact event - Wikipedia

 

[durangodawood]

C

On 15 September 2007, a chondritic meteor crashed near the village of Carancas in southeastern Peru near Lake Titicaca, leaving a water-filled hole and spewing gases across the surrounding area. Many residents became ill, apparently from the noxious gases shortly after the impact.

Impact event - Wikipedia

Neat. Thanks.
One down. Hundreds to go.