If creationism is put into classes....

[truthmonger89]

I dont see a problem shouldnt we try and teach every viewpoint to our children?

Maybe you would start to see a problem if you considered the many different and incompatible creation myths found in different cultures and religions.

 

[JesusWalks78]

Maybe you would start to see a problem if you considered the many different and incompatible creation myths found in different cultures and religions.

From what I understand is that ID isnt about a religion and that the earth could be created by aliens or whatever.

 

[Elduran]

Lets continue here........do you believe that tiny organisms cause diseases? Why?

Because the evidence tends to suggest that when such organisms are present, disease is present too. Strong correlation often indicates causality if all other known factors can be eliminated.

Plus with bacterial diseases, we know that antibiotics are effective at relieving symptoms, and the antibiotics are drugs which kill these little organisms.

Of course, some disease also comes from genetic mutation, so it's not always small organisms.


Other than that my knowledge of disease is fairly limited.

Why do you ask?

 

[JesusWalks78]

Because the evidence tends to suggest that when such organisms are present, disease is present too. Strong correlation often indicates causality if all other known factors can be eliminated.

Plus with bacterial diseases, we know that antibiotics are effective at relieving symptoms, and the antibiotics are drugs which kill these little organisms.

Of course, some disease also comes from genetic mutation, so it's not always small organisms.


Other than that my knowledge of disease is fairly limited.

Why do you ask?

there is evidence that suggests, no proof as yet.

 

[eri]

So you don't agree with germ theory either? What about atomic theory? Gravitational theory? You surely realize that without germ theory, there's not much point in going to the doctor. Without atomic theory, we wouldn't be able to generate enough electricity to power the nation. And without gravitational theory, we wouldn't be able to predict the position of planets in the sky or launch satellites.

Sure, everyone is entitiled to their own opinion. But after a while, you may notice that some opinions - based on facts, observations, and repeatable experiments - are more valid than others. If we taught every possible opinion, regardless of evidence, we'd never be done teaching - and kids would never learn how to add. Is this what you would rather have? A world full of people who think that power could be generated by invisible fairies instead of nuclear facilities? That disease could be caused by not believing in one particular god, as opposed to bacteria, viruses, and unhealthy living conditions? How much longer would civilization be thriving?

 

[JesusWalks78]

So you don't agree with germ theory either? What about atomic theory? Gravitational theory? You surely realize that without germ theory, there's not much point in going to the doctor. Without atomic theory, we wouldn't be able to generate enough electricity to power the nation. And without gravitational theory, we wouldn't be able to predict the position of planets in the sky or launch satellites.

Sure, everyone is entitiled to their own opinion. But after a while, you may notice that some opinions - based on facts, observations, and repeatable experiments - are more valid than others. If we taught every possible opinion, regardless of evidence, we'd never be done teaching - and kids would never learn how to add. Is this what you would rather have? A world full of people who think that power could be generated by invisible fairies instead of nuclear facilities? That disease could be caused by not believing in one particular god, as opposed to bacteria, viruses, and unhealthy living conditions? How much longer would civilization be thriving?

Did I say i didnt believe it?

 

[eri]

Then what would you like as proof of evolution, germ theory, atomic theory, gravitational theory? I would think working medicines (attributed to evolution and germ theory), generation of electricity, and planets where they are supposed to be would be enough proof.

 

[JesusWalks78]

Then what would you like as proof of evolution, germ theory, atomic theory, gravitational theory? I would think working medicines (attributed to evolution and germ theory), generation of electricity, and planets where they are supposed to be would be enough proof.

Did I say that I didnt believe in evolution?

or are you just making assumptions again?

 

[Elduran]

there is evidence that suggests, no proof as yet.

Science doesn't deal in proof, it deals in evidence. Something well evidenced can be included in science, soemthing with no evidence can't.

Evolution can.

Creationism can't.

 

[Beastt]

They would teach whatever science they have that shows the Bible is true. For example, the Bible says "In the Beginning" Science also says there is a beginning. So they would teach what science says about a beginning.

Perhaps we should look for comments in other books which also correlate with science. For instance, a great many tales told to children start "Once upon a time". Science also subscribes to the concept of time, therefore, making these stories factual on the basis of what you're claiming for the Bible.

The Bible talks about "heaven and earth" So in a science class they can talk about what science has to say about a heaven and earth. The first three heavens is the atmosphere around the earth. Science has a lot to say about our atmosphere and science has a lot to say about the earth we live on.

One of the things science says about our atmosphere is that it is primary among the reasons we have water on Earth. But according to the Bible, Earth was covered with water even before it had an atmosphere. So we see how science is completely contrary to the Bible. Shouldn't we teach where science conflicts with the Bible as well? And shouldn't we note that multiple points of evidence in agreement with a proposition mean nothing as soon as one solid piece of evidence against the proposition is found? It takes many points of evidence to suggest that a hypothesis is correct. It takes only one showing it to be contrary to credible evidence to show it to be wrong.

Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

There we are. There's the water I talked about. Now if you skip ahead to Genesis 1:6, you'll see the claim that Earth's atmosphere formed after it was covered in water. That's enough to show that the Bible is incorrect. But that's not the end of the evidence against the Bible. There are at least 3 more propositions on the first page which align the Bible in complete opposition to the findings of science.

"Without form and void" means desolate and empty". According to GAP this means that disaster is upon the earth and there is a destruction.

Actually, "without form and void", doesn't really apply to anything physical. That which is "void" is invalid or doesn't exist. That which is without form is either shifting in shape, (as dust in space), or doesn't exist.

The study of volcanos and esp super volcanos is a good example of how there can be "darkness" upon the earth.

Night might be another, more appropriate example. But there are still others. What about an eclipse? How about impact from a large asteroid? There are multiple ways to have "darkness upon the Earth", but it seems you're prone to singling out only that which supports your desire to believe in the Bible and then you simply discard the rest.

This verse could also be used to describe when the what they call the snowball earth. In that case the ocean would be covered with water.

Oceans which aren't covered with water are called "valleys".

So you could talk about how the ice began to melt and how land and water began to form under the ice or snow.

We know and understand more about creation and science can be used to help us to better understand our Bible.

There you go jumping to a conclusion of creation again. Since you've never seen the creation of anything, it seems highly contrary to logic to believe that creation ever occurred. People witness transformation, but never creation. Creation is suggested as a reality by the Bible, but not necessarily by science.

In fact in Bible school they teach us some different ways to use science to help us to teach the Bible.

It seems obvious that they ignore all of the ways science can be used to show that the Bible doesn't comply with the evidence provided by reality.

For example the Bible talks about how we can be pure before God. Science has a lot to say about purity.

One might be able to measure the level of purity in a concept such as the lack of contaminants in Ivory soap. What do you suggest science has to say about the purity of a person's being as it relates to the God for which science has found no evidence.

The Bible talks about how fire can be used to purify. Science talks about how you can purify metal in fire.

The Bible was written well after man had learned to forge swords from various metals. It doesn't seem particularly significant that the men who wrote the Bible mentioned what they had already known to be true for many decades. If they had mentioned that rocks fall, does that show the Bible to be correct because it agrees with the law of gravity? Or does it more fittingly show that the authors of the Bible recognized that rocks fall because that's what they observed?

The Bible talks about cleaning your garment. Science can show us about garments and how to clean them. So science can be used in a lot of different ways to teach the Bible.

According to that kind of logic, a Tide commercial also shows the Bible is factual. But you must first, of course, seal yourself off from all of the claims of the Bible which show it to be false from a scientific perspective.

 

[Abongil]

They would teach whatever science they have that shows the Bible is true. For example, the Bible says "In the Beginning" Science also says there is a beginning. So they would teach what science says about a beginning. The Bible talks about "heaven and earth" So in a science class they can talk about what science has to say about a heaven and earth. The first three heavens is the atmosphere around the earth. Science has a lot to say about our atmosphere and science has a lot to say about the earth we live on.

Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

"Without form and void" means desolate and empty". According to GAP this means that disaster is upon the earth and there is a destruction. The study of volcanos and esp super volcanos is a good example of how there can be "darkness" upon the earth.

This verse could also be used to describe when the what they call the snowball earth. In that case the ocean would be covered with water.

So you could talk about how the ice began to melt and how land and water began to form under the ice or snow.

We know and understand more about creation and science can be used to help us to better understand our Bible.

In fact in Bible school they teach us some different ways to use science to help us to teach the Bible. For example the Bible talks about how we can be pure before God. Science has a lot to say about purity. The Bible talks about how fire can be used to purify. Science talks about how you can purify metal in fire.

The Bible talks about cleaning your garment. Science can show us about garments and how to clean them. So science can be used in a lot of different ways to teach the Bible.

You can NOT use the Bible! The Bible is a religious text. Try again John.

 

[truthmonger89]

From what I understand is that ID isnt about a religion and that the earth could be created by aliens or whatever.

Is the mere possibility of something reason enough to teach or accept that it is in fact true? Since it might be possible that space aliens created earth, should we teach and accept that space aliens did in fact create the earth? Would you have any problem with that? Do you think people are obligated to provide solid, verifiable evidence to support their theories or should we simply accept anything anybody dreams up simply because there is nothing to disprove it?

 

[JesusWalks78]

Is the mere possibility of something reason enough to teach or accept that it is in fact true? Since it might be possible that space aliens created earth, should we teach and accept that space aliens did in fact create the earth? Would you have any problem with that? Do you think people are obligated to provide solid, verifiable evidence to support their theories or should we simply accept anything anybody dreams up simply because there is nothing to disprove it?

Again this brings me back to matter energy and where it comes from?

 

[truthmonger89]

Again this brings me back to matter energy and where it comes from?

Please answer my questions. A simple yes or no would suffice. Is the mere possibility of something reason enough to teach and accept that it is in fact true? Do you think people who present ideas which might be possible are obligated to provide evidence to accompany their assertions?

 

[Beastt]

Again this brings me back to matter energy and where it comes from?

"From"? The entire universe is made up of matter and energy: two forms of the same thing. Since the universe is everything, there is no "from" for matter and energy to have been derived. When one assumes anything has "come from" anywhere, they're assuming it was not always there to begin with. This seems like a reasonable assumption when looking to our relatively small personal environments. But when looking to the whole of the universe, it should eventually become clear that nothing is ever created. All that exists now existed yesterday, the day before, the year before that and back, at least to the Big Bang, (assuming one subscribes to Big Bang theory). But that doesn't make the Big Bang a act of creation. It seems more accurately to be an event of transformation. And that being the case, there is no reason to assume anything was ever created or came from anywhere.

But I agree with Truthmonger. You should respond directly to his questions. Is the mere possibility of something sufficient reason to teach it as factual? Do you agree that those presenting concepts should be responsible to also define or present evidence to support their concepts?

 

[JesusWalks78]

"From"? The entire universe is made up of matter and energy, two forms of the same thing. Since the universe is everything, there is no "from" for matter and energy to have been derived. When one assumes anything has "come from" anywhere, they're assuming it was not always there to begin with. This seems like a reasonable assumption when looking to our relatively small personal environments. But when looking to the whole of the universe, it should eventually become clear that nothing is ever created. All that exists now existed yesterday, the day before, the year before that and back, at least to the Big Bang, (assuming one subscribes to Big Bang theory). But that doesn't make the Big Bang a act of creation. It seems more accurately to be an event of transformation. And that being the case, there is no reason to assume anything was ever created or came from anywhere.

But I agree with Truthmonger. You should respond directly to his question. Is the mere possibility of something sufficient reason to teach it as factual?

Is there a hundered percent knowledge that amtter energy always existed?

 

[Beastt]

Is there a hundered percent knowledge that amtter energy always existed?

Is there 100% knowledge of anything?

Science simply doesn't work that way. And while religions claim 100% knowledge, none have ever demonstrated such to be factual, and all can be shown to be other than 100% factual.

The important thing to note is that there isn't any credible evidence that matter and energy haven't always existed and no known mechanism by which the complete absence of matter and energy can lead to the existence of matter and energy. You can't create more matter than exists without losing vast amounts of energy in the process. And you can't reduce the amount of matter without creating vast amounts of energy in the process.

The better question for you to be asking is if there is any reason to believe that the matter and energy haven't always existed. Can you think of any reason to believe there was a time or "point" when it didn't? If so, what would that reason be?

Does this mean you intend to ignore Truthmonger's questions?

 

[Dannager]

Is there a hundered percent knowledge that amtter energy always existed?

One-hundred percent knowledge of anything doesn't exist. The best we can get is "pretty darn certain".

 

[JohnR7]

You can NOT use the Bible! The Bible is a religious text. Try again John.

I can use the Bible all I want to use the Bible.
What are you going to try to do, burn all the Bibles in the world?
You can try but you will just end up making the Bible all the more popular.
The more you persecute the Church, the stronger it is going to get.

 

[JohnR7]

Is there 100% knowledge of anything?

I use to collect my final payment when the job was 100% finished. Would you pay me if I was not 100% done with what I had said I would do? In fact I use to go over what we agreed on so there was no question about it. I would go the second mile and give more then 100%. I even had people throw me off the job because they did not like that I was doing work they had not paid me to do.