If you want kids to learn creation science, show how you'd teach it.

[Oonna]

I have always read that people are "hard wired" (if you will) to see patterns, and we are so good at seeing patterns (any patterns) that we see false patterns everywhere.
For example, the constellations do not actually form pictures, no matter what one sees when they look at Orion. Likewise when we pray for the recovery of a friend or loved one, and should that loved one recover, we see that "positive hit" pattern and give the credit to the deity we were praying to*.
Likewise, the belief in a seperate "soul" is due to the problems the brain has with not being able to view itself. So we feel a strange "duality" within ourselves, even though such a duality is false. Hence the historically prevelant belief in a "soul" or "spirit" seperate from the physical body.
Im not so sure that scepticism is the "natural" state of humankind as a whole.

*This only applies to groups and populations as a whole, not necessarily individuals

Thank you for catching my blunder corvus_corax..i should have used a different word. What i was trying to say is that we tend to not believe what we cant see. And since we cant SEE God many of us are not able or unwilling TO believe. So why would we?

 

[Chalnoth]

I'm not sure that's entirely true, Oonna. We can end up believing all sorts of crazy stuff. Implanting of false memories is all too easy, for example:
http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm

We do, I think, tend to trust our own beliefs more than the beliefs of others, but I don't think that necessarily equates to us trusting our own senses, since we can't always even distinguish between an imagined memory and a real memory.

 

[Oonna]

I'm not sure that's entirely true, Oonna. We can end up believing all sorts of crazy stuff. Implanting of false memories is all too easy, for example:
http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm

We do, I think, tend to trust our own beliefs more than the beliefs of others, but I don't think that necessarily equates to us trusting our own senses, since we can't always even distinguish between an imagined memory and a real memory.

Fair enough...on the other hand if someone told me a green monkey lived under my bed and i looked for him everyday and every night and never saw a green monkey...i wouldnt believe a green monkey lived under my bed.

Edited to add:
Im not everyone though..im sure some people could be convinced to believe a green monkey lived under the bed no matter how many times they looked and couldnt find him.

 

[Chalnoth]

Fair enough...on the other hand if someone told me a green monkey lived under my bed and looked for him everyday and every night and never saw a green monkey...i wouldnt believe a green monkey lived under my bed.

Well, not everybody can be convinced so easily. But I bet that a significant number could indeed be convinced of the green monkey if they were also told that it was a sneaky green monkey, and they were young enough to not have developed pre-conceived notions as to the state of monkeys and their habitats.

It should be no surprise that the single largest contributing factor to adult beliefs (religious and otherwise) is the belief system of a person's parents.

 

[Oonna]

Well, not everybody can be convinced so easily. But I bet that a significant number could indeed be convinced of the green monkey if they were also told that it was a sneaky green monkey, and they were young enough to not have developed pre-conceived notions as to the state of monkeys and their habitats.

It should be no surprise that the single largest contributing factor to adult beliefs (religious and otherwise) is the belief system of a person's parents.

I thought of that as soon as i posted and fixed it...thanks though...

 

[joey444]

Just what is your scientific evidence that the Ark was not real? I have more reason to believe that the Ark was real, then you have to believe that it was not real. The question is, what scientific evidence do you have?

John:

When you make a claim, you are expected to provide evidence to support said claim.

When you make a claim, you are not supposed to tell the other person to go find evidence to the contrary.

The burden of evidence is upon you.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Just what is your scientific evidence that the Ark was not real? I have more reason to believe that the Ark was real, then you have to believe that it was not real. The question is, what scientific evidence do you have?

Marine engineering. A vessel with the dimensions and of the materials described in the Bible simply is not seaworthy.

When Robert Ballard found the Titanic he did whatever it is that science does. Then he figured it was best just to leave the Titanic the way it was. Then the salvage hunters came along and staked a claim.

Looks to me like Science is the one that had their claim jumped and their ship pulled out from under them

What does this have to do with anything, Johnny?

 

[JohnR7]

Marine engineering. A vessel with the dimensions and of the materials described in the Bible simply is not seaworthy.

It did not have to be sea worthy, it just had to float. There were no sails and there was no rudder.
If Noah was not able to build one that big, it would have been no problem to build five smaller Arks and tie them together.
Dutchman builds modern Noah's Ark http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4853890.stm

 

[Abongil]

It did not have to be sea worthy, it just had to float. There were no sails and there was no rudder.

Have you ever been on the sea? A log can float, but it most certainly is not sea worthy.

 

[Tenka]

Just what is your scientific evidence that the Ark was not real?

Simple really, as has been shown numerous times here, housing that number of species on a boat is impossible. No wooden hulk could have been built anywhere near the size required and been seaworthy.

And perhaps most importantly, there was no flood.

It did not have to be sea worthy, it just had to float

It would float, after it fell apart of course.
You can't just scale up a crate and cram it full of animals.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It did not have to be sea worthy, it just had to float. There were no sails and there was no rudder.

Then let me say it with smaller words: The ark would not float.

 

[JohnR7]

Then let me say it with smaller words: The ark would not float.

There is a guy who built one and it floated just fine.

You would think that no one has ever built a boat.

 

[JohnR7]

housing that number of species on a boat is impossible.

It is not imposible, because they guy in the Neatherlands just showed that it could be done.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is not imposible, because they guy in the Neatherlands just showed that it could be done.

Isn't it amazing, John, some of the stuff we have to defend?

 

[Chalnoth]

Nevermind

 

[Tiphereth]

Rather than just saying, "that guy," could you please post references? Second-hand knowledge isn't knowledge at all.

He already did:

It did not have to be sea worthy, it just had to float. There were no sails and there was no rudder.
If Noah was not able to build one that big, it would have been no problem to build five smaller Arks and tie them together.
Dutchman builds modern Noah's Ark http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4853890.stm

Admittedly though, the modern Ark is a fifth of the size specified in the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

[bible]Genesis 7:17-18[/bible]

 

[Chalnoth]

He already did:

Ah, whoops, thanks, Tiphereth.

Looks to me like he didn't show anything at all with that scale model, though.

 

[Tenka]

There is a guy who built one and it floated just fine.

It is a scale model of what he thinks the ark was like John, only 20% the size of the bible description.

I repeat, you cannot just scale things up.

 

[TheBellman]

It is not imposible, because they guy in the Neatherlands just showed that it could be done.

No, he did not. Building a 1/5 scale model doesn't show anything.