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

[Caphi]

Then put me in line with all those scientists who thought Pluto was a planet for 76 years.

Looks like Pluto pulled a good one on them!

Being equipped to continuously test, re-evaluate, and if necessary, modify one's worldview is, to me, infinitely better than being bound to blind faith in a millenia-old, error-filled book of mythology and denying myself room to learn or grow.

 

[AV1611VET]

Being equipped to continuously test, re-evaluate, and if necessary, modify one's worldview is, to me, infinitely better than being bound to blind faith in a millenia-old, error-filled book of mythology and denying myself room to learn or grow.

Yup --- that's why text books are so expensive.

Now all those books need to be rewritten and reordered.

New students will now have to buy the updated edition, and not rent last year's books.

 

[joey444]

Yup --- that's why text books are so expensive.

Now all those books need to be rewritten and reordered.

New students will now have to buy the updated edition, and not rent last year's books.

My math books costs 10 dollars more than my science book.

 

[corvus_corax]

Yup, it doesn't seem like anyone here really knows how to teach creation science. Case closed.

More to the point, Creation "science" isnt science.
Neither is Intelligent Design, Creationism, or "scientific" Creationism.
No matter how they try to twist the definition and method of Science, they cant actually make their theology fit any scientific paramaters.
Namely, it cant be falsified.
As you so perfectly stated- Case Closed.

 

[JohnR7]

Then put me in line with all those scientists who thought Pluto was a planet for 76 years.

Actually, I remember when I was in grade school about 45 years ago, the teacher told us then that Pluto was not really a planet. It just was not big enough to qualify as a planet. But at the time science did not want to change it.

 

[JohnR7]

More to the point, Creation "science" isnt science.

You do not even know what creation science is, so how can you say if it is or is not science?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You do not even know what creation science is, so how can you say if it is or is not science?

i'm curious, is this a generic remark, ie no one knows what creation science is so how can anyone know whether or not it is a science?

or is it a remark directed to a particular person, you do not know what creation science is, therefore you can not tell me if it is a science or not?

appears that the remark can be taken either way, with a considerable difference in outcome.

 

[corvus_corax]

You do not even know what creation science is, so how can you say if it is or is not science?

My first reaction is to say that your statement is a lie.
However, Im not sure Ive explained my background to you, so Im willing to say that your statement regarding my knowledge of Creation "science" is a mere statement of ignorance.
Yes, that will suffice. You spoke of my knowledge from a point of your ignorance.
To wit-
Remember, if you will, that I used to be a Christian. My personal denomination you seemed to have certain issues with, but that is beside the point regarding this discussion.
I believed in Creation "science" wholeheartedly. Not your personal interpretation (GAP Theory, which many christians consider to be contrary to scripture), but I believed that "Thechristiangoddidit", and I had the scriptures and the so-called "science" to back me up, just as you do.
The problem with Creation "science"/"scientific" Creationism/intelligent design is twofold-
1- They have NO common ground beyond "goddidit"*
and
2- They have NO objective empirical data to back up their claims that ANY god-did-it.

As of last year, after some years of searching, I became a Noachide, so I still believe that "goddidit". In a nutshell, I am a theistic evolutionist which, as you should well know, is NOT a scientific stance, but rather a stance of accepting the scientific POV while still maintaining that God "put in motion" or "guided" or "foreordained" the evolutionary progression of species.
It is, in a nutshell, a statement of faith regarding God and a statement of observing the facts regarding evolutionary scientific theory.

Theistic Evolution is not, just like Creation "science", a scientifically defensible POV, as GOD cannot be empirically, objectively demonstrated, and furthermore cannot be falsified.
Ever.
In any way.

Hence, your "Creation Science" (ie- your personal interpretation of such) cannot be relegated to the realms of science, just as my theistic evolotion POV cannot.
GOD and "God did it all" cannot be demonstrated in any objective empirical way.
End of story.


Yes, I am intimately familiar with many of the Creation "science" hypotheses. None of them, not a one, are actual scientific theories.

For now, I'll call your statement a "statement of ignorance". But from now on, if you ever say that I "do not even know what creation science is" (or any facsimile thereof), I will call you out as a liar, because your statement is false and demonstrated as such.

Please dont be a liar, even for your Jesus.



*Although the Intelligent Design proponents arent even willing to say that the Christian God "did it". They propose a generic "intelligent designer" which unmasks their cowardice and underhandedness regarding their god (note the lower case "g" in that instance)

 

[corvus_corax]

i'm curious, is this a generic remark, ie no one knows what creation science is so how can anyone know whether or not it is a science?

or is it a remark directed to a particular person, you do not know what creation science is, therefore you can not tell me if it is a science or not?

appears that the remark can be taken either way, with a considerable difference in outcome.

I believe it was directed at me, and I addressed it as the statement of ignorance that it is.
Just like most of JohnR7's statements

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, I remember when I was in grade school about 45 years ago, the teacher told us then that Pluto was not really a planet. It just was not big enough to qualify as a planet. But at the time science did not want to change it.

Oh well --- if scientists can't agree what Pluto is --- is it any wonder they can't agree what Earth is?

Usually two things come to mind when people say there's no objective evidence for God:

1. Yup --- that's God for you.
2. 2 Kings 2:17

[bible]2 Kings 2:17[/bible]

Those must have been the scientists of Elisha's day.

Scientists can't even show angels exist, and since God is so much higher than the angels, I'd say that makes Him twice distant from empirical observation.

 

[JohnR7]

infinitely better than being bound

You are in bondage when you reject God. Jesus sets people free.

John 8:34-36
Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. [35] And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. [36] Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

 

[AV1611VET]

More to the point, Creation "science" isnt science.

Actually I have trouble with that term: Creation Science, for two reasons:

• It's not specific enough.

It doesn't give God enough credit.

• Everything in Genesis 1 is a singularity.

Thus science has no foothold as far as The explanation.

I prefer the term Biblical Creation - that says it all.

 

[TooCurious]

Actually I have trouble with that term: Creation Science, for two reasons:

• It's not specific enough.

It doesn't give God enough credit.

• Everything in Genesis 1 is a singularity.

Thus science has no foothold as far as The explanation.

I prefer the term Biblical Creation - that says it all.

Since you're evidently not claiming "Biblical Creation" to be science anymore, can I infer that you do not object to the assertion that it should not be taught in science classes?

 

[JohnR7]

Oh well --- if scientists can't agree what Pluto is --- is it any wonder they can't agree what Earth is?

After they argue and fight it out with each other, then they expect the rest of us to roll over and accept whatever they say because they are "experts". What I have been told is that the Titanic was built by experts and the Ark was built by a amateur.

So us amateur scientiests may not know as much as the pros know, but we know more than they give us credit for a lot of the times.

 

[Nathan Poe]

After they argue and fight it out with each other, then they expect the rest of us to roll over and accept whatever they say because they are "experts". What I have been told is that the Titanic was built by experts and the Ark was built by a amateur.

So us amateur scientiests may not know as much as the pros know, but we know more than they give us credit for a lot of the times.

The only difference is that the Titanic was real, and the Ark was a piece of mythology.

Quite an important differnce, actually, if you think about it.

 

[JohnR7]

The only difference is that the Titanic was real, and the Ark was a piece of mythology.

Quite an important differnce, actually, if you think about it.

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?

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

RMS Titanic Inc. appealed to the United States court of appeals. In its decision of January 31, 2006 [14] the court recognized "explicitly the appropriateness of applying maritime salvage law to historic wrecks such as that of Titanic" and denied the application the maritime law of finds. The court also ruled that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the "1987 artifacts", and therefore vacated that part of the court's July 2, 2004 order. In other words, according to this decision, RMS Titanic Inc. has ownership title to the artifacts awarded in the French decision (valued $16.5 million earlier) and continues to be salvor-in-possession of the Titanic wreck. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court to determine the salvage award ($225 million requested by RMS Titanic Inc.)[15].

 

[Abongil]

You are in bondage when you reject God. Jesus sets people free.

John 8:34-36
Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. [35] And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. [36] Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

Im in bondage? Wow, this is the crappiest bondage system I have ever experienced, I think I have MORE freedom.

 

[Oonna]

I see threads like this and i wonder what God thinks of them (if there really is a God). Does he want people to be arrogant, criticle and unwilling to learn new things? Why would he give us logic if he didnt want use it? Why would give us minds that keep us moving forward if he wanted us to only to believe 1 thing? People are hard wired for skepticism, why would he do that if he new he would be the biggest target?

Some people should really use the God given gifts they were given and try to look at the world he gave us instead of ignore it...i really feel sorry for the people that are so arrogant they cant even fathom that they might be wrong.

 

[Chalnoth]

Sadly, I don't think people are hard-wired for skepticism, Oonna.

 

[corvus_corax]

People are hard wired for skepticism, why would he do that if he new he would be the biggest target?

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