Liberal Hypocrisy Against Teaching Creationism in Public Schools?

[Elduran]

No, I am not lying. I have not seen the rebuttals. Actually, the refutations don't STAND against examination.

But the only reason you haven't seen them is that you post and run. In any case, I have seen threads where you have continued to post without ever addressing the rebuttals, even when they are referred to later in the same thread. You cannot claim to have missed all of them.

So, you really do appear to have lied repeatedly now.

 

[MartinM]

As you know christians (YEC christians) have been at the forefront of science from the beginning.

True, but not the particular brand of YEC that seems to predominate today. Christian scientists have not traditionally signed statements of faith declaring that the Earth must be young, regardless of any evidence that may be found. That's why when Christian scientists found convincing evidence that the Earth is not young, they abandoned that position. That's a very different attitude to the YEC organizations we have today.

But you are right, ultimately it is all built on philosophy. So why should only one philosophy dominate our public schools?

It doesn't. Other philosophical positions can appear in other classes; scientific epistemology only dominates science class.

Evolutionists assume naturalism or deism. Other scientists do not have to do this.

Not so. All evolution assumes is methodological naturalism. That is, the supernatural may or may not exist, and it may or may not interact with the world around us. But in order to draw meaningful conclusions from our observations, we must assume that no supernatural intervention has taken place. This assumption is common to all science; you won't see particle physicists asking whether or not God has been performing miracles in their accelerators.

It's not just science which makes this assumption; we all do it every day. If I ask you what colour socks you're wearing, to answer you need to assume that no supernatural entity is altering reality or your perception of it.

Now you're free to reject that assumption and believe what you will, in whatever cases you see fit. But that assumption is fundamental to science, and so anything which is taught in a science class must adhere to methodological naturalism, be it evolution, particle physics, or whatever.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

But you are right, ultimately it is all built on philosophy. So why should only one philosophy dominate our public schools?

It doesn't. The 'philosophy' of science dominates our SCIENCE classes. If you want the philosophy of your religion to dominate religion classes, go right ahead. Just don't try to pass it off as science.

 

[MartinM]

However, (according to your religion), we recieve a mutation every 22,700 years or so.

What? Every single person in the population has several mutations which were not present in their parents. Where do you get this stuff?

 

[GodsSamus]

It doesn't. The 'philosophy' of science dominates our SCIENCE classes. If you want the philosophy of your religion to dominate religion classes, go right ahead. Just don't try to pass it off as science.

If Evolution's true, why do we find so much evidence AGAINST it, such as the comparison of human and ape DNA (apes have 10% more DNA), Supernova clusters, etc.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I lie? What about your PRATTs? You keep saying the magnetic field reverses polarity, yet you have not shown one web site besides talk-origins,

which is full of nothing but lies and deceit, to show evidence for this. And they don't tell HOW it repolarizes, they just say it does. Sad. Maybe it repolarizes because there's a current that reverses direction, unfortunately the current would melt the Earth after 20,000 years. Read The Collapse of Evolution.

It’s one thing to hang around while you expend your reserve of PRATTS but to bring up this one again as if people here have not thoroughly refuted it is despicable.

No, I am not lying. I have not seen the rebuttals. Actually, the refutations don't STAND against examination.

You honestly have to be the most disingenuous, untruthful, and ignorant creationists I have seen on these forums yet (dad doesn’t count because I don’t think he’s “well”). I, among many others, have answered all of your tired old PRATTs on this very forum innumerable times. Every time someone answers you earnestly you dismiss the evidence out of hand. I suppose this is due to the fact that you are not here to have legitimate discussions about creation & evolution. You are only here to be a hideous troll. So at this point I think it’s safe to call an ace an ace and write you off as a legitimate forum participant once and for all.

 

[GodsSamus]

What? Every single person in the population has several mutations which were not present in their parents. Where do you get this stuff?

I calculated it. If we split 4 million years ago from apes and we need 200 mutations, that would take 20,000 years per mutation. I did not know that we had several mutation our parents didn't have. Thanks. However, this hurts your religion because there are so few mutations in the body.

Btw, EVERYONE, to find out about the OOPARTS, go to www.s8int.com

You won't listen to Kent Hovind despite his 15 years of teaching, teaching 700 times a year, writing numerous books, AND having a degree. Why should I consider you being objective?

 

[GodsSamus]

It’s one thing to hang around while you expend your reserve of PRATTS but to bring up this one again as if people here have not thoroughly refuted it is despicable.

You honestly have to be the most disingenuous, untruthful, and ignorant creationists I have seen on these forums yet (dad doesn’t count because I don’t think he’s “well”). I, among many others, have answered all of your tired old PRATTs on this very forum innumerable times. Every time someone answers you earnestly you dismiss the evidence out of hand. I suppose this is due to the fact that you are not here to have legitimate discussions about creation & evolution. You are only here to be a hideous troll. So at this point I think it’s safe to call an ace an ace and write you off as a legitimate forum participant once and for all.

Bad news. YOU ARE THE ONE who rejects evidence out of hand.

 

[nvxplorer]

No, like a stone mortar in 55 million year old rocks. That kind of hurts your religion.

In the post before this, you argued against an old earth theory, and here you seem to be implying 55 million year old human civilization.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

If Evolution's true, why do we find so much evidence AGAINST it, such as the comparison of human and ape DNA (apes have 10% more DNA), Supernova clusters, etc.

We don't find 'so much evidence' against it. In fact, we don't find any.

I calculated it. If we split 4 million years ago from apes and we need 200 mutations, that would take 20,000 years per mutation. I did not know that we had several mutation our parents didn't have. Thanks. However, this hurts your religion because there are so few mutations in the body.

Then your calculations need work. Where you got '200 mutations' from I've no idea. And evolution isn't a 'religion' - this is a blatant lie from you.

And yes, every human being has several mutations our parents don't have. This doesn't hurt evolution in the least, or don't you know that most mutations are of no effect?

You won't listen to Kent Hovind despite his 15 years of teaching, teaching 700 times a year, writing numerous books, AND having a degree. Why should I consider you being objective?

We won't listen to Kent Hovind because he's a liar with no knowledge of his subject. His degree is a bogus one from a diploma mill. In short, he has no qualifications and no knowledge on the subject on which he claims to be an expert.

 

[MartinM]

http://www.s8int.comI calculated it. If we split 4 million years ago from apes and we need 200 mutations, that would take 20,000 years per mutation. I did not know that we had several mutation our parents didn't have. Thanks. However, this hurts your religion because there are so few mutations in the body.

Ah, you're talking about the rate at which mutations become fixed in the population, not the rate at which they occur in individuals. Two separate figures.

You won't listen to Kent Hovind despite his 15 years of teaching, teaching 700 times a year, writing numerous books, AND having a degree. Why should I consider you being objective?

Hovind's degree is not in science. Mine is. So why should I listen to him, when he gets basic stuff I learned in first year at Uni utterly wrong?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Bad news. YOU ARE THE ONE who rejects evidence out of hand.

Like I said, at this point I am writing you off as a legitimate forum participant once and for all. Good day sir.

 

[Elduran]

Kent Hovind taught science at christian schools. He has no legitimate degree in science, and in fact has demonstrated a fundamental lack of knowledge in several areas of science, such as thermodynamics, mechanics geology, etc. Why WOULD we listen to his evidence after this? it would be like asking a blind person to take a look at your latest oil painting: pointless.

 

[Elduran]

deleted

 

[Caphi]

I calculated it. If we split 4 million years ago from apes and we need 200 mutations, that would take 20,000 years per mutation. I did not know that we had several mutation our parents didn't have. Thanks. However, this hurts your religion because there are so few mutations in the body.

This is a laugh. Isaac Asimov has proved mathematically that each second, an average of six mutations occur in your body which cause the death of a cell. Not by chance - by the incidence of carbon-14 in the acid molecule decaying into nitrogen and breaking the strand in half. So much for your "rare mutation" argument.

Now, I am aware that this is not random mutation, merely cell death, so let's talk about something else. How are most mutations generated? Cosmic radiation. That stuff is copious. There's a continuous particle stream going through your whole body right now. Follow? Good. Most of the time, it'll go right through water, or kill off a replaceable cell. However, hits to haploid cells, while an infratiny fraction of the actual radiation, could easily happen more than every 20000 years. Especially with egg cells, which are huge and practically bursting with RNA and DNA. It's not nearly as implausible as you'd like to think.

And please, don't call the principles of Darwinism a religion.

 

[Edx]

Now, I am aware that this is not random mutation, merely cell death, so let's talk about something else. How are most mutations generated? Cosmic radiation. That stuff is copious. There's a continuous particle stream going through your whole body right now. Follow? .

Is that the only reason?

Ed

 

[Caphi]

The only? No. There's ultraviolet radiation, solar wind, and trace radiation from elements present in everyday materials, as well as chemicals and other things. But cosmic rays are the most common vector of potentially mutagenic radiation. It's also important to bear in mind that somatic mutation does not cause permanent traits - those must come from mutation in haploid reproductive cells. The radiation must pass through clothing and flesh to hit those cells. So, cosmic radiation - that is, streams of charged particles and energetic radiation originating from energy sources (stars) and ambient radiation in space - would be the most important reason for permanent mutations, yes.

 

[Calminian]

True, but not the particular brand of YEC that seems to predominate today. Christian scientists have not traditionally signed statements of faith declaring that the Earth must be young, regardless of any evidence that may be found.

Christians believe in certain doctrines not because they have not been disproved scientifically but because they are clearly taught in scripture. And miracles cannot be verified nor falsified by science anyway.

This completely misses the point I was making, BTW.

That's why when Christian scientists found convincing evidence that the Earth is not young, they abandoned that position.

Again the misnomer that scientific investigation and disprove a miracle.

It doesn't. Other philosophical positions can appear in other classes; scientific epistemology only dominates science class.

You seem to be denying that evolution and naturalism go hand in hand. Do you believe that science is built on naturalism or that naturalism is built on science? If the latter you're very confused.

Not so. All evolution assumes is methodological naturalism. That is, the supernatural may or may not exist, and it may or may not interact with the world around us.

Wow! Methodological naturalism does not assume that the supernatural MAY have interacted. Where did you get that from?

But in order to draw meaningful conclusions from our observations, we must assume that no supernatural intervention has taken place. This assumption is common to all science;

You're very back and forth on this point. But to address what you just wrote, yes this is a common philosophical assumption that the majority of scientists make and I believe it is a wrong assumption. It not only violates the Bible it violates logic. The christian foundation of rare miracles makes much more sense. It solves the problem of an uncaused universe.

you won't see particle physicists asking whether or not God has been performing miracles in their accelerators.

Nor would a christian.

It's not just science which makes this assumption; we all do it every day. If I ask you what colour socks you're wearing, to answer you need to assume that no supernatural entity is altering reality or your perception of it.

Yes as would all christians. This is perfectly compatible with the Bible.

Now you're free to reject that assumption and believe what you will, in whatever cases you see fit. But that assumption is fundamental to science, and so anything which is taught in a science class must adhere to methodological naturalism, be it evolution, particle physics, or whatever.

And I'm simply saying it ought not be the case. An uncaused universe is philosophically flawed and I don't see why you're afraid to let the kids in the science classes know this. Give them both sides let them decide.

 

[GodsSamus]

Ah, you're talking about the rate at which mutations become fixed in the population, not the rate at which they occur in individuals. Two separate figures.



Hovind's degree is not in science. Mine is. So why should I listen to him, when he gets basic stuff I learned in first year at Uni utterly wrong?

Could it be because you've been brain-washed in school?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Could it be because you've been brain-washed in school?

Wait a minute...a few posts ago you were claiming that because Hovind has a degree in science, we should listen to him. Now that it's emerged that Hovind doesn't have a (legitimate) degree in science and other posters do, those posters with degrees in science have been "brain-washed in school"? Sounds like a degree in science is a great thing for a person to have if they support your opinion, but a terrible thing to have if they disagree with you...