What would be achieved if Creation Science replaced Evolution in biology lessons?

lucaspa · Jan 4, 2004

Micaiah, if you want an example of not being respectful, go to http://www.christianforums.com/t79060&page=2 and read the posts. Notice the exchange between seebs and Ark Guy. Seebs was being respectful. Ark Guy was not.

In regard to you post above: "I think it is more appropriate to label it as a lie from the father of lies (satan)."

This is not respectful. If you had wanted to be respectful, you should have said "I think the belief is wrong." or "I disagree with the belief." When you used the word "lie" and brought in Satan you ceased to be respectful.

Micaiah · Jan 4, 2004

Ah yes, but using your criteria, this is OK, because I am not making it personal. Note I refered to the concept communicated in the post as a lie, derived from the father of lies (satan), yet did not call the person that made the post a liar directly, even though it could have been construed to infer such. I'm getting the idea. Thanks for your coaching.

lucaspa · Jan 4, 2004

Micaiah said:
Ah yes, but using your criteria, this is OK, because I am not making it personal. Note I refered to the concept communicated in the post as a lie, derived from the father of lies (satan), yet did not call the person that made the post a liar directly, even though it could have been construed to infer such. I'm getting the idea. Thanks for your coaching.

You're welcome. But now I'm going to throw you a curve. Sorry. But I've been thinking the matter over. And you were disrespectful. I had intended to write this post and then saw your reply.

I think it is more appropriate to label it as a lie from the father of lies (satan).

This is where you went disrespectful. Ark Guy did it here:

Satan has deceived many christians setting up a means in which to preach against the bible.

Let me give you the reasoning:

TheBear had said 2 posts before this one of ArkGuy's

What I'm trying to accomplish in this forum, is that Christians with differing interpretations of the creation account, share with each other how they came to the conclusions they did, and be open and honest enough to listen, and try to understand why other Christians came to the conclusions they did.

TheBear is saying that different positions are at least honest. That is, honest people have honestly reached different conclusions.

You and ArkGuy have denied this. What you have said is that anyone opposing you is not honest, but spreading lies. Thus you are no longer respectful of the position or the people. You are over the line. What you have done is say "You guys are no longer honest Christians honestly trying to understand scripture and God. Instead, you are deceived by Satan, your position is lies, and therefore you and the position are not deserving of respect."

Now, I would have you consider history. In the Salem witchtrials, how did the Christians justify violence to the women? The women were said to be with Satan! In the Inquisition, how did the Christians justify torture and murder of Protestants? The Protestants were said to be with Satan! Do you see the parallel?

If you put evolution and evolutionists as being with Satan, coming from Satan, or spreading "lies" of Satan, you have just denied the legitimacy of their position and of themselves. Not from the evidence. But from the accusation.

Sorry, Miciaih, but ascribing a position you don't agree with to Satan is over the line and disrespectful. You are not fit to judge what is of Satan and what is not. Certainly not based solely on the notion that it disagrees with you.

jayebrownlee · Jan 4, 2004

[MOD HAT ON]

right - I have read this thread from start to finish and believe me it was not an easy task as this is not a subject I am familiar with and with the exception of saying that Genesis is the lies of Satan (I am too mad about this to do anything about it right now) the only thing wrong with this thread is that people are taking things too personally. Someone disagreeing with your belief is not the same as someone attacking you personally and please do not take it this way. If you are however convinced that someone is attacking you then report the psot and let a moderator deal with it. I very rarely read all the psosts in this forum as I understand too little on the subject to keep up with the arguments - but I always, and I mean always read my reported posts and make sure they are dealt with, like I am doing now. Please keep it nice in here, oh and another thing, I despise sarcasm so keep it to a minimum and do not use it to mock someone else.

Hope that clarifies things, if not PM me or reprt the post again.

Jay

[MOD HAT OFF]

Micaiah · Jan 4, 2004

It appears you read through the thread too quickly. Suggest you re read post 34. This was taken from another thread on this forum.

The post infers that anyone who believes and promotes the plain truth taught in Genesis (ie. asserts that Genesis is a historical narrative of the beginning) is an atheist. The above posts by me were in response to that post. Lucaspa is upset because he was the one who penned the original post.

I request that you withdraw your assertion that my post suggested Genesis was a lie. If you were familiar with my posts, you would be well aware that is not the case.

I have read this thread from start to finish and believe me it was not an easy task as this is not a subject I am familiar with and with the exception of saying that Genesis is the lies of Satan (I am too mad about this to do anything about it right now)

I would also appreciate a response clarifying the circumstances of the previous warning under the post by Ark Guy, namely, why was it issued.

Micaiah · Jan 4, 2004

lucaspa said:
You're welcome. But now I'm going to throw you a curve. Sorry. But I've been thinking the matter over. And you were disrespectful. I had intended to write this post and then saw your reply.

[/font]
This is where you went disrespectful. Ark Guy did it here:

Let me give you the reasoning:

TheBear had said 2 posts before this one of ArkGuy's

TheBear is saying that different positions are at least honest. That is, honest people have honestly reached different conclusions.

You and ArkGuy have denied this. What you have said is that anyone opposing you is not honest, but spreading lies. Thus you are no longer respectful of the position or the people. You are over the line. What you have done is say "You guys are no longer honest Christians honestly trying to understand scripture and God. Instead, you are deceived by Satan, your position is lies, and therefore you and the position are not deserving of respect."

Now, I would have you consider history. In the Salem witchtrials, how did the Christians justify violence to the women? The women were said to be with Satan! In the Inquisition, how did the Christians justify torture and murder of Protestants? The Protestants were said to be with Satan! Do you see the parallel?

If you put evolution and evolutionists as being with Satan, coming from Satan, or spreading "lies" of Satan, you have just denied the legitimacy of their position and of themselves. Not from the evidence. But from the accusation.

Sorry, Miciaih, but ascribing a position you don't agree with to Satan is over the line and disrespectful. You are not fit to judge what is of Satan and what is not. Certainly not based solely on the notion that it disagrees with you.

Let's go over this again. You stated by inference that those who believe that Genesis is a historical narrative of beginnings are atheists. Read post 34 above.

My comments above were in response to that, and you claim they were disrespectful.

This is the same type of twisted thinking required to marry evolution and Genesis.

jayebrownlee · Jan 4, 2004

[MOD HAT ON]

Suggest you re read post 34. This was taken from another thread on this forum.

Have done and as it was taken from another thread I think you should put any replies to it in that thread, what is to be discussed here in this thread is only what is said in this thread.

The post infers that anyone who believes and promotes the plain truth taught in Genesis (ie. asserts that Genesis is a historical narrative of the beginning) is an atheist.

I don't get that at all but as I have just said I only want things to be discussed in this thread that come from here. If you don't like what has been said in another thread and think that it is breaking the rules (note you can't just think that whoever it is is wrong) then report it from that thread.

I'm going to bed now but will check this again in the morning, if you haven't leant to play nicely by then then I am in a good mind to close this thread down, shame really it could have been an interesting thread

Jay

[MOD HAT OFF]

lucaspa · Jan 4, 2004

Micaiah said:
Let's go over this again. You stated by inference that those who believe that Genesis is a historical narrative of beginnings are atheists. Read post 34 above.

I answered that in post #37. Read that and then state your disagreements with it. I never even implied you were an atheist. The statements were those made by militant atheism. I figured that, as a theist, you would not want to be making statements associated with atheism.

My comments above were in response to that, and you claim they were disrespectful.

I stated one statement of yours was disrespectful. And gave my reasoning. If you have differences with the reasoning, then we can discuss that.

This is the same type of twisted thinking required to marry evolution and Genesis.

And here you are over the line again. You have not discussed the ideas I posted or my reasoning, but simply labeled them as "twisted thinking". You are not furthering the discussion at this point, but simply posting inflammatory language.

What we want to see, Micaiah, is you engaging in discussion, not simply one line ad hominems.

Bushido216 · Jan 4, 2004

Micaiah said:
Let's go over this again. You stated by inference that those who believe that Genesis is a historical narrative of beginnings are atheists. Read post 34 above.

My comments above were in response to that, and you claim they were disrespectful.

This is the same type of twisted thinking required to marry evolution and Genesis.

NO! That's not what lucaspa was saying. What lucaspa said is that militant atheists use evolution to disprove a literal Genesis, thereby disproving the Bible. Some creationists, OTOH, say that if Genesis isn't literal, then God doesn't exist. What lucaspa was trying to say was that creationists were doing more harm to Christianity than good by giving the militant atheists fuel for their fires.

I'm surprised I have to explain this to you.

jayebrownlee · Jan 5, 2004

You've not done a lot to convince me that this should stay open, but I'm going to let it be for another day and see what happens.

Jay

ThePhoenix · Jan 5, 2004

jayebrownlee said:
You've not done a lot to convince me that this should stay open, but I'm going to let it be for another day and see what happens.

Jay

As far as I can tell this thread is about a lightyear from the topic (or a Parsec, make your choice) and straying further so
[begin heroic effort] Micaiah - what exactly would be accomplished if schools taught creationism? What would they use as curricula? Would they present creationism as a theory, possible partially or completely innacurate, or as fact?

lucaspa · Jan 5, 2004

I was willing for a while to try to run a clinic on how to conduct a discussion. But it doesn't appear as tho the pupil is paying attention, so it's time to drop it.

ThePhoenix said:
Micaiah - what exactly would be accomplished if schools taught creationism? What would they use as curricula? Would they present creationism as a theory, possible partially or completely innacurate, or as fact?

Let me second that. We've given our conclusions of what would happen if evolution were removed and replaced by creationism. Micaiah, what are your conclusions about what would happen and how did you reach those conclusions?

Particularly, would you teach creationism as theory or fact? And why?

Micaiah · Jan 6, 2004

High school teaching involves imparting facts, as well as teaching students how to think, and investigate new ideas.

Honesty is an important quality to be developed. It involves the ability to put aside your personal feelings and be able to think objectively about the facts as they are presented.

Judging by the posts in this thread, our education system has been a dismal failure.

I think a greater awareness of our Creator can only help improve this unfortunate trend.

lucaspa · Jan 6, 2004

Micaiah said:
High school teaching involves imparting facts, as well as teaching students how to think, and investigate new ideas.

Honesty is an important quality to be developed. It involves the ability to put aside your personal feelings and be able to think objectively about the facts as they are presented.

Judging by the posts in this thread, our education system has been a dismal failure.

I think a greater awareness of our Creator can only help improve this unfortunate trend.

My daughter's Earth Science class was taught geocentrism (sun is the center of the solar system) as an example of how a theory was falsified. We could teach creationism the same way.

My point, tho, was that we could not honestly teach creationism as a valid theory. Creationism is a falsified theory, like geocentrism is a falsified theory. So we can mention creationism like we would geocentrism. Is that acceptable to you?

Nor can we, in science class, teach Creator without the scientific evidence to declare there is one. And there is no scientific evidence to do that. So far, science is agnostic. However, if you find a science class where evoution is being taught as atheism, we all would protest.

The posts in this thread have, for the most part, indicated that our science education is pretty good. Also, the history of science -- where creationism was falsified by Christians, many of whom were ministers -- indicates that it is possible to put aside your feelings and deal honestly with the data. Perhaps we should teach more of that period in the history of science. How about that?

However, Micaiah, you never mentioned specifically what texts or materials you would use to teach creationism. Both ThePhoenix and I specifically asked for that information. We would like an answer, please.

david_84 · Jan 8, 2004

Creationism is a falsified theory, like geocentrism is a falsified theory.

In regards to radiometric dating, the associate professor of geology of East Carolina University, Richard Mauger said, "In general, dates in the "correct ball park" are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other dates are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained." Seems like no one is above this falsification tactic.

Bushido216 · Jan 8, 2004

Right. Because one guy from the University of East Caroline (which, BTW, makes no sense since there are two of them) then all of radiometric dating is falsified?

You certain tihs guy wasn't a creationist?

david_84 · Jan 8, 2004

I didn't say all of radiometric dating is falsified. I only said that falsification is not absent from evolutionism. Both creationism and evolutionism are backed by many people and not all of them in either group are above misrepresenting the facts in order to further their viewpoint.

Bushido216 · Jan 8, 2004

The difference is in the frequency of those mis-representations.

david_84 · Jan 8, 2004

I honestly don't know what position is held by the guy I just quoted but the following is from an evolutionist (actually two of them.)

"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out-of-date,' we just drop it."

That was from T. Save-Soderbergh of the Institute of Egyptology and I.U. Olsson of the Institute of Physics at the University of Uppsala, Sweden.

notto · Jan 9, 2004

david_84 said:
I honestly don't know what position is held by the guy I just quoted but the following is from an evolutionist (actually two of them.)

"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out-of-date,' we just drop it."

That was from T. Save-Soderbergh of the Institute of Egyptology and I.U. Olsson of the Institute of Physics at the University of Uppsala, Sweden.

Why do you consider them 'evolutionists'? It would seem that their area of expertise is far from biology. C-14 dating is really of little use to an 'evolutionist' because the dating cannot go back far enough to be used on most of the things an 'evolutionist' would be interested in.

Perhaps you should us the term 'mainsream scientist', eqyptologist, or physicist. It would make more sense and would be a more accurate slander.

The quote is referenced archeology and dating of relics in the Nile. It has nothing to do with evolution. Context is everything.
http://www.ntanet.net/quote.html

You can see that the context, nature, and source of the quote are not what we would be led to believe from your sources use of it. Whether it is misleading intentionally, or due to poor research is left up to you to decide.

What would be achieved if Creation Science replaced Evolution in biology lessons?

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Legend

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

What would be achieved if Creation Science replaced Evolution in biology lessons?