Which is easier...?

[LightHorseman]

Creationism should be taught in mathematics or history class and evolution should be taught in theology or pseudoscience class where it belongs.

If you can provide any mathematical or historical evidence to support Creationism, then sure. Until that time, well, I guess we're stuck with listening to how unfair the scientific method is for demanding things like evidence and replicable experimentation before considering a theory worthwhile or valid.

 

[driewerf]

Your logic needs more improvement than your English.

I don't think I have to take lessons in logic from you, boy.

1. Do you think it's a good idea to have creationism taught as the only valid scientific theory in biology class?

No.

2. Do you think it's a good idea to make it illegal to teach Darwinism in school?

No.

3. If Darwinism is such a solid and sound hypothesis, why are Darwinists so afraid of alternative theories?

You make a big mistake against logic, boy. You make a false assumption and try to build an argument from that.
Who says scientists (or as you like it, darwinists) are afraid of alternative theories? Show you theories, show the evidence and they will be judged by their merrit.

Now, scientists are angry (and saddened) (note: not afraid), not by creeationism but by creationists. For creationist zeaots try to bypass all the checks and controls science has established to avoid lunatic theories.
Peer review, academic journals, scientific literature? No, creationists present their rubbish not to qualified scientists but to uneducated christian masses. Or worse, they manipulate children. Really, they display a very high moral standard by brainwashing children.

Avoiding of bias, double check? No, on the contrary, creationists embrace bias, like Ken Ham en Eric Hovind who advocate even the biblical bias.

Correcting errors? No, creationists still are uttering the same mistakes and lies that have been refuted a thousand times.

Keeping up with the new findings? No. Creationists still claim no tranistional fossils haven eebn found. Ignoring at least a dozen of transtional forms that haven eebn formed.
etc etc ad nauseam.

 

[driewerf]

Of course you wouldn't know of any alternative theories because it is illegal to teach them because Darwinists are terrified of all hypotheses besides evolution.

You say that on account of ignorance and a lack of education.

That's irrelevant because it is illegal to teach any hypothesis other than evolution in public school and it is illegal to present any evidence that contradicts that hypothesis.

And the school system is the only way scientific knowledge is spread? Are you suggesting you learned nothing after leving school? This explains a lot.

Never heard of scientific journals, papers, congresses etc?

That's the way science is divulgated among peers.

 

[hydro jen]

I live in the United States where it is illegal to teach any evidence that contradicts evolution in public school.

If you had any EVIDENCE I am sure it would be welcomed with open arms by every scientist in America, but you don't, that's why you and yours are making so much noise.

Creationism is impotent and a waste of every ones time, people have even stopped laughing at it, now they just ignore it, perhaps it's time for another court case? what do you think?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Actually, no, science is about evidence.

Therefore evolution is not science.

Evolution is about ignoring evidence and making evidence that contradicts it illegal.

"Well, and I think that's because of a double standard in the treatment of evidence. Evidence that goes along with the current theories is treated according to one set of rules whereas evidence that radically contradicts the current theories is judged by a much stricter standard. It's as if the rules of the game are suddenly changed, as if somebody were doing a high jump and one person jumps the five meter bar and then suddenly the next person who comes up doesn't just have to jump the five meter bar they have to jump the ten meter bars. And actually the standards are so strict that even the evidence that goes along with the current theories could not possibly meet these same standards. So that's what I mean about a double standard in the treatment of evidence." -- Michael A. Cremo, author, 2005

"Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory [evolution], period." -- Virginia Steen-McIntyre, tephrochronologist, March 30th 1981

"The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought and the suppression of 'Enigmatic Data,' data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an anthropologist, I didn't realize the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution had become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory [evolution], period. Their reasoning is circular. H. sapiens sapiens evolved ca. 30,000-50,000 years ago in Eurasia. Therefore any H.s.s. tools 250,000 years old found in Mexico are impossible because H.s.s. evolved ca. 30,000- ... etc. Such thinking makes for self-satisfied archaeologists but lousy science!" -- Virginia Steen-McIntyre, tephrochronologist, March 30th 1981

Steen-McIntyre, V., et al., Geologic Evidence for Age Deposits at Hueyatlaco Archaeological Site Valsequillo Mexico, Quaternary Research, Number 16, Pages 1-17, 1981

If you can provide any mathematical or historical evidence to support Creationism, then sure.

Absurd.

I can provide mathematical evidence to support Creationism in Isaac Newton's treatise on mathematics, namely the Principia.

General Scholium Book III: http://hss.fullerton.edu/philosophy/GeneralScholium.htm

lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another.

This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God ..., Or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God* usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and, by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, coexistent parts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and everywhere. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him** are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colors, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, nor touched; nor ought he to be worshiped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of anything is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colors, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savors; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.

I can provide historical evidence to support Creationism in any ancient text from any country on Earth.

That must be why Intelligent Design is now being taught in history class as part of the national curriculum in Queensland public schools in Australia: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ional-curriculum/story-e6freoof-1225872896736

On the other hand, there is not one single mathematical formula or equation in Darwin's book On The Origin of Species.

YouTube - Dr. David Berlinski: Math and Darwinian Evolution (Part 2)

YouTube - Dr. David Berlinski: What Does It Take for Change? (Clip 5)

Until that time, well, I guess we're stuck with listening to how unfair the scientific method is for demanding things like evidence and replicable experimentation before considering a theory worthwhile or valid.

Evolution via natural selection and undirected random mutation has never been reproduced in the laboratory and it never will be.

"Empedocles, then, was in error when he said that many of the characters presented by animals were merely the result of incidental occurrences during their development; for instance, that the backbone was divided as it is into vertebrae, because it happened to be broken owing to the contorted position of the foetus in the womb. In so saying he overlooked the fact that propogation implies a creative seed endowed with certain formative properties. Secondly, he neglected another fact, namely, that the parent animal pre-exists, not only in idea, but actually in time. For man is generated from man; and thus it is the possession of certain characters by the parent that determines the development of like characters in the child." -- Aristotle, On the Parts of Animals, Book I, 350 B.C.

"There are some too who ascribe this heavenly sphere and all the worlds to spontaneity. They say that the vortex arose spontaneously, i.e. the motion that separated and arranged in its present order all that exists. This statement might well cause surprise. For they are asserting that chance is not responsible for the existence or generation of animals and plants, nature or mind or something of the kind being the cause of them (for it is not any chance thing that comes from a given seed but an olive from one kind and a man from another); and yet at the same time they assert that the heavenly sphere and the divinest of visible things arose spontaneously, having no such cause as is assigned to animals and plants. Yet if this is so, it is a fact which deserves to be dwelt upon, and something might well have been said about it. For besides the other absurdities of the statement, it is the more absurd that people should make it when they see nothing coming to be spontaneously in the heavens ...." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book II, 350 B.C.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

If you had any EVIDENCE I am sure it would be welcomed with open arms by every scientist in America, but you don't, that's why you and yours are making so much noise.

LOL.

You mean the illegal and forbidden evidence you are deliberately ignoring because you believe and have faith it doesn't exist?

"Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory [evolution], period." -- Virginia Steen-McIntyre, tephrochronologist, March 30th 1981

"The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought and the suppression of 'Enigmatic Data,' data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an anthropologist, I didn't realize the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution had become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory [evolution], period. Their reasoning is circular. H. sapiens sapiens evolved ca. 30,000-50,000 years ago in Eurasia. Therefore any H.s.s. tools 250,000 years old found in Mexico are impossible because H.s.s. evolved ca. 30,000- ... etc. Such thinking makes for self-satisfied archaeologists but lousy science!" -- Virginia Steen-McIntyre, tephrochronologist, March 30th 1981

Steen-McIntyre, V., et al., Geologic Evidence for Age Deposits at Hueyatlaco Archaeological Site Valsequillo Mexico, Quaternary Research, Number 16, Pages 1-17, 1981

Creationism is impotent and a waste of every ones time, people have even stopped laughing at it, now they just ignore it, perhaps it's time for another court case? what do you think?

Evolution is a debunked Victorian Age hypothesis with no supporting evidence.

All the scientific evidence contradicts evolution.

Evolution is a pseudoscientific joke contrived by Satan.

 

[driewerf]

LOL.

You mean the illegal and forbidden evidence you are deliberately ignoring because you say it doesn't exist?




Evolution is a debunked Victorian Age hypothesis with no supporting evidence.

All the scientific evidence contradicts evolution.

Evolution is a pseudoscientific joke contrived by Satan.

Then show us that evidence.
We're not in a class room here. You can not hide behind a (fictional) rule that forbids the teaching of alternatives in the classroom. This not a class room. Or shall you stretch the court rules to discussion forums too?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Then show us that evidence.
We're not in a class room here. You can not hide behind a (fictional) rule that forbids the teaching of alternatives in the classroom. This not a class room. Or shall you stretch the court rules to discussion forums too?

I already showed you the evidence but you deliberately and customarily ignored it.

 

[driewerf]

I already showed you the evidence but you deliberately and customarily ignored it.

Then can you certainly give a link to it.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Then can you certainly give a link to it.

I already did. Three times.

1st time you ignored it: http://www.christianforums.com/t7492014-10/#post55524392

2nd time you ignored it: http://www.christianforums.com/t7492014-11/#post55524810

3rd time you ignored it: http://www.christianforums.com/t7492014-11/#post55524839

 

[hydro jen]

I'm done here.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm done here.

--- WAIT!

You haven't voted yet!

 

[driewerf]

I already did. Three times.

1st time you ignored it: http://www.christianforums.com/t7492014-10/#post55524392

2nd time you ignored it: http://www.christianforums.com/t7492014-11/#post55524810

3rd time you ignored it: http://www.christianforums.com/t7492014-11/#post55524839

So, a few out of context quotes are the ultimate evidence that evoltuion is wrong. A quick search on the internet learned me that the debate is going on. This is a sign of good science. It appears also that even not everybody in the archeological team supported the dating of 260.000 years.

So, your claim isn't that solid at all.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I'm done here.

Try Europe.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Serb schools told to drop Darwin

Serb schools told to drop Darwin

Serbia's education minister has ordered schools to stop teaching the theory of evolution for the current school year, a leading newspaper has reported.

The paper, Glas Javnosti, quoted Ljiljana Colic as saying that in future Charles Darwin's theory would only be taught alongside creationism.

Ms Colic said the two theories were equally dogmatic.

Darwin Under Fire in Poland: Education Ministry with a Bent towards Creationism - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Poland's deputy education minister has called for Polish schools to ditch Darwinism in favor of creationism.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

So, a few out of context quotes are the ultimate evidence that evoltuion is wrong.

LOL.

You ignored the context.

A quick search on the internet learned me that the debate is going on. This is a sign of good science.

You're welcome.

It appears also that even not everybody in the archeological team supported the dating of 260.000 years.

Duh. Of course evolutionists don't believe in scientific dating methods.

So, your claim isn't that solid at all.

"I determined fission-track ages on zircons from two of the tephra units overlying the artifacted beds. The Hueyatlaco ash yielded a zircon fission-track age of 370,000+/-200,000 years, and the Tetela brown mud yielded an age of 600,000+/-340,000 years. There is a 96 percent chance that the true age of these tephras lie within the range defined by the age and the plus or minus value. Now, there were four different geological dating techniques that suggested a far greater antiquity to the artifacts than anyone in the archaeological community wanted to admit." -- Charles W. Naeser, chemist, April 2007

Do you claim to know more about geochemistry and uranium dating than Charles Naeser?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/mar/11/20050311-095632-7802r/

His research established the atomic weight of gadolinium, a rare earth metal.

In 1935, he joined the faculty at George Washington, where he taught chemistry for 41 years. He was chairman of the Chemistry Department from 1947 to 1950, 1951 to 1953 and 1955 to 1973.

Mr. Naeser was a member of the GWU Faculty Senate for several years before retiring in 1976.

He served as a captain in the Army's chemical warfare service from 1942 to 1945. In 1940, he developed a technique to enrich uranium for the Naval Research Laboratory. He served as a scientific adviser to the European Command headquarters in Heidelberg, Germany, in 1950 and 1951.

He later was chief of the chemistry group of the Geochemistry and Petrology Branch of the U.S. Geological Survey, and a consultant at the Office of Saline Water Conversion. He served as president of the Retired Chemists Group of the Chemical Society of Washington.

Mr. Naeser was vice president of the Washington Academy of Science from 1957 to 1958, receiving the organization's teaching award for outstanding service in the area of chemical education.

He also received the Washington Chapter, American Institute of Chemists Award for research in inorganic chemistry and, in 1969, the Alpha Chi Sigma Professional Service Award for service to the chemistry profession.

He wrote a laboratory manual for general chemistry and was published in various chemistry journals. After years of teaching chemistry labs, he penned "Naeser's Law," which is seen today on many calendars: "You can make it foolproof, but you can't make it damned foolproof."

Other memberships included the Geological Society of Washington, American Chemical Society, Geochemical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Association of University Professors, Sigma Xi, Phi Lambda Upsilon, Alpha Chi Sigma and Delta Chi.

 

[hydro jen]

Try Europe.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Serb schools told to drop Darwin



Darwin Under Fire in Poland: Education Ministry with a Bent towards Creationism - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Why did you miss out the rest of it??

Maciej Giertych also happens to be the father of the LPR's leader, Roman Giertych, who is Poland's education minister as well as deputy prime minister. Giertych junior has, however, distanced himself from Orzechowski's remarks, saying that the theory of evolution would continue to be taught in Polish schools -- "as long as most scientists in our country say that (it) is the right theory."

Orzechowski's comments have been greeted with angry protests in Poland. The country's scientific community has condemned Orzechowski and affirmed their support for teaching Darwinian theories of evolution. Prominent molecular biologist Maciej Zylicz told the magazine Nature that "the point that really requires further discussion is not evolution, but how a minister can say such stupid things."

Other dissenting voices indulged in some evolutionary speculation of their own. Young Polish demonstrators chanted that "Giertych in particular is descended from apes," according to the German daily Tagesspiegel. The Polish newspaper Nie had another theory of certain politicians' genetic background: it commented caustically that some people clearly had "donkeys rather than apes as their ancestors."

 

[BananaSlug]

It would be much easier for an "evolutionist" to understand a creationist lecture than it would be for a creationist to understand a lecture on evolution.

 

[rockaction]

We all need to put AoS on ignore.

 

[Skaloop]

What is it then?

The null hypothesis, you mean? It's that there was not evolution.

And why is it illegal?

It isn't.

If you think evolution can be falsified, then why is it illegal to teach any evidence that contradicts evolution?

There is no such evidence. But even if there were, it's not illegal to teach it.

So you claim.

Even if such evidence existed, and it would require a server farm to catalogue it all, it would still be illegal to teach it.

No, it wouldn't be illegal.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -- Charles R. Darwin, naturalist, Novemer 24th 1859

It is impossible for the human brain to have been formed by numerous, successive, and slight modifications because it is irreducibly complex. Likewise the bacterial flagellum.

It is not impossible, nor is the human brain irreducibly complex, and the idea that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex was disproven ages ago.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The null hypothesis, you mean? It's that there was not evolution.

I thought you said that's impossible...

It isn't.

What planet do you live on again?

There is no such evidence.

LOL.

All scientific evidence contradicts evolution.

"The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought and the suppression of 'Enigmatic Data,' data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an anthropologist, I didn't realize the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution had become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory [evolution], period. Their reasoning is circular. H. sapiens sapiens evolved ca. 30,000-50,000 years ago in Eurasia. Therefore any H.s.s. tools 250,000 years old found in Mexico are impossible because H.s.s. evolved ca. 30,000- ... etc. Such thinking makes for self-satisfied archaeologists but lousy science!" -- Virginia Steen-McIntyre, tephrochronologist, March 30th 1981

"I determined fission-track ages on zircons from two of the tephra units overlying the artifacted beds. The Hueyatlaco ash yielded a zircon fission-track age of 370,000+/-200,000 years, and the Tetela brown mud yielded an age of 600,000+/-340,000 years. There is a 96 percent chance that the true age of these tephras lie within the range defined by the age and the plus or minus value. Now, there were four different geological dating techniques that suggested a far greater antiquity to the artifacts than anyone in the archaeological community wanted to admit." -- Charles W. Naeser, chemist, April 2007

There is no evidence for biological evolution.

But even if there were, it's not illegal to teach it.

No, it wouldn't be illegal.

I live in the United States where it is illegal to teach any evidence that contradicts evolution in public school.

It is not impossible, nor is the human brain irreducibly complex, and the idea that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex was disproven ages ago.

LOL.

And 2+2=5.