Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

[Electric Sceptic]

Sorry, yours has bigger 'leaps of faith' than mine.

TYhere are no 'leaps of faith' involved. It's SCIENCE.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

TYhere are no 'leaps of faith' involved. It's SCIENCE.

You keep saying that, but spontaneous life is not 'science' nor is the probabilities involved that allow that 'life' to evolve progressively without dying out under hostile or randomized conditions.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

You keep saying that, but spontaneous life is not 'science' nor is the probabilities involved that allow that 'life' to evolve progressively without dying out under hostile or randomized conditions.

"Spontaneous life" is no part of evolution. how many times do you have to be told this?

There is nothing whatsoever in the probabilityes that allow life to evolve that makes it non science.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

"Spontaneous life" is no part of evolution. how many times do you have to be told this?

There is nothing whatsoever in the probabilityes that allow life to evolve that makes it non science.

Your religion...
http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov/VikingCD/Puzzle/Evolife.htm

 

[Phinehas]

It is fine to teach creationism in a religion class. But never a science class. If a parent wants a child to believe in creationism that is fine. Explain to them that evolution is the best science can come up with because science must exclude God, or science is pointless.

This is the fundamental flaw of any "purely scientific" presupposition. It seems like athiests have a knack for saying that God must be excluded. If God is real your "scientific" conclusion is truely utterly defunct. Even if you say we can't know if God exists, your reflex God dismissal and the possibility thereof is far from scientific. This is also exactly why discussion with a great many athiests (and sometimes some Christians) is a waste. Too many "science" (notice the quotes- it's more accurately psuedoscience due to automatic dismissal of quite valid points only for the ease of mind along with approval of said athiests) people suffer from A.R.S. (Always Right Syndrome) where a delusion of always being right replaces actual logic. Offhand dismissals truely make the "scientist". Hey, whatever makes you feel better right? (insert sarcasm here)
This is the double standard we deal with. (if it seems like I'm slightly put out, that would be an accurate assessment)
The arguement isn't really "Does God exist? (Or is there enough evidence to present Creationism in schools?). The real question is "Why don't people want to admit to the plausiblity of it?" The answer isn't because it's implausible, but because it's uncomfortable to man's "neat little universe under our heel" illusion of having it all sewn up.
The theory that "God" exists is quite valid (according to Stephen Hawking, please see sig quote below), but I guess it's just not wanted.

I'd give you more rebuttal to your questions/problems but it's obvious they really and truely fall on deaf ears.

In order for you to say "God doesn't exsist" with any founded certainty, you'd have to be either omnipresent or omnicient. In either case, by having either of these attributes, I think you'd come quite close to disproving your own assertion.

From the bottom of my heart, may you get everything you wish for in this life. You better make it good.

 

[Phinehas]

"Spontaneous life" is no part of evolution. how many times do you have to be told this?

There is nothing whatsoever in the probabilityes that allow life to evolve that makes it non science.

Besides the fact that the odds of evolution are quite a few zeros past the point of the odds that scientists have dubbed "impossible".

 

[xMinionX]

Your religion...
http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov/VikingCD/Puzzle/Evolife.htm

Evolution is not a religion...

And that website deal with the creation of the earth as well as evolution. Evolution, on the other hand, says nothing about how the earth was created.

 

[Phinehas]

(speaking of causality as spoken of by wikipedia as well as myself)

Right. A discussion of causality, which is far from the "Law of Causality" which you imagined.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Mabe you've heard of it? Maybe I just imagined it.
It's a physical law, a.k.a. a law of physics (incidentally, an observation contributed by Sir Isaac Newton, a Christian) I'm going to put my feet on what actually is instead of what I really want there to be. What it means is that things in this universe are caused by other things happening. Cause (action) and effect (reaction). Cause (action) and effect (reaction). I say let's agree on this one.

 

[Arikay]

You do know that "laws" are not concrete and all encompassing, right?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Your religion...
http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov/VikingCD/Puzzle/Evolife.htm

Evolution is not a religion. Consult any dictionary.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Besides the fact that the odds of evolution are quite a few zeros past the point of the odds that scientists have dubbed "impossible".

No, they're not. This is absolute rubbish, pushed only by creationists who are ignorant of the facts.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Here is a case in point of Electric Sceptic's willingness to argue anything, regardless of it's obvious validity.

(speaking of causality as spoken of by wikipedia as well as myself)


Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Mabe you've heard of it? Maybe I just imagined it.
It's a physical law, a.k.a. a law of physics (incidentally, an observation contributed by Sir Isaac Newton, a Christian) Have you heard of physics? I'm going to put my feet on what actually is instead of what I really want there to be. What it means is that things in this universe are caused by other things happening. Cause (action) and effect (reaction). Cause (action) and effect (reaction). I say let's agree on this one. It'll make you look better.

Maybe the "Law of Entropy" is imagined too. Heck, for that matter maybe you're all just a figment of my imagination as well.
I wish you away...
I wish you away...


P.S. <click it

I'll ignore the ad hominems and merely note - again - that a discussion of causality is all well and good, but is unrelated to the "Law of Causality" you imagined exists. In short - there is no "Law of Causality".

And no, there is no "Law of Entropy", either. You're probably thinking of the second law of thermodynamics, which deals with entropy.

 

[Shane Roach]

that a discussion of causality is all well and good, .

Apparently not, since you just spent several days avoiding that issue.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Apparently not, since you just spent several days avoiding that issue.

Now you resort to blatant lies?

 

[Phinehas]

(talking about the odds of evolution, spontaneous generation happening)

No, they're not. This is absolute rubbish, pushed only by creationists who are ignorant of the facts.

So, please, by all means, give us a good figure, we'll use your odds.

I'll ignore the ad hominems and merely note - again - that a discussion of causality is all well and good, but is unrelated to the "Law of Causality" you imagined exists. In short - there is no "Law of Causality".

And no, there is no "Law of Entropy", either. You're probably thinking of the second law of thermodynamics, which deals with entropy.

Yet both of these terms are used freely in their fields. The law (or laws) of causality and entropy do exist contained in the laws of physics, and are used quite often by many respected and competent professors, authors, etc. What we are really dealing with here is semantics. Even though the usage of such was and is common and correct (as has been the case for several centuries), as well as the ideas it conveyed accurate, you had it in your head to "fight the 'science' infidel". This is what I see as typical of motives in a great many specific arguments. Not discovery of truth, but covering of anything not in line with particular desires. I find it tedious, to say the least. But, to let you off easy, I digress.

 

[Shane Roach]

Now you resort to blatant lies?

Anyone who wants to go back and read this argument you have made can note that had you paid any attention to context you could easily have understood the argument as it was presented. For whatever reason, you chose to divert attention from the discussion of causation and instead have a debate about whether or not there is an official "Law of Causation".

If you think I am lying, that's your call. I merely point out that I had no trouble at all understanding what was implied by the phrase 'law of causation', nor do I imagine anyone else did, even you.

I think you would help your own reputation considerably if you spent less time circling the issues. You seem to think you are making rhetorical points, but I believe with all my heart that people see through it and see you as skirting the issues.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

(talking about the odds of evolution, spontaneous generation happening)

So, please, by all means, give us a good figure, we'll use your odds.

There are no figures. We cannot possibly calculate any because there are too many unknowns.

Yet both of these terms are used freely in their fields. The law (or laws) of causality and entropy do exist contained in the laws of physics, and are used quite often by many respected and competent professors, authors, etc.

They are? Where? I've never heard or read either of them used.

What we are really dealing with here is semantics. Even though the usage of such was and is common and correct (as has been the case for several centuries), as well as the ideas it conveyed accurate, you had it in your head to "fight the 'science' infidel". This is what I see as typical of motives in a great many specific arguments. Not discovery of truth, but covering of anything not in line with particular desires. I find it tedious, to say the least. But, to let you off easy, I digress.

This is complete nonsense. What we are really dealing with here is you incorrectly quoting scientific "laws" that don't exist. I've no idea what the "Law of Entropy" might entail , but the "Law of Causality" (if such existed) has been falsified, since causality doesn't apply at the quantum level or inside a singularity (or, I believe, during Planck Time).

If you're going to quote non-existent "laws", don't expect people to ask what they are (which is precisely what I did).

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Anyone who wants to go back and read this argument you have made can note that had you paid any attention to context you could easily have understood the argument as it was presented. For whatever reason, you chose to divert attention from the discussion of causation and instead have a debate about whether or not there is an official "Law of Causation".

That's false, too. I asked for information on this "Law of Causation" and then when he supplied information corrected him, stating that there is no "Law of Causation".

If you think I am lying, that's your call. I merely point out that I had no trouble at all understanding what was implied by the phrase 'law of causation', nor do I imagine anyone else did, even you.

You ARE lying, since I dodged nothing.

I think you would help your own reputation considerably if you spent less time circling the issues. You seem to think you are making rhetorical points, but I believe with all my heart that people see through it and see you as skirting the issues.

I think it would help your own reputation considerably if you spent less time attacking people for what you imagine are transgressions and more time on actually debating issues.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

There are no figures. We cannot possibly calculate any because there are too many unknowns.

Aren't you the same one that has been posting ad nausaem with me about evolution is based on science and is a credible theory?
Now all of a sudden there are too many unknowns and we cannot possible calculate anything.
Did the evolutionist church have a fire and all that precious 'scientific' evidence is now lost?

Ok, ok... you probably didn't appreciate that, but I thought it was funny.
Just keeping it light.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Aren't you the same one that has been posting ad nausaem with me about evolution is based on science and is a credible theory?
Now all of a sudden there are too many unknowns and we cannot possible calculate anything.
Did the evolutionist church have a fire and all that precious 'scientific' evidence is now lost?

Ok, ok... you probably didn't appreciate that, but I thought it was funny.
Just keeping it light.

We can't possibly calculate the odds of life arising or anything similar. That is no news to anyone who knows anything about the subject.