Why teach creationism in public school science classes?

[Split Rock]

They might think they understand, but God says otherwise.

For example, Jesus said that geology screams His existence, and until Internet geologists find Jesus in geology, their conclusions about how the earth did this or that can take a hike.

Paul says the entire universe "groans" and waits for redemption -- and until Internet scientists recognize this "groaning" -- their conclusions mean nothing to me.

When Internet Creationists like you prove that Jesus is a lamb or a door, we will accept your conlcusions about geology.

 

[AV1611VET]

When Internet Creationists like you prove that Jesus is a lamb or a door, we will accept your conlcusions about geology.

Ya -- that's about right.

 

[AV1611VET]

So how do you explain away the evidence that physicists, geologists, biologists and chemists provide, AV?

I don't -- and if I had a 2 year old son who reached for a [secular] science book, I'd yell, "No, son! Burney-bite! Book bad! Burney-bite!"

 

[sandwiches]

Internet scientists must think we're gullible or something.

If they think I'm going to keep quiet and let them brag how much of this universe they understand, when the Bible clearly says:

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

... they underestimate me.

If only this were true. but the reality is that you do not understand anything by faith. You understand it through reasoning and use of your senses to read and interpret the Bible.

 

[sandwiches]

I don't -- and if I had a 2 year old son who reached for a [secular] science book, I'd yell, "No, son! Burney-bite! Book bad! Burney-bite!"

"Secular," of course, meaning "based on observable reality."

 

[Split Rock]

I don't -- and if I had a 2 year old son who reached for a [secular] science book, I'd yell, "No, son! Burney-bite! Book bad! Burney-bite!"

What would a [non-secular] science book look like?

 

[driewerf]

And once again: Did the documentary conclude: God did it?

Of course not! Since there is no god, he can't do anything.

 

[Skavau]

I don't -- and if I had a 2 year old son who reached for a [secular] science book, I'd yell, "No, son! Burney-bite! Book bad! Burney-bite!"

If you don't explain it away, do you accept the evidence then?

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course not! Since there is no god, he can't do anything.

859

 

[AV1611VET]

If you don't explain it away, do you accept the evidence then?

I don't accept evidence one way or the other, and I would teach my son not to trust any scientist's conclusion, unless the Bible supports it as well, or unless it doesn't conflict with anything in the Bible.

 

[Skavau]

I don't accept evidence one way or the other, and I would teach my son not to trust any scientist's conclusion, unless the Bible supports it as well, or unless it doesn't conflict with anything in the Bible.

Your profile doesn't say you have a deeply rooted confirmation bias, does it?

 

[driewerf]

859

still no god.

 

[mzungu]

So how do you explain away the evidence that physicists, geologists, biologists and chemists provide, AV?

Well according to some; "God did it case closed"!

 

[AV1611VET]

Your profile doesn't say you have a deeply rooted confirmation bias, does it?

If it did, I'm sure someone would say I'm a fence-sitter.

I'm surprised someone doesn't think I'm female.

 

[Skavau]

If it did, I'm sure someone would say I'm a fence-sitter.

That's probably not quite the opposite of it. But you should probably update it. That way when someone accuses you of being a fence-sitter you can correctly inform them that you actually have a major confirmation bias and further you should update your profile to say that you're a solipsist and then when someone calls you a empiricist, you can correct them by re-affirming your solipsism.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's probably not quite the opposite of it. But you should probably update it. That way when someone accuses you of being a fence-sitter you can correctly inform them that you actually have a major confirmation bias and further you should update your profile to say that you're a solipsist and then when someone calls you a empiricist, you can correct them by re-affirming your solipsism.

I think I'll keep it as is.

That way, when people like you try to tell me I should respect whether someone with an atheist's icon is a weak or strong atheist, I can show them a mirror and take them with a grain of salt.

 

[Skavau]

I think I'll keep it as is.

That way, when people like you try to tell me I should respect whether someone with an atheist's icon is a weak or strong atheist, I can show them a mirror and take them with a grain of salt.

So because person X accused you of holding a viewpoint that you didn't you're going to assume that person Y thinks something that they might not think as well.

Weird.

 

[AV1611VET]

Weird.

Only because you're making it look like a one-time occurrence.

 

[Skavau]

Only because you're making it look like a one-time occurrence.

So rather than put yourself above it and inquiry as to what people think, you'll just emulate it.

 

[Split Rock]

I don't accept evidence one way or the other, and I would teach my son not to trust any scientist's conclusion, unless the Bible supports it as well, or unless it doesn't conflict with anything in the Bible.

Don't you mean: "unless my fallible interpretation of the bible supports it as well, or unless it doesn't conflict with anything in my fallible interpretation of the bible?"