FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Creationism in School?






Should Creationism/Intelligent Design be taught in schools?
Yes
31%
 31%  [ 10 ]
No
65%
 65%  [ 21 ]
Don't Care/Undecided
3%
 3%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 32

Soulfire
I know that teaching creationism in school has long been regarded as a way to force religion (not necessarily only Christianity) into the public school system.

This, however, is not the case. We are told time and time again how important it is we are exposed to all sides of an argument, to see things from everyone's point of view. Is it not a bit hypocritical that we don't allow certain sides of arguments to be taught in school? I find it disgusting because we are only given part of the whole.

Now, by teaching creationism in schools, it would not be asking people to believe in it, but presenting them with a possibility. I am not asking you to believe in God, or believe that God created man, but I am asking you - is it possible? (The answer should be yes because it can neither be proved nor disproved).

The same principle is applied to what we are taught today - there's no proving the Big Bang theory, yet we are taught it, just as there's no proving God, but we aren't taught it.
The Conspirator
No.
1. Its not a science and science class teaches science not religion.
2. Its nothing more than vehicle for Christens to make there beliefs look more like science when there not.
3. If you teach it in a class on religion, you have to teach all religious creation ideas not just the Christan one. And you Christens won't like that.
the_mariska
Wow, it's the first time I have to agree with the Conspirator Very Happy. Science classes are to teach science, and all of these creationist theories are not scientifical at all. On science the kids should learn the scientifical theories about the origins of the world. The problem why and by whom the world has appeared is the problem of religion and philosophy, and should be taught on religion/philosophy classes [As for me, philosophy classes are the one to introduce all points of view. But I know that they are not in many schools.]

Ahh.. almost forgot. The thoery of Big Bang is not against Christian beliefs, because it deals about a different aspect of the origins of the universe. If someone hasn't known already.
AftershockVibe
Ditto with Mariska - I have no problem whatsoever with creationism in schools however...
Creationism is NOT a science

Therefore it should not be taught in science classes. Put it in Religious Education (like the UK) or in philosophy & beliefs if you want it on a syllabus.

There are mathematical models for the Big Bang and such an event can logically be shown to be most likely cause of a variety of observable properties of the universe such as red-shift.

That is why it is taught however if a better model is discovered then this would take Big Bangs place.

Creationism on the other hand is not a scientific model because:
a.) It is assertion rather than logical reasoning
b.) It can therefore not be either proven or disproven now or at any point in the future. ever.

Personally I think the entire debate is stupid. Scientists are not trying to say that the Big Bang caused the universe and not God. Surely God could have caused the Big Bang?

Apparently to the practitioners of creationism anything not explicity stated in the Bible is untrue when convenient for their agenda.
Soulfire
I want to make it clear - when did I say it should be taught in science class? Never. I never said it should be taught in science class (although it's a theory as plausible and as evidently backed up as so called science).

Also - what makes evolution scientific and creationism not? They both have evidence, and both can be neither proved nor disproved. I do NOT want this to be a debate of religion over atheism.

As a Christian, we are forced to learn the non-religious way the universe started - a way in which we do not accept nor believe in, because just as our theory cannot be proven, neither can theirs, and I see it totally unfair to not be exposed to both sides. I have no problem with learning the non-religious way, I don't see why people would be so opposed to hearing another point of view. Then again, ignorance is bliss.

This day in age we're playing "Please the atheist" and the more and more we try to please the atheists, the more and more Christians are being stepped on, and the more and more problems we're having with everything.

Christianity isn't a crime (yet).
mediadar
1925, Tennesse vs. John Scopes. Teaching evolution in school was banned.

Creationism, Religion, has no place in school. I would opt for a moral education syphoned of religious bias. Can you imagine the lot of half wits running around arguing that mans entire lineage can be traced back to two humans, who reared two sons, go figure!

Mediadar.
Bondings
But Soulfire, it's not because you think it contradicts your religion, that the theory is atheistic. The evolution and big bang theory have absolutely nothing to do with religion, theism or atheism.

For your information, scientific theories are constantly adjusted or disproven with new information/observations. If objects older than 20 billion years would be found, then the age of the universe will have to be adjusted and a lot of theories will be disproven.

Now, creationism on the opposite is the exact theory stated in the bible. No matter what observations there are made, nothing will change because what's written in the bible is the absolute truth, every word and literally.

There is a huge difference between the two.
hyhy
Soulfire wrote:
The same principle is applied to what we are taught today - there's no proving the Big Bang theory, yet we are taught it, just as there's no proving God, but we aren't taught it.


There's no 100% proof of Big Bang but it's a most plausible more than creation. For example it is known that universe is expanding, and recently i've read about Millenium Presentation somewhere in net. Physics scientists and programmers put all the informations we know about physics law, stars, galaxies, and speculations about dark matter, and did Big Bang in copmuter. Result: The universe showed in that presentation is very close nearly undistinguashable from the real universe, that proves something, and makes as closer to an answer.

And about creationism, there's only Bible, which could be written by anyone like other books, and it's in belifes of most people that what it makes it how you say "a theory as plausible and as evidently backed up as so called science".

Back to topic, there shouldn't be no religion class in school. Well there can be but the absence shouldt be checked. But of course other theories should be showed as well as others on phylospohy lessons or something like that (i've had that lessons).

Soulfire wrote:
As a Christian, we are forced to learn the non-religious way the universe started - a way in which we do not accept nor believe in, because just as our theory cannot be proven, neither can theirs, and I see it totally unfair to not be exposed to both sides. I have no problem with learning the non-religious way, I don't see why people would be so opposed to hearing another point of view. Then again, ignorance is bliss.


That's interesting, i've never learned in school about Big Bang or such theories. I've only learned about gases, elements and basic operations on them on chemistry, and on physics i've learned about physics laws, mechanics magnetism etcetera, straight science. Everything putted altogether gives plausible theory. But it's not 100% theory. You can never be sure everything in 100% and even in maths, you prove things using things that are not proven or just cant be proven (they called axioms). But things that are 90% true you should learn because some of their aspects are proven for sure! And i bet someday in near future our knowlege will be so big that most of people who are interested in science will see that religions are just bollocks.
mediadar
I found this to be quite interesting.

Quote:

Science's Eve

Dr. Lynn Margulis thinks humans are, essentially, a colony of closely associated bacteria. When she first proposed her theory in The Origin of Eukaryotic Cells in 1970, the ideas proved so controversial that they “could not even be discussed at respectable scientific meetings.” Today, however, the theory that most scientists rejected out of hand has earned, in the words of biologist Richard Dawkins, “triumphant near-universal acceptance.”


The human story, as Margulis first saw it, began about 3.2 billion years ago when the only inhabitants on earth were bacteria. About that time, two primitive species of bacteria, a “mother” bacteria (Bdellavibrio) and a “father” bacteria (Thermoplasma acidophillium) started “exchanging energy” in a stable and dependable way that led to the formation of all subsequent life forms. This happened when the free-living bacteria took up residence in large “eukaryotic” cells. Confined within the large cells, the bacteria transformed into swarming elliptical membrane-filled bodies called mitochondria. With the formation of mitochondria began the flow of a river of DNA that sweeps through three billion years to include us all.


According to Margulis, each one of the hundred trillion cells in the human body is an enclosed garden of specially tamed and always multiplying bacteria. Not only is every man not an island, in the vision of Margulis, he is in essence a community of communities. The mitochondria perform essential functions, such as allowing chain reactions to occur that are critical to breathing and digestion. As Richard Dawkins notes, “Without our mitochondria, we’d die in a second.”


Mitochondria, with their own simple DNA that is not affected by sexual mixing, come from our mothers only. Your mitochondria came exclusively from your mother’s mother’s mother--and so on, back generation after generation, to the beginning of our species. The culture of mitochondria in the female egg seeds a newborn’s body, while whatever mitochondria might be in the sperm are lost with the tail at the time of egg fertilization. The female-only transmission of mitochondria, coupled with its slow rate of genetic mutation, make its DNA ideal for tracing and dating maternal ancestry.


Researchers in the 1980s used computers to analyze samples of DNA drawn from 135 diverse women from all over the globe—Chinese, African tribeswomen, Australian Aborigines, Native Americans, Europeans. The researchers discovered that the family trees of these women all led back to Africa. Remarkably, the analysis demonstrated that genetic differences among the various people within Africa all are twice as great as the differences between all other population groups. This strongly suggests that all the population groups outside Africa are descended from a small band of humans that left Africa—probably about 50,000 to 80,000 years ago. In a sense, we are all Africans.


The ancestral human population that lived in Africa started to split up roughly 150,000 years ago, when the mitochondrial tree makes its first branches within the African continent. The very root of the mitochondrial tree seems to lie in the northwestern Kalahari Desert in southern Africa. The true home of Eve—Mitochondrial Eve—is not a lush Garden of Eden, but a hot African desert. The mitochondrial research matches nicely with recent genetic research using the Y chromosome, transmitted exclusively by males, which also points to southern Africa as the home of Adam. Unlike the Genesis version of human origins, however, the Y chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve that our genetic trees trace back to did not have the planet to themselves—there probably, in fact, were thousands of other humans living at the time. Moreover, other humans had lived and died long before they did. All we know is that these two humans, alone among the population of their time, can claim an unbroken line of sons and daughters that persists to this day.

Biologist E. O. Wilson sees the human story, as revealed by genetic research, as the possible basis for spiritual values. “We need to create a new epic based on the origins of humanity,” Wilson asserted, adding: “Homo sapiens have had one hell of a history! And I am speaking of deep history—evolutionary, genetic history—and then, added on to that and interacting with it, the cultural history recorded for the past 10,000 years or so.”


Mediadar
S3nd K3ys
Wow. I agree with Conspirator on items 1 and 3 too. Except I won't go as far as to put words (or thoughts) into other Christian's heads as Con just did here...

Quote:
And you Christens won't like that.


(It's funny how he condemps others for 'flaming', yet has the balls to say that completly un-provoked.)

I think there should be a Religion topic in school, seperate from science. Religion is NOT science. Religion, in fact, often attempts to disprove science via (IMNSHO) speculation and faith. And yes, Science is trying to do the same thing for it's side. Problem is, there is fast becoming more evidence to support science and less to support religion.

With scientific advances being able to prove many many things, the days of saying 'Oh, well it must be God.' when you can't 'explain' something are pretty much history. And that's what I believe is largely responsible for the creation of Religion: Not being able to explain things.

I'm not a religious person and rarely pray to 'God'. My 'God' is my inner feeling of what's right and good vs what's wrong and bad. But I don't tell my sons to believe that. I want them to make up their own minds, and I will support them. (In fact, my son goes to a religions pre-school where he is learning about God, and I think it's great.)
The Conspirator
Soulfire wrote:
. I never said it should be taught in science class .

No you didn't but cause of those trying to get creationism taught in science class it was inevitable that it would be brought up.

Quote:
(although it's a theory as plausible and as evidently backed up as so called science)

No, creationism is far, far less plausible. All the evidence we have says the universe came out of natural processes and lack of knowledge of how the big bang happened is not evidence for a creator bing.[/quote]

Quote:
Also - what makes evolution scientific and creationism not? They both have evidence, and both can be neither proved nor disproved. I do NOT want this to be a debate of religion over atheism.

Starting with the large variety of sup-species with in different species (as demonstrated by the Galapagos Islands) add into that the breeding of animals (for example taking certain dogs that have a particular trait and breeding them over dogs that don't have that trait), the emince amount of fossilised bones that demonstrate the evolutionary paths that lead to modern creators, add in modern day genetics and the the evolution of bacteria and insects (bacteria that become immune to antibacterials and insects that become immune to pesticides).
Creationism on the other hand. has no evidence, just people pointing to holes in current knowledge and people who use misconceptions about currant knowledge.

Quote:
As a Christian, we are forced to learn the non-religious way the universe started - a way in which we do not accept nor believe in, because just as our theory cannot be proven, neither can theirs, and I see it totally unfair to not be exposed to both sides. I have no problem with learning the non-religious way, I don't see why people would be so opposed to hearing another point of view. Then again, ignorance is bliss.

The thing is creationism has no evidence behind it and it is not a science. In science class you learn about science. The big bang is science, it has evidence to back it up.
Now in a class on religion there would be nothing wrong with teaching creationism but in a class on religion they would have to talk about more than just the Christan creating myth, they would talk about others as well and seeing as the Christan creation myth is common pretty much common knowledge in this country they would focus more on other creation myths. And Christens would be complaining about that.
the_mariska
S3nd K3ys wrote:

I think there should be a Religion topic in school, seperate from science. Religion is NOT science. Religion, in fact, often attempts to disprove science via (IMNSHO) speculation and faith. And yes, Science is trying to do the same thing for it's side. Problem is, there is fast becoming more evidence to support science and less to support religion.

Brick wall Well, I hate to repeat myself, but it seems that no one reads my posts.. Religion is not science, but it doesn't mean it disproves science [or otherwise]. They just deal about different parts of our reality, science means research on the universe, while religion deals about the Absoulte and spiritual [= unresearchable] part of the reality. Can maths be against biology if they are just about different things? Shocked
a_dubDesign
Soulfire wrote:
This day in age we're playing "Please the atheist" and the more and more we try to please the atheists, the more and more Christians are being stepped on, and the more and more problems we're having with everything.

Christianity isn't a crime (yet).

ok, everyone else hit the other points I was gonna make, so I'll address this one.

It annoys the crap out of me when I stuff like christanity is being stepped on, and it isn't a crime (yet). Get over yourself. If you lived in bible times you could have you head chopped off if someone knew you were a christian. Do you have to live in underground cities to be able to worship and fellowship without fearing for your life?

"oh no our beliefs aren't being taught in school", or "oh no the ten commandments aren't gonna be displayed here", or "oh no, someone's disbelieving with me, and debating it, I'm being persecuted". It reminds me of Monty Python's the Quest for the Holy Grail. Help! Help! I'm being persecuted! Come see the corruption apparent in the atheist!

#edited to fix spelling
The Conspirator
Christan complaining of being discriminated against is like white men complaining about being discriminated against.
This country is dominated by Christan, ruled by Christan and even has laws based on Christan immorality.
Soulfire
Obviously nobody here is willing to listen to the points I am trying to make and the subject tracked off topic too much, so it can be closed or whatever. I won't be visiting here anymore, this isn't the discussion I wanted to have.

And you know - I wouldn't be surprised if Christianity becomes a crime in the near future, because we're heading in that direction. I stick to my statement that "We're playing please the atheist."
The Conspirator
Enough of this shit about Christan being oppressed!
You Christens rule this country, you Christens make laws based on your Christan immoral, the vast majority of the congeries is Christan, the vast majority of the senate is Christan, you even have a Christan fundamentalist in the white house. There is even a debate about teaching intelligent design (creationism)(something that isn't a science) in science class.
Every Sunday morning a bunch of televangelist ass holes are on TV, there are even Chanel's specifically for Chastens. You don;t see Chanel's specifically for atheists, Muslims, Jews or Hindus.
In the 80's there was a huge panic about "satanic ritual abuse" (something that didn't and doesn't exist) and to this day satanists are still seen as "evil devil worshipers that abuse and kill animals and children" all of which is propagated by the religious right (read here for the truth). The religious right also propagates myths, misunderstandings and lies about evolution and the big bang and those myths, misunderstandings and lies are believed by most people in this country.
You Christens rule this country, the religious right has allot of influence in the government I would even go as far as calling the US a theocracy.

Edit: Ok (before any one says it) Calling the US a theocracy is overkill but the religious right is growing in power and many in the Republican majority in the government are on the religious right and Bush jr. certainly is. The religious right is far too powerful and with growing anti-science (largely caused by misconceptions of scientific theory's and science) and growing anti-intellectualism this country is heading on a path that can very well lead to an American theocracy.
mike1reynolds
As a theistic evolutionist I have to point out that more than 75% of people who believe in evolution believe in "theistic evolution". It is simply not true that banning creationism is an attempt to please atheists, the last case earlier this year was scathingly and forcefully denied by a very conservative Bush appointed judge. Creationism doesn't just disrespect science, it calls God pathologically deceptive and denies the glory of His ancient creation or that He could even create an ancient universe and denies that there is any allegory in the Bible. Higher truths that deal with issues beyond our ordinary experience can't be conveyed in literal materialistic terms, they can only be conveyed in allegorical spiritual terms. So creationism not only attacks science, it attacks God and the glory of His creation and strips the Bible of higher meaning.

I have to state that creationism in my family played a big role in my becoming an atheist. Those were the darkest years of my life, I thought of suicide often because I thought life was meaningless and futile. Satan smiles on creationism and the effect that it has on the world.
xalophus
Soulfire wrote:
Is it not a bit hypocritical that we don't allow certain sides of arguments to be taught in school? I find it disgusting because we are only given part of the whole.

Now, by teaching creationism in schools, it would not be asking people to believe in it, but presenting them with a possibility. I am not asking you to believe in God, or believe that God created man, but I am asking you - is it possible? (The answer should be yes because it can neither be proved nor disproved).

The same principle is applied to what we are taught today - there's no proving the Big Bang theory, yet we are taught it, just as there's no proving God, but we aren't taught it.

I agree completely with that.

I recommend that Islam be taught as a separate subject in Christian schools and Christianity be taught in Muslim Madarsas.
Not asking Christian kids to believe in Allah or vice versa, just presenting the kids with "both sides".
I find it disgusting that we aren't doing it already.

Considering that there are numerous other religions in this world, each with a different, but equally un-disprovable theory attempting to explain "the origin", that makes for quite a few subjects for our kids.


But most importantly, we absolutely must start teaching our kids about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It is, after all, one of the theories that nobody can disprove.
And about as credible as the rest of them.
Coclus
I think the pupils should learn to be openminded and also critical. I don't understand why there is thaught religion! After school they should have enough knowledge to make a dicision. If they decide earlier there is no problem: They cab take part in bible classes as an extracurricular activity.
At school one should receive the tool to decide clearly and openly in life.
Whong
I say YES! Kids should be thought what the Bible says. Teaching Christianity is an important thing it should be taught by devoted christians, not just some school teachers, because they don't know much of the things in the Bible. True believers that are born again from above, who have the Holy Spirit in them, they should teach kids at school! Wink Idea
We r the SYC
If unprovable idealistic theorys life evolution, the big bang etc can be taught without question, then sure why not, creation is supposedly just as unprovable....., just a thought but the bible dosent state the WAY god created the world..... a big bang might have been it......, who knows,... but JUST teaching science is forceing kids to accept that ONLY science is correct and anything else isent right, which would be their peers veiw. thas jus unfree, if they choose science over God, ok... if the other way round, ok its up to them... whats wrong with teaching both ideas..... why would u get mad that ur kids got taught God created the world, if u dont belive that of course ur gonna be annoyed that they dont belive wehat u belive...., its about choice by not opening our children to all aspects of ideas we're cousing them to grow closed minded, as for if creation in the christian way, then all religions must be taught too, dude ur pissed that creation is taught y would u even suggest the idea of more than one. if more than one is taugh it wouldent be new, alot of ther "beginings" are taught in other suvjects like history for instance.... im sleepy. night
The Conspirator
We r the SYC wrote:
If unprovable idealistic theorys life evolution, the big bang etc can be taught without question, then sure why not, creation is supposedly just as unprovable....., just a thought but the bible dosent state the WAY god created the world..... a big bang might have been it......, who knows,... but JUST teaching science is forceing kids to accept that ONLY science is correct and anything else isent right, which would be their peers veiw. thas jus unfree, if they choose science over God, ok... if the other way round, ok its up to them... whats wrong with teaching both ideas..... why would u get mad that ur kids got taught God created the world, if u dont belive that of course ur gonna be annoyed that they dont belive wehat u belive...., its about choice by not opening our children to all aspects of ideas we're cousing them to grow closed minded, as for if creation in the christian way, then all religions must be taught too, dude ur pissed that creation is taught y would u even suggest the idea of more than one. if more than one is taugh it wouldent be new, alot of ther "beginings" are taught in other suvjects like history for instance.... im sleepy. night

Thais is an example of victim of misconceptions.
People learning is a constant proses, we learn all they way up to our deaths. People need to continue to look up and study things other wise they say things like "the big bang is unprovable" The big bang is far from unprovable, it is true that we don't know what caused it, what was happening on the early universe and allot of the shit that happens in the universe now but there is more than enough evidence that the big bang happened, evolution has enough evidence behind it to show that it has and is happening. No creation myth has any evidence behind it.
cbf-cma
That's a toughy... Im gonna vote NO because creationism isn't science or history, it's just a religous belief.
make_life_better
I vote no because I don't rate it any different from any other story/fantasy. There is simply *NO* evidence to back it up. I have looked at the various sites and references that have been posted here over the months about this argument, and frankly none of it stands up to serious inspection. If creationism and the bible is taught in the same way as we would teach "Romeo and Juliet" or "Winnie the pooh", then fine. But don't try to teach it as anything even remotely like a plausible explanation for what we see around us.
bluedragon
I love how I'm the only Undecided/Don't Care vote. You people are crazy.
The Conspirator
We care cause it effects the future and thus effects our future thus effects us and those we care about.
Rhysige
Ok I want to take a little situation for those who believe it Creationism should be taught in schools...

Lets say that all schools taught creationism as a subject on its own... ok now lets say it started with just Christian Beliefs, then they got pressured to show Islamic beliefs in the Subject.. then they get told they have to also present the Budhist beliefs on this, and then all other major religions are pressing for their ways to be taught aswell... and then whos to judge what beliefs should be taught? I bet that there would be strong opposition if we started teaching this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster however it IS a belief system, or Jedism.. who cares what its origin is thats not in question its a matter of where is the line drawn?
Every single religion has the right to be taught if we intend to teach one type. Otherwise its discrimination

So quite simply, No we shouldnt teach it in any public schools.. this will not however prevent religios schools from teaching it (im at one now and quite simply it sucks.. I dont believe it but they shove it down my throat day and night)
bluedragon
The Conspirator wrote:
We care cause it effects the future and thus effects our future thus effects us and those we care about.


But you all care too much about your own opinions and refuse to respect each others' opinions. Then comes censorship ... nobody has freedom. Everyone is too afraid of each others' beliefs and opinions. Political Correctness reigns supreme, and it only leads to further misunderstanding.
The Conspirator
cause why should we respect stupid opinions? If some one said that we should tech that humans actually descend from aliens who colonised the Earth 10,000 years ago in school, would you agree with him? Its the same as saying we should teach creationism in school, evolution has evidence, but there is no evidence we descend from alien colonists and none for creationism.
bluedragon
The Conspirator wrote:
cause why should we respect stupid opinions? If some one said that we should tech that humans actually descend from aliens who colonised the Earth 10,000 years ago in school, would you agree with him? Its the same as saying we should teach creationism in school, evolution has evidence, but there is no evidence we descend from alien colonists and none for creationism.


I suppose I believe science to be just as fallable as religion. We put too much faith in science and it tends to fail us. We think we know everything (science) but we don't know anything. Reality becomes a blur.

"History" is hard fact, just as hard science claims to be. But History is FULL TO THE BRIM with bias that blurs the truth. Science can be no different. Religion as well. Human fallability.
The Conspirator
Science is based on evidence, not faith. Any theory no matter haw much evidence supports it, when new evidence arises, it can be disprove, science looks for the answers by looking at the evidence, creationism looks for evidence to support there answer and if other answer is proven creationist still assert there answer is the right one.
S3nd K3ys
The Conspirator wrote:
Science is based on evidence, not faith. Any theory no matter haw much evidence supports it, when new evidence arises, it can be disprove, science looks for the answers by looking at the evidence, creationism looks for evidence to support there answer and if other answer is proven creationist still assert there answer is the right one.


Ack.

Ok, fine.

I'll do it. Not because I want to, but because it's right.

I ... agree with you 100%

THERE!

I said it. Are you happy now? Rolling Eyes
Juparis
Sorry, I didn't sift through everyone's opinions, but will offer mine for further debate. Wink

I think we can affirm that: Science is not Religion. (and vice versa)
However, just because a course carries the name "Science class" doesn't mean that student's learning experience should be restricted and confined to what atheistic scientists want them to hear.
The topic in question is how the universe began. Are we going to teach what's logical, or what's plausible? So far, I see the vast majority only wants what little logical sense scientists have made.

This isn't a vehicle to force religion into schools. It's allowing students to obtain a more worldly view--one unbiased by the filthy opinions of scientists or creationists alike.

The Christian wants a just schooling system.
The atheist cries "wolf!"
And now the whole ordeal is in the courts. The debate is not what's fair, what's deserved, nor what's proper. Rather, it's a battle between Creationists pushing Intelligent Design, and atheists crying that Religion has infiltrated our schooling system. Rolling Eyes

The whole ordeal is rather disgusting, but I'd love to debate with anyone on this topic--I'll read through what I skipped after work, I promise. Wink
xeroed
Personally I don´t think that creationism should be taught in a Biology class, because it cannot be proved. What I would suggest is a seperate class where different takes on creation can be examined. The problem with presenting that in a biology class (which is where I´m assuming the topic would come up the most) is that the definition of Biology includes the study of evolution, which isn´t something that creationsim embraces with the most open of arms.
I had a Biology teacher, who, as an assignment, had us compare the ethics of teaching creationsim vs Darwinism. He was pro-creationsim and this was his way of teaching us about it without directly teaching it. What most of the students decided was that, because science and religion are typically at odds, and because taking things on faith, instead of trying to prove them, could stifle scientific growth in general, Darwinism would be a better choice to teach in the classroom - with alternate classes that talked about creationsim of all religions, not just christianity. The teacher was not very happy with our final decision, but it made sence to me.
In Short, I think that Science and Religion should be kept seperate (but perhaps equal) and simply offer a class that either talks about all religions and their philosopoes, or, more specifically, their role in science and evolution in particular. My biggest problem with crationism was that instead of offering new explinations or looking at answers they look at any questions there might be and use creationism as a general answer for that.

The reason that I think "science" is slightly supperior to religion in this arena is because as blue dragon said:

Quote:
I suppose I believe science to be just as fallable as religion. We put too much faith in science and it tends to fail us.


and see the beautiful thing about science is that while it can be disproved and it may fail us it is adapted so that we aren´t failed in the same way again. Religion just seems too rigid in that aspect
The Conspirator
bluedragon wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
cause why should we respect stupid opinions? If some one said that we should tech that humans actually descend from aliens who colonised the Earth 10,000 years ago in school, would you agree with him? Its the same as saying we should teach creationism in school, evolution has evidence, but there is no evidence we descend from alien colonists and none for creationism.


I suppose I believe science to be just as fallable as religion. We put too much faith in science and it tends to fail us. We think we know everything (science) but we don't know anything. Reality becomes a blur.

"History" is hard fact, just as hard science claims to be. But History is FULL TO THE BRIM with bias that blurs the truth. Science can be no different. Religion as well. Human fallability.

You didn't read what I said did you?
Science isn't about faith. Any theory no matter proven it is can be disproven by new evidence. Science is about looking at the evidence to find the answer. Creationism is about looking for the evidence for a given answer and if the answer dose not match that answer it is ignored.
Indi
Juparis wrote:
I think we can affirm that: Science is not Religion. (and vice versa)
However, just because a course carries the name "Science class" doesn't mean that student's learning experience should be restricted and confined to what atheistic scientists want them to hear.

Indeed. It should be restricted by what is actually science.

If it's not science, then it has no place in a science class. Intelligent Design is not science. I don't care whether you're atheist, Christian, Zoroastrian or you worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It ain't science. Thus, it has no place in a science class.

What's to debate?

The only place ID would possibly have in a science class is to serve as an example of bad science or pseudoscience. And, shock and awe, it is used that way... in higher levels. In the earliest science classes, it would probably be unwise to introduce contrary teachings to confuse the students. Might be best to just give them a solid foundation of good science, then later you can show them what bad science looks like.
bluedragon
The Conspirator wrote:
bluedragon wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
cause why should we respect stupid opinions? If some one said that we should tech that humans actually descend from aliens who colonised the Earth 10,000 years ago in school, would you agree with him? Its the same as saying we should teach creationism in school, evolution has evidence, but there is no evidence we descend from alien colonists and none for creationism.


I suppose I believe science to be just as fallable as religion. We put too much faith in science and it tends to fail us. We think we know everything (science) but we don't know anything. Reality becomes a blur.

"History" is hard fact, just as hard science claims to be. But History is FULL TO THE BRIM with bias that blurs the truth. Science can be no different. Religion as well. Human fallability.

You didn't read what I said did you?
Science isn't about faith. Any theory no matter proven it is can be disproven by new evidence. Science is about looking at the evidence to find the answer. Creationism is about looking for the evidence for a given answer and if the answer dose not match that answer it is ignored.


No sir I did not read what you said because you said it AFTER I said that. Check your chronology. And get over it.

The reason I italicized "faith" was because I was using the term broadly. Did I mention get over it?

And we use science how? Against each other. You're using it against me now. Heh.

Creationism is an IDEA. We need to start having more of those anyway.

"stupid opinions" ... you're going nowhere, sir. Making no progress. You're just flaming. There are already extremes, you're a little too late to be harshly accusing Christianity. I think that is being done. Let's try something more constructive, eh?
a_dubDesign
Probably more important that what is actually taught in high school is learning how to learn and think. Like linear thought, cause and effect, interconnectedness, and stuff like that. Studying creationism pretty much just teaches blind faith in a book, not something that anyone should learn.
Mannix
If you believe in creationism, that's your choice, but it is part of religion. Teaching something that cannot be proven and even has a fair amount of evidence against it(carbon dating, anyone?) to everyone who goes through public school is a little stupid, imho. That is, assuming you mean intelligent design as described in the torah. I will say, however, that it is possible that something caused the universe to come into being(possible meaning there is no evidence against it).
mediadar
Many countries today, not all, are multi-ethnic/cultural/religion, and for schools to accommodate all belief systems would be ludicrous!

It wasn't that long ago that 'Christians', who held the trump card, tried to have evolution banned from schools. "Carbon dating, Quartz hydration dating", are methods of determining age, which affords "modern day man" an opportunity to debunk myths and delineate an accurate account of man's existence! I have, personally, no problem with the teaching of religion, in the right place and the right context, but being force fed a religious belief is as criminal as having to listen to Celine Dion sing for hours on end. (I've had that happen to me, and I'm still traumatised).

We can all agree that man has evolved from caveman to where we are now. Man's evolution was not limited to physical it includes psychological and ideologies, as well. If we can agree that man has evolved, then we can agree that evolution has it's place in schools.

Religion;Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalised system grounded in such belief and worship. Wow! which one to teach, which creationist story do we teach, Adam and Eve? Let's face it, that scenario, try as hard as Cane and Abel may, will never produce the progeny needed to catapult man ahead. Do we teach creationism as, Poof! man appeared in one magical moment.

Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Think of the Genesis 1:27, now can we agree that modern man is superior to his distant ancestors; ie: stronger, smarter, longer life span, predator not pray[sic](smarter category), etc..., if god made man in his own image, a perfect creation, we would not have needed to evolve. Why is it that more than 98% of bonobo DNA is like that of human DNA, is that god having a sense of humour?

There are nearly as many Sunni Islams as there are Catholics, Hinduism the oldest(Aryan race), Judaism a close second chronologically. Buddhism is on the rise, bursting out of its Asian confines, spanning the globe like wildfire. What story do we teach? What religion will lay the foundation for our education system? Limiting ourselves to just Christianity/Catholicism would be ignorant! to say the least.

Religion has its place, whether it be Sunday school or church/temple/synagogue, but not in school. School is a place for the acquisition of knowledge no more no less.

I'm not an atheist,
Mediadar.
PS: I think history sucks as well, The victor writes the history and so it's just another one of man's fairytales.
Simulator
Soulfire,
Its interesting that you say you are forced to learn what we know is, mathematically, true, but yet you'll buy into blind faith. I do agree with you in some respects, that all sides of the story should be taught, but if you can't explain the full Big Bang theory to a bunch of school kids, as in every square inch of it, it just wouldn't make any sense to them, and even to most adults who don't have a degree in a fancy science course, so, if we can't teach the Big Bang theory in full, and "prove" that it happed, why should we teach the creationism theories, which are much easier to understand to a child, because there is no complicated mathematics in it.

That way we are not being fair, or telling all sides of the story, where it might take a few hours, if even, to explain the theories of creationism, it might take more than a year to teach them the Big Bang theory, and make the Big Bang theory boring, and because the religious view is much easier to understand, then kids will automatically go towards the religious side of things, making it impossible to get a fair understanding of how the universe was created.
mediadar
Simulator,

It would make it easier for someone to respond, if you indicated who you were addressing.

Thanks,
Mediadar.
Simulator
mediadar wrote:
Simulator,

It would make it easier for someone to respond, if you indicated who you were addressing.

Thanks,
Mediadar.



Well mainly the person who started this topic...... But I'll change it just for you Wink
Srs2388
there are some good points in here that say that it shoudn't be but i think that it should be.
It seems more logical that God created us...
and we didn't just evolve from apes...
than vise versa
but thats just me

it is said not to force relegion on people.
Why can they try to comvince you otherwise if you are relegious?
Simulator
Srs2388 wrote:
there are some good points in here that say that it shoudn't be but i think that it should be.
It seems more logical that God created us...
and we didn't just evolve from apes...
than vise versa
but thats just me

it is said not to force relegion on people.
Why can they try to comvince you otherwise if you are relegious?


It would help if you could explain how its is more logical, no thats not fair, how about why its more logical?
The Conspirator
Quote:
It seems more logical that God created us...
and we didn't just evolve from apes...

It would be nice if people would start learning about the subjects they talk about.
Soulfire
The whole belief of Creationism and Evolution isn't even black and white anymore, every day more shades of gray are cast upon the issues and it's harder and harder to find truth.

By teaching creationism in schools, I'm not asking you to believe in it. I'm asking you - is it possible? Most atheists would probably say I have a closed mind, but theirs is just as closed. Just as a Christian, I believe in Creationism, but I can't turn my head on the fact that evolution is a possibility.

Again I say, I'm not asking anyone to believe, but to decide - could it be possible?
Simulator
Then were did dinosaurs come from? Are you actually saying they didn't exist?? Or that Man walked with the dinosaurs??
Soulfire
Simulator wrote:
Then were did dinosaurs come from? Are you actually saying they didn't exist?? Or that Man walked with the dinosaurs??

God created animals on the same day as humans. It's a radical concept right? Dinosaurs have been thought to exist millions of years ago, but most of the bones that were "carbon dated" were merely estimated in age by some person looking at it.

The bones of a dinosaur (forgot the name, some saurus and started with an L I believe) were thought to be 140 million years old. After carbon dating, it was found to be only 16,000 years old.

We're just taught so heavily in one way in school that we completely miss the other half of it, and when the other half is presented to us - it seems totally radical, but again, it's a possibility.

At any rate, it's for you to decide. Job in the Bible addresses dinosaurs, describing them. Now, how could a human of so many years ago possibly describe dinosaurs with around the same detail as we would today? It's not really possible unless they walked with them.

Also, dinosaur prints and human footprints were fossilized in some area in Arizona. They were side by side and dated to around the same exact time periods.

It's an interesting thought, isn't it?

Again, I don't ask you to believe what I believe - but consider it as a possibility. Everyone's yelling at me as a Christian to keep my mind open, how about others take their advice as well?
Simulator
Soulfire wrote:
Simulator wrote:
Then were did dinosaurs come from? Are you actually saying they didn't exist?? Or that Man walked with the dinosaurs??

God created animals on the same day as humans. It's a radical concept right? Dinosaurs have been thought to exist millions of years ago, but most of the bones that were "carbon dated" were merely estimated in age by some person looking at it.

The bones of a dinosaur (forgot the name, some saurus and started with an L I believe) were thought to be 140 million years old. After carbon dating, it was found to be only 16,000 years old.

We're just taught so heavily in one way in school that we completely miss the other half of it, and when the other half is presented to us - it seems totally radical, but again, it's a possibility.

At any rate, it's for you to decide. Job in the Bible addresses dinosaurs, describing them. Now, how could a human of so many years ago possibly describe dinosaurs with around the same detail as we would today? It's not really possible unless they walked with them.

Also, dinosaur prints and human footprints were fossilized in some area in Arizona. They were side by side and dated to around the same exact time periods.

It's an interesting thought, isn't it?

Again, I don't ask you to believe what I believe - but consider it as a possibility. Everyone's yelling at me as a Christian to keep my mind open, how about others take their advice as well?



I used to be one, just like you, full blind faith, then I saw the light, no pun intended, I'm a pure man of Science now, and work to serve the greater common good.

Can you give me/us that extract from Job?
make_life_better
Soulfire wrote:
The whole belief of Creationism and Evolution isn't even black and white anymore, every day more shades of gray are cast upon the issues and it's harder and harder to find truth.


That's a difficult one. I think that most of science is now so well understood and has become an accepted part of our wider culture so that many people now do just accept it on faith. The hard stuff (grey areas) is where people are pushing deeper in their understanding oh how the universe works. At the level of quantum mechanics, for example, it appears that the models and mathematics are able to make fantastically accurate predictions that can be verified experimentally to ten or more significant figures. But the interpretation of those models can be complex and the results are sometimes really counter-intuitive - the quantum world that would seem to be implied is really quite bizarre.

I would agree that it is harder to find the truth - but because understanding the truth in some cases seems to require several years post-doctoral study in higher maths. If so, is that really truth? How can the rest of us tell without having to take it on faith?

Soulfire wrote:
By teaching creationism in schools, I'm not asking you to believe in it. I'm asking you - is it possible? Most atheists would probably say I have a closed mind, but theirs is just as closed. Just as a Christian, I believe in Creationism, but I can't turn my head on the fact that evolution is a possibility.


I don't think that I have a closed mind. I try my hardest to look at each thing from a balanced perspective. It's quite exciting when I find a hole in my mental frameworks and have to revise my opinions. But in the words of Howard Devoto, "My mind aint so open that anything could crawl right in".

Soulfire wrote:
Again I say, I'm not asking anyone to believe, but to decide - could it be possible?


I can't even say that it's more than even vanishingly slightly possible in my mind. There are just too many things that require a huge leap of faith, when there are perfectly sensible and reasonable explanations for most of what is observed without resorting to some supreme power/being/whatever.

Whenever anybody proposes a god or similar as the creator of the universe, I always feel that it doesn't help because we immediately have the question of how and where this amazing god came from. Either we accept that such a god would have to be even more amazing than the universe to have created it (or possibly equally amazing) - and then we have really made no progress at all. Or maybe it would help because such a god could actually be simpler than the universe (s)he created, in which case that god could possibly have been created by a still simpler god, and so on - but then where does it stop? The argument could regress through a sequence of successively lesser gods until we find that we could create a being powerful enough to start this whole chain of gods... and I don't like that either!
Hogwarts
At my school, which is Anglican (Even though I am not really religous), we are taught all sides of it.

On one side we have "Adam and Eve"
On the other side we have Evolution.

The biggest question I have is this (And it applies to both):
Where did God come from the create the universe Question
Where did the universe come from in the first place if not "God" Question

The question is: Where did anything and everything come from in the first place? I mean... If there was a big bang, where did all the energy and matter come from for it?
bluedragon
Simulator wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
Simulator wrote:
Then were did dinosaurs come from? Are you actually saying they didn't exist?? Or that Man walked with the dinosaurs??

God created animals on the same day as humans. It's a radical concept right? Dinosaurs have been thought to exist millions of years ago, but most of the bones that were "carbon dated" were merely estimated in age by some person looking at it.

The bones of a dinosaur (forgot the name, some saurus and started with an L I believe) were thought to be 140 million years old. After carbon dating, it was found to be only 16,000 years old.

We're just taught so heavily in one way in school that we completely miss the other half of it, and when the other half is presented to us - it seems totally radical, but again, it's a possibility.

At any rate, it's for you to decide. Job in the Bible addresses dinosaurs, describing them. Now, how could a human of so many years ago possibly describe dinosaurs with around the same detail as we would today? It's not really possible unless they walked with them.

Also, dinosaur prints and human footprints were fossilized in some area in Arizona. They were side by side and dated to around the same exact time periods.

It's an interesting thought, isn't it?

Again, I don't ask you to believe what I believe - but consider it as a possibility. Everyone's yelling at me as a Christian to keep my mind open, how about others take their advice as well?



I used to be one, just like you, full blind faith, then I saw the light, no pun intended, I'm a pure man of Science now, and work to serve the greater common good.

Can you give me/us that extract from Job?


What about full blind science? You all are so quick to accuse, even when Soulfire has made it clear that the terms of this discussion has turned to possibilities, in which I believe anything is possible. We should all have an idea of the possibilites ... even the possibility that science may be fallable!

And when we speak of carbon dating... agh!
How many calendars has human history cycled through? Is the Gregorian calendar even worthy of "science" ..? No!!! Human hands are hardly worthy of science ... same with religion...

I hate to sound like a mom, but... stop arguing and work together, damnit!!!

serve the greater common good? Jesus Christ did just that, without science! You, dear sir, are an extremist.
The Conspirator
bluedragon; Yes science is fallible but what you don;t get it, If evidence comes up that goes against a currant scientific theory, no madder how proven it is, if the evidence is strong enough, the theory will be dis proven and scientists will alter there view of the world based on the new evidence. If the evidence disproves creationism (as it has) creationists will not alter there view of the world. Instead they will ignore it, dispute it braced on misconceptions and holes in the theory.
Science is fallible but scientists will alter there view points if new evidence comes along.
Creationism is fallible but creationists will not alter there view points to match the evidence.
bluedragon
The Conspirator wrote:
bluedragon; Yes science is fallible but what you don;t get it, If evidence comes up that goes against a currant scientific theory, no madder how proven it is, if the evidence is strong enough, the theory will be dis proven and scientists will alter there view of the world based on the new evidence. If the evidence disproves creationism (as it has) creationists will not alter there view of the world. Instead they will ignore it, dispute it braced on misconceptions and holes in the theory.
Science is fallible but scientists will alter there view points if new evidence comes along.
Creationism is fallible but creationists will not alter there view points to match the evidence.


Well Creationism has not been proven nor has it been disproven. It's an idea, and will remain as such until someone decides they can prove or completely disprove it.

It doesn't inspire a scientific argument, but, being a popular concept, it's great for philosophical/religious controversy. Smile

I'm going to stick to my geekiness at this point and offer that only the Sith deal in absolutes. Star Wars: my anti-science
The Conspirator
Quote:
Well Creationism has not been proven nor has it been disproven.

Wrong, there are mounds of evidence that say the earth wasn't made in 6 days, that Adam was not the first human, that all the animals (including humanity) evolved.
bluedragon
There have got to be some meeting points between religion and science. Most everything in the Bible is taken out of context, anyway (especially dates, concept of time, as I've previously indicated) ...

So instead of trying to beat down others' beliefs with your own "belief" in science (not all of it is hard fact, like many would think ... and it most certainly is subject to human bias), maybe we should start trying to find reason in between religious mythology and science instead of beating each other to a bloody pulp ... because that's obviously getting us NOWHERE.

My offering is VELIKOVSKY, who tries to piece/peace together religions, mythologies and hard science to try to make sense of certain possible major events in human history.

Carl Sagan tried a little, too...

Use science constructively, not destructively!! You are doing science injustice.

Same for you religious freaks! Constructive!!!!! Justice ... for all!
Juparis
Woa, what an explosion of posts--I'll have to get to reading them all later. But I see someone heard something I said, so I'll reply to that. Smile
Indi wrote:
Indeed. It should be restricted by what is actually science.

If it's not science, then it has no place in a science class. Intelligent Design is not science. I don't care whether you're atheist, Christian, Zoroastrian or you worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It ain't science. Thus, it has no place in a science class.

What's to debate?

The only place ID would possibly have in a science class is to serve as an example of bad science or pseudoscience. And, shock and awe, it is used that way... in higher levels. In the earliest science classes, it would probably be unwise to introduce contrary teachings to confuse the students. Might be best to just give them a solid foundation of good science, then later you can show them what bad science looks like.

In that case the topic should become its own class, when both possibilities can be discussed and explained. It's no different than telling a student "Vote Republican, becauase Democrats kill babies," so that the student will never learn everything Democrats have contributed to this nation (speaking of the U.S. now), and may never even consider their side of the argument. Creation is, for the most part, just a big question mark. Why are forcing a few useless theories down students throats when there's a whole world of plausible explanations besides the strictly "scientific" view. It doesn't have to be taught in Science class, but where else would it go? To be just and fair, which I thought the U.S. was intended for, both sides of an argument should be explained.
The Conspirator
Quote:
It's no different than telling a student "Vote Republican, becauase Democrats kill babies," so that the student will never learn everything Democrats have contributed to this nation (speaking of the U.S. now), and may never even consider their side of the argument.

That comparison is ridiculous at best.

Quote:
Creation is, for the most part, just a big question mark.

No its an exclamation point.

Quote:
Why are forcing a few useless theories down students throats when there's a whole world of plausible explanations besides the strictly "scientific" view.

Would you teach that the lottery is a good investment cause you can win millions? If something is very highly implausible theres no reason to teach it.

Quote:
but where else would it go?

A class on religions or philosophy.

Quote:
To be just and fair, which I thought the U.S. was intended for, both sides of an argument should be explained.

Would you teach that the world could be flat to be fare to these people?
make_life_better
Juparis wrote:
Why are forcing a few useless theories down students throats...


Nobody should be forcing any useless theories down anybody's throat. Education is supposed to be about making the information, knowledge, understanding etc available to people, and giving them the (mental) tools to develop their understanding further and make their own decisions on a rational basis.

Juparis wrote:
... when there's a whole world of plausible explanations besides the strictly "scientific" view.


No there aren't. By definition, the strictly scientific view must encompass all possible explanations for everything. Remember that "science" is a mental tool, not a body of knowledge. It's basis is quite simple:

(1) you look at the world about you and find some "interesting" phenomenon
(2) you make up a theory to explain that phenomenon
(3) you use the theory to make new predictions
(4) you devise experiments to test those predictions
(5) if your predictions are wrong, you may have to change your theory

Note that science has built into it the idea that the theory is probably wrong. Most theories are just approximations at best. So the heart of science is all about testing theories to prove them wrong. Don't think in terms of proving a theory right - it almost can't be done. All that we can say is that a given theory reliably makes accurate predictions and has never been disproven.

Religion in contrast mostly stops after step 2. I've never seen anything even remotely like a sensible experimentally testable prediction of anything come out of religion. Mostly it's too dangerous to make those testable predictions because they might be wrong. Certainly I would be very excited if somebody could make a testable prediction that contradicts currently accepted scientific theories and get the prediction right as demonstrated by independent repeatable experiments. I simply don't care what theory that prediction comes from - it could be religion or not, but if it works, the scientific community would have to adjust their theories or adopt new ones to accomodate the new knowledge.
Fire Boar
The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
To be just and fair, which I thought the U.S. was intended for, both sides of an argument should be explained.

Would you teach that the world could be flat to be fare to these people?

Well, why shouldn't the world look like this?

Seriously, though, the "Flat World" theory is a rubbish comparison to religion.

I personally am a Christian, but I don't necessarily believe that the world was created in seven days. Apparantly, the word in the original Bible meaning "days", before it was translated, translates literally into "periods of time", or "ages". So the world could well have been created over any amount of time. Remember that religion does not try to explain what happened, rather, it describes why it happened; and it is clear that religion states there is a purpose for life. In fact, there are hardly any parts of religion that can be touched upon by science.
The Conspirator
You missed the point of what I was saying.
Juparis said we should teach both in school to be fare but if you teach a subject just to be fare you will end up teaching a bunch of garbage like the "the earth may be flat"
Kaneda
Fire Boar wrote:
I personally am a Christian, but I don't necessarily believe that the world was created in seven days. Apparantly, the word in the original Bible meaning "days", before it was translated, translates literally into "periods of time", or "ages".


That's a common misconception first spread by Jehovah's witnesses. No, it doesn't. "Yom" (well known, from the use in "Yom Kippur" - day of atonement) literally translates into, and means, "day [of 24 hours]" or "today". It, and its plural "yamim", are used around 800 times in the old testament - every single time meaning "day" (or "days") or "today", not "ages" or "periods of time".

Some like to say that it can also mean "year", and thus, possibly also "ages". However, the meaning "year" is solely based on English translations in the bible of manners of speaking, like "David was old and stricken in years", which might as well have been translated into "David was old and stricken in days", except English uses the word "years" in this saying. It's a general saying, not a count of years.

Whether creationists then want to think that since humans weren't there, time was different, or that Moses, when "dictated" Genesis from God, couldn't grasp "aeon" or "age" and wrote "day" instead... Up to them. But if they want to take the bible literally, they might want to stop making up literal meanings that aren't there.
Juparis
The Conspirator wrote:
That comparison is ridiculous at best.

Why, simply because you can't wrap your head around the idea which you're so hatefully against? Vote Republican--Democrats kill babies! Don't listen to anything a Democrat would say because only Republicans know the truth (or what we can grasp of it).

That's the vibe I'm picking up, anyway. Confused

The Conspirator wrote:
No its an exclamation point.

I mean a question mark in the sense that nobody knows for sure how the universe came to be. Unless there were some sort of all-knowing spiritual deity.. Hmm...

The Conspirator wrote:
If something is very highly implausible theres no reason to teach it.

So then why is evolution being taugt in schools? Just because it's the best scientists can come up with (outside Intelligent Design) doesn't make it plausible.
But I guess that's where we differe, and will probably never get anywhere in this debate because of it--you believe evolution is possible (or at least are defending it), while I do not. Theories are meaningless until they are proven--in which case they're no longer theories.

The Conspirator wrote:
A class on religions or philosophy.

I'd agree with you except that most schools have no such class. It's passively restricting what students learn.

make_life_better wrote:
Nobody should be forcing any useless theories down anybody's throat. Education is supposed to be about making the information, knowledge, understanding etc available to people, and giving them the (mental) tools to develop their understanding further and make their own decisions on a rational basis.

Ok, a ittle exaggeration I admit. But I agree with you on this point. In order to make decision on a rational basis, however, one must acknowledge and understand both sides of an argument.

I think I may have been overusing the world "plausible." Not even science is perfectly plausible. Feasible, however, would seem more appropriate. Every religion is feasible in its own respects. I think it's the uncertainty of which is actually true that spawned science. People began relying on their own capabilities for answers instead of trusting and accepting the natural laws of life.

I think religion can go to step 3--that might be a bit transcendentalist, but everyone always makes their own predictions after the original theory (of sorts) has been presented.

But we're not talking about religion. This is between evolution and intelligent design, right? There is no religion in I.D.--we have simply (thus far) been unable to test it, which irks more than a few people, I'm sure. How can you test a possible presence? Maybe that's for the future to tell. Regardless, I still think I.D. deserves a place in the school environment as long as evolution does. Neither can disprove the other.
The Conspirator
Quote:
Why, simply because you can't wrap your head around the idea which you're so hatefully against? Vote Republican--Democrats kill babies! Don't listen to anything a Democrat would say because only Republicans know the truth (or what we can grasp of it).

There not teaching anything even remotely like that! Thus the comparison is ridiculous at best.

Quote:
I mean a question mark in the sense that nobody knows for sure how the universe came to be. Unless there were some sort of all-knowing spiritual deity.. Hmm...

Yes but we can look at the evidence and see whats most probable.
Whats most probably according to the evidence? BOOM! Energy, matter, stars , galaxy's.

Quote:
So then why is evolution being taugt in schools? Just because it's the best scientists can come up with (outside Intelligent Design) doesn't make it plausible.

God damn! Why can't you people ever learn about a topic?
Look at the evidence! The shear variety of species, the localised verities of species, the fossil evidence, the DNA evidence, the fact that through natural selection we terned ancient wolfs in to theses

Look a bat dog. Or is it a baby wooki?


Millie, the best dog ever. She is missed.

Thats what makes it so plausible, the evidence. All you have to do is look at the evidence.
Kaneda
Juparis wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
A class on religions or philosophy.

I'd agree with you except that most schools have no such class. It's passively restricting what students learn.


The interesting tidbit about that is, I believe most European countries (at least Northern European) have a compulsory subject on religion in public school. The only thing up for discussion here, is whether the curriculum should be standardized across countries. I dread the day (although it'll never happen) that we start even considering putting creationism anywhere else.

The U.S. apparently doesn't have such a subject as religion. Why? Why isn't this whole debate on creationism in science class rather a debate about introducing an entirely new compulsory subject on religion? My best guess is, it's not in the best interest of (some) American, conservative Christians. Because to be fair (as in most European countries), you'd have to include education on the beliefs of "others". And God forbid American children should get bad influence from the ideas of Buddhists or Muslims.

Introducing creationism into science class... THAT's passively restricting what students learn. Because you want the myth of a single religion to be treated as plausible fact, not religion - and to the exclusion of all others.
bluedragon
The Conspirator wrote:

Quote:
Creation is, for the most part, just a big question mark.

No its an exclamation point.


I kind of like to think of it as a big WTF ... but if you add the formers you get a big ...

WTF?!

make_life_better wrote:

By definition, the strictly scientific view must encompass all possible explanations for everything. Remember that "science" is a mental tool, not a body of knowledge. It's basis is quite simple:

(1) you look at the world about you and find some "interesting" phenomenon
(2) you make up a theory to explain that phenomenon
(3) you use the theory to make new predictions
(4) you devise experiments to test those predictions
(5) if your predictions are wrong, you may have to change your theory


So, let's take the idea of "science" and apply it to the idea of "Creationism" in the Bible. Heck, why not just take the whole Bible into scientific view. Maybe then we'll make_life_better. Smile

I think that changing "seven days" to "seven ages" is a very good start!
a_dubDesign
bluedragon wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:

Quote:
Creation is, for the most part, just a big question mark.

No its an exclamation point.


I kind of like to think of it as a big WTF ... but if you add the formers you get a big ...

WTF?!

thats hillarious

bluedragon wrote:

So, let's take the idea of "science" and apply it to the idea of "Creationism" in the Bible. Heck, why not just take the whole Bible into scientific view. Maybe then we'll make_life_better. Smile

because the Bible isn't a scientific book
Juparis
The Conspirator wrote:
There not teaching anything even remotely like that! Thus the comparison is ridiculous at best.

It's an analogy, and it suits just fine, from what I've observed. Rolling Eyes

The Conspirator wrote:

Yes but we can look at the evidence and see whats most probable.
Whats most probably according to the evidence? BOOM! Energy, matter, stars , galaxy's.

Most probable, by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent. Every year (or even a few months), a few more billion years are added onto the whole idea to make it seem possible, because each year scientists are realizing just how improbable the theory is.

There aren't numbers and hard, cold facts for everything in life, which is why science could never co-exist peacefully with a religion (here I'm excluding Buddhism, because it's more of a philosophy).

[quote="The Conspirator]
God damn! Why can't you people ever learn about a topic?
Look at the evidence! The shear variety of species, the localised verities of species, the fossil evidence, the DNA evidence, the fact that through natural selection we terned ancient wolfs in to theses[/quote]
I have learned about the topic--enough to see its flaws and holes, at least, which is where you apparently stopped. Just because the theory is a scientist's best guess at how the universe started doesn't begin to make it the most probably explanation, or even probable in the least. The variety of species, the localised varieties of species, the fossil evidence, and the DNA evidence all point me to a higher deity. There's no way this could simply "happen;" even science cannot explain it--we can only guess by our own flawed logic what might have possibly occured, based on less than a billionth of a percentage of being probable. It only proves that there is some sort of organized deity up there who likes his/her planet to be kept in order (referring to the aforementioned).

As for natural selection, I think humans have defeated the purpose of even having such a theory. If natural selection still applied, humans wouldn't be alive today.

The Conspirator wrote:

Thats what makes it so plausible, the evidence. All you have to do is look at the evidence.

I'm looking at the evidence, and all I see is a great deity signing his name on this planet. You and I could never agree simply because of this.

Kaneda wrote:
The U.S. apparently doesn't have such a subject as religion. Why? Why isn't this whole debate on creationism in science class rather a debate about introducing an entirely new compulsory subject on religion? My best guess is, it's not in the best interest of (some) American, conservative Christians. Because to be fair (as in most European countries), you'd have to include education on the beliefs of "others". And God forbid American children should get bad influence from the ideas of Buddhists or Muslims.

Public schools don't have religion, at least. Not even the best comprehensive schools have religion or a philosophy class, which is a shame.
You're probably correct in that a small group of conservative Christian bigots simply don't want the exposure to new religions. Funny, actually, that you would mention Busshists and Muslims, because I got a "turn back to God" lecture for discussing those very two religions/groups. Laughing

I honestly wish we could get greater exposure to these other religions. I'm not against it in the least, but perhaps that's only because I'm not a conservative. Rolling Eyes

Until the day that such a feat could be accomplished, I should hope that I.D. still be taught somewhere. If nowhere else, it would have to be science, to the dismay of many people, I'm sure. Hey, I learned some English grammar in Spanish, some transcendentalism in my compsoition class, and fiber optics in PreCalculus. There was no fuss there, because unlike a few others, the teachers didn't mind sharing more than what fell under the strict name of the class.
The Conspirator
Juparis: You looked at the evidence. No you didn't.
Fossils tell us that animals have been change over many, many, many generations over millions of years into the currant species of to day.
Unnatural selection (Bering) gives shows us the mechanism that changes the species over millions of years.
DNA supports what the fossils tell us by telling us that we are more closely genetically related to those species whom the fossils tell us that we share a common and resent (relatively speaking) ancestor.
And the resent evolution of bacteria and insects hammers it in.
How dose any of that point to any God? it doesn't it points to nature and nature alone. None of it points to a god.
bluedragon
a_dubDesign wrote:

bluedragon wrote:

So, let's take the idea of "science" and apply it to the idea of "Creationism" in the Bible. Heck, why not just take the whole Bible into scientific view. Maybe then we'll make_life_better. Smile

because the Bible isn't a scientific book


So make it scientific. Take those rules of science and apply them. Figure out translations, develop scientific explanations.

For instance, Immanuel Velikovsky takes the book of Exodus (Passover, Egyptians vs. Israelites, parting/imparting of the Red Sea, Ten Commandments, 40 years in the desert) and puts it into a scientific view (Comet Venus passes by Planet Earth and causes a global cataclysm that can only be defined as "divine" by the unscientific minds at the time). He also matches Exodus to countless other mythologies around the world who experienced the same exact catastrophe!

Worlds In Collision ... I swear it's a great read if you're into stuff like this!
the_mariska
Quote:
So make it scientific. Take those rules of science and apply them. Figure out translations, develop scientific explanations.

But the Bible has nothing to do with science as its message is about that part of reality that can never be measured by science. [And proved or disproved to exist.] Of course, to understand better, what was the intention of the author, many people have done a lot of research to find out, how much historical truth there is in the Bible, which ones of the Bible characters were only poetical figures [eg. Adam and Eve, Noe] and which ones existed historically. They even found out that some chapters of the Bible contain some kind of didactic stories, introducing historical characters but in fictional situations, that some of the stories were inspired with the myths and symbols of other nations, that were easily decoded by people living those days. [Just like the proverbs told by Jesus, everyone knows what are they really about without wondering about their historical accuracy Wink]. These symbols were to make the transcendental and immaterial truths better understood by our narrow minds, so the Bible can't be taken literally. And definitely not scientifically. Amen.
Sl1cK
Creationism, without a doubt should be taught in schools.
The Conspirator
Can you give us a reason?
Juparis
The Conspirator wrote:
Juparis: You looked at the evidence. No you didn't.
Fossils tell us that animals have been change over many, many, many generations over millions of years into the currant species of to day.
Unnatural selection (Bering) gives shows us the mechanism that changes the species over millions of years.
DNA supports what the fossils tell us by telling us that we are more closely genetically related to those species whom the fossils tell us that we share a common and resent (relatively speaking) ancestor.
And the resent evolution of bacteria and insects hammers it in.
How dose any of that point to any God? it doesn't it points to nature and nature alone. None of it points to a god.

I'm still examining the evidence and keep coming up with the same answer: This type of organization and order (right down the molecular level) can only be achieved through some type of higher spiritual deity.

Fossils tell us animals lived an unknown period of time before, and died. Wow, big discovery. Scientists would like you to think that carbon dating has improved and is very accurate, when they are actually far from the truth. You're better off casting dice to guess the age of a fossil than using carbon dating. In many cases, the exact numbers from carbon dating are "lost" or "forgotten" because the species wouldn't fit in with their trillions of years of evolution.

DNA tells us that other living things are composted of the same basic chemicals. Wow. Some of those chemicals happen to be placed in an order that seems similar to that of our own. To you, this means we're related. To me, it means we may or may not share some of the same attributes but are not necessarily related.

I didn't understand your point of bacteria hammering insects. Doesn't make sense to me, sorry. But regardless, all I see is God's signature on his creation. All you see is what poor human intellect can do to guess at our creation. Or something, I don't even know. Either way, I highly doubt you can change someone else's perspective by using stubborn arguments to force your opinions on others. (I'm being sarcastically exaggerative)
Juparis
Sl1cK wrote:
Creationism, without a doubt should be taught in schools.

Creationism should be kept out of school, because it breaches the seperative of church and state mentality that the U.S. is based on (partially).
Intelligent Design, however, should be taught because it is free of religious binds and provides a different prospect of how we came to be. A few atheists are just too paranoid that Christians are trying to use I.D. to smuggle religion into the classroom--an erroneous conspiracy theory.
The Conspirator
Juparis wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Juparis: You looked at the evidence. No you didn't.
Fossils tell us that animals have been change over many, many, many generations over millions of years into the currant species of to day.
Unnatural selection (Bering) gives shows us the mechanism that changes the species over millions of years.
DNA supports what the fossils tell us by telling us that we are more closely genetically related to those species whom the fossils tell us that we share a common and resent (relatively speaking) ancestor.
And the resent evolution of bacteria and insects hammers it in.
How dose any of that point to any God? it doesn't it points to nature and nature alone. None of it points to a god.

I'm still examining the evidence and keep coming up with the same answer: This type of organization and order (right down the molecular level) can only be achieved through some type of higher spiritual deity.

Fossils tell us animals lived an unknown period of time before, and died. Wow, big discovery. Scientists would like you to think that carbon dating has improved and is very accurate, when they are actually far from the truth. You're better off casting dice to guess the age of a fossil than using carbon dating. In many cases, the exact numbers from carbon dating are "lost" or "forgotten" because the species wouldn't fit in with their trillions of years of evolution.

DNA tells us that other living things are composted of the same basic chemicals. Wow. Some of those chemicals happen to be placed in an order that seems similar to that of our own. To you, this means we're related. To me, it means we may or may not share some of the same attributes but are not necessarily related.

I didn't understand your point of bacteria hammering insects. Doesn't make sense to me, sorry. But regardless, all I see is God's signature on his creation. All you see is what poor human intellect can do to guess at our creation. Or something, I don't even know. Either way, I highly doubt you can change someone else's perspective by using stubborn arguments to force your opinions on others. (I'm being sarcastically exaggerative)


Carbon dating is very reliable and has been used for years. If it wasn't reliable, why do scientists still use it?
Theres no signature of God anywhere. There have been many fossils of "men like apes" and "ape like men" found and if you put many of these in a line , you will see how we evolved. We are more closely genetically related to species that evolved from the same ancestors we did. People have seen evolution in proses. Bacteria are and have become immune to antibacterials, insects have evolved to become immune to pesticides.
There is no signature of God, every thing comes from natural processes that supported by evidence.
mediadar
Quote:
People have seen evolution in proses. Bacteria are and have become immune to antibacterials, insects have evolved to become immune to pesticides.


This is not evolution, the above merely indicates that our(living organisms) bodies have an ability to develop resistance over a given period of time. It's not uncommon for a child to have allergies to, let's say cats, and later develop a resistance that allows his body to tolerate the presence of cats.

Quote:
I'm still examining the evidence and keep coming up with the same answer: This type of organisation and order (right down the molecular level) can only be achieved through some type of higher spiritual deity.


Why would it have to be a spiritual deity, and not simply a chemical reaction? I still have a problem with that whole soul thing!(animals don't have one, yet humans do)

Quote:
Fossils tell us animals lived an unknown period of time before, and died. Wow, big discovery. Scientists would like you to think that carbon dating has improved and is very accurate, when they are actually far from the truth. You're better off casting dice to guess the age of a fossil than using carbon dating. In many cases, the exact numbers from carbon dating are "lost" or "forgotten" because the species wouldn't fit in with their trillions of years of evolution.


Carbon dating is pretty accurate, Quartz hydration takes care of fossils, rocks and artifacts quite nicely.

Quote:
DNA tells us that other living things are composted of the same basic chemicals. Wow. Some of those chemicals happen to be placed in an order that seems similar to that of our own. To you, this means we're related. To me, it means we may or may not share some of the same attributes but are not necessarily related.


Wow! to me it means that there are similarities, and should be studied. Religion is against these studies solely because they offer an alternative truth, and this alternative truth detracts from their popularity.(religion does not like competition). If Creationism was the ultimate truth, then they would have nothing to worry about.

Quote:
I didn't understand your point of bacteria hammering insects. Doesn't make sense to me, sorry. But regardless, all I see is God's signature on his creation. All you see is what poor human intellect can do to guess at our creation. Or something, I don't even know. Either way, I highly doubt you can change someone else's perspective by using stubborn arguments to force your opinions on others. (I'm being sarcastically exaggerative)


Totally agree!

Quote:
Creationism should be kept out of school, because it breaches the separative of church and state mentality that the U.S. is based on (partially).
Intelligent Design, however, should be taught because it is free of religious binds and provides a different prospect of how we came to be.


Intelligent design, Interesting! It helps to know that most of this theories' champions are from the "discovery institute",(Christian think tank). If indeed this is to be taught, how does one test it's validity? Unfortunately, the theory, in the end, names god as the intelligent designer, which leads us back to square one.

Conspirator, it has always been my philosophy to listen to what others are saying, whether I believe it or not. The end goal is to process the information and assess it's validity. There is no empirical evidence to support god as man's creator while, on the other hand, we know that evolution happens but there is no proof that it was actually where man began.(for all we know, we could very well be a mutated virus). It all comes down to belief/faith.


Mediadar.
The Conspirator
Juparis, mediadar: Have ether of you heard of a metaphor?

Quote:
This is not evolution, the above merely indicates that our(living organisms) bodies have an ability to develop resistance over a given period of time. It's not uncommon for a child to have allergies to, let's say cats, and later develop a resistance that allows his body to tolerate the presence of cats.

That is evolution, creatures changing over many generation, adapting to there environments.

Quote:
There is no empirical evidence to support god as man's creator while, on the other hand, we know that evolution happens but there is no proof that it was actually where man began.(for all we know, we could very well be a mutated virus). It all comes down to belief/faith.

Humans share 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzees, Gorillas nd Orangutans. There is fossils of man like apes and ape like men. Biology tels us that we are animals, though a different shape, we have the same biological processes as other animals.
mediadar
Quote:
Humans share 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzees, Gorillas nd Orangutans. There is fossils of man like apes and ape like men. Biology tels us that we are animals, though a different shape, we have the same biological processes as other animals.


This is not proof of the origins of life.

Quote:
Quote:
This is not evolution, the above merely indicates that our(living organisms) bodies have an ability to develop resistance over a given period of time. It's not uncommon for a child to have allergies to, let's say cats, and later develop a resistance that allows his body to tolerate the presence of cats.

That is evolution, creatures changing over many generation, adapting to there environments.


the metamorphosis from ape to man is evolution, man becoming resistant to a common cold is not! You should research evolution a little further, it's much more complex than a mere adaptation.

Mediadar.
Juparis
The Conspirator wrote:

Carbon dating is very reliable and has been used for years. If it wasn't reliable, why do scientists still use it?

What else can they do?
Haven't read the records (oh wait, you probably want me to say "heard the myths" here, huh?) of a freshly harvested seal, dating 5000 years old via the carbon dating system?

The Conspirator wrote:
Theres no signature of God anywhere.

Sure there is--you're just not looking at the big picure.
Oh wait, that's opinion--sorry y'all.

The Conspirator wrote:
There have been many fossils of "men like apes" and "ape like men" found and if you put many of these in a line , you will see how we evolved. We are more closely genetically related to species that evolved from the same ancestors we did. People have seen evolution in proses. Bacteria are and have become immune to antibacterials, insects have evolved to become immune to pesticides.

How odd, don't you think? It's odd that we would evolve once, and only once into humans. Where are these ape-men today? Why are their fossils so rare and hard to find? Sure we might have a few of the same attributes as some apes, but if we truly evolved from them, where are those that are still evolving, and why weren't more remains left behind? How interesting, that this explosion in the population would only occur after a few select apes decided to evolve into humans. If I didn't know better, I'd say they were created that way--that we all just started from that state--or as if there were some sort of higher, spiritual deity governing us all. Wink
The Conspirator wrote:

There is no signature of God, every thing comes from natural processes that supported by evidence.

Repetition is the key to learning, correct? So I'll remind you just once most: You're not looking at the bigger picture. You're staring at his signature so closely that you don't even see a signature anymore.

I admit that this is personal opinion/belief, but these "natural processes" could not have simply occured on their own. So you're saying that everything we have today evolved from a giant explosion, which made the earth out of a ball of gas. Yes, that makes total sense--from the pinnacle of entropy (the big bang or likewise), we have a perfect order of elements and animals alike.

All we can do without a LORD is guess at a few theories and look for answers where they don't exist--that's where this "evidence" comes into play. Very Happy
Kaneda
Juparis wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:

Carbon dating is very reliable and has been used for years. If it wasn't reliable, why do scientists still use it?

What else can they do?
Haven't read the records (oh wait, you probably want me to say "heard the myths" here, huh?) of a freshly harvested seal, dating 5000 years old via the carbon dating system?


At least, I'd like you to say "heard the myths", since you clearly haven't read the original report(s), which date the seal at around 600-1500 years, not 5000. Hence, 5000 years = myth. If you'd read the reports, you'd also know exactly why these results were wrong, something conveniently ignored by creationists.

Also, out of the hundreds of thousands of times carbon dating has been properly applied in science, about 10-15 results have been contested. In all cases, the reason for the wrong dating is well known and documented. Saying that this means carbon dating is flawed is like saying Christianity is a violent, murderous religion - the root of all evil - because we know of some Christians who killed in the name of their god. Want to generalize? Then let's generalize.

Quote:
All we can do without a LORD is guess at a few theories and look for answers where they don't exist--that's where this "evidence" comes into play. Very Happy


Since we're now well into the opinion game anyway... All you can do with a "LORD" is desperately cling on to one answer, forcefully ignoring - or refuting by dubious means - all evidence, through ignorance, generalization and in some cases downright falsification. But heck, why change an approach that worked so well for millenia?
Juparis
Kaneda wrote:

At least, I'd like you to say "heard the myths", since you clearly haven't read the original report(s), which date the seal at around 600-1500 years, not 5000. Hence, 5000 years = myth. If you'd read the reports, you'd also know exactly why these results were wrong, something conveniently ignored by creationists.

Dang--you caught me Kaneda. I seriously didn't think anyone would realize my fatal flaw. No I haven't read the original reports in detail. I got bored of hearing about them so stopped short of figuring out why the date was so far off. Exaggerating helps to see how many people are actually paying attention, though. Wink Anyway, yea--I was off, my bad.

Out of curiousity, do you know why the numbers were so far off?
From what I've been taught, the whole process isn't as accurate as people would like to believe simply because of the factors that aren't taken into the equation. Then again, that could be a conservative Christian simply trying to prevent open-mindedness, so I don't know if floods/fires would really change the date that much..

Kandeda wrote:
Saying that this means carbon dating is flawed is like saying Christianity is a violent, murderous religion - the root of all evil - because we know of some Christians who killed in the name of their god. Want to generalize? Then let's generalize.

Well, there are those sects. But since we're generalizing I will agree with you. Christianity is probably the most intolerant religion, right up there with Islam. And nothing hurts more than a knife in the back from a fat conservative bigot who's afraid of change. Soon the day will come when they will march the streets in guerilla warfare, simply to protect the name of their precious LORD--the prophet of which will be guiding us all with a sceptar and a gun. (I kinda stole that scenario from Dream Theater's "In the name of God")

Kaneda wrote:

Since we're now well into the opinion game anyway... All you can do with a "LORD" is desperately cling on to one answer, forcefully ignoring - or refuting by dubious means - all evidence, through ignorance, generalization and in some cases downright falsification. But heck, why change an approach that worked so well for millenia?

Isn't that worth eternal peace and happiness?
Kaneda
Juparis wrote:
Out of curiousity, do you know why the numbers were so far off?
From what I've been taught, the whole process isn't as accurate as people would like to believe simply because of the factors that aren't taken into the equation. Then again, that could be a conservative Christian simply trying to prevent open-mindedness, so I don't know if floods/fires would really change the date that much..


Carbon dating tends to be accurate within a margin of typically (I believe) 20-100 years, depending on the age of the sample. Carbon dating is done by looking at how much carbon is left in the sample, and calculating the year from that. However, there are fluctuations in Carbon-14 content (for example, the content of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere has almost doubled since man started testing nuclear weapons), hence calibration is needed in order to actually get a precise dating.

The calibration is graphed by comparing several samples which we already know the age of (such as tree rings or samples found in layers of ice in the (Ant)arctic). This means that a calculated carbon dating of 7000 years before Christ actually has been shown to be closer to 6000 years BC. While a dating around the birth of Christ is actually pretty accurate by itself. This is all taken into account when results are published.

The basic idea of Carbon dating is that cosmic rays transform (among other things) Nitrogen into Carbon-14 at a rather constant rate ("rather" constant: See the stuff on calibration above). This Carbon-14 - just like non-radioactive Carbon - combines with oxygen to form Carbondioxide, which is used by plants in photosynthesis. Hence, the carbon-14 ends up in the plant - and in any animals eating the plant, constantly "renewing" the carbon until the moment the animal or plant dies.

After that, the carbon-14 will decay (turning into non-radioactive Nitrogen once again), at a rate where after 5730±40 years, there'll be half as much carbon-14 as there was when the living organism was alive. So, every living thing will "contain" the same proportion of Carbon-14 (relative to normal, non-radioactive Carbon) until it dies.

However, one exception is when we deal with anything to do with underwater plants. These plants don't get their carbondioxide from the air (where the carbon-14 is constantly renewed), but from the water, where the carbondioxide may have been stored for thousands of years without any "renewal". Hence, it's already decayed before it gets to the plant, and any animal eating this plant will also get carbon from it which has already decayed.

Seals (in this case antarctic seals) are carnivores - they live mainly from deep water animals (fish), which in turn mainly eat plants (algae etc.) deep under the sea. So, a large percentage of the carbon in the fish's body will have a lower level of carbon-14 than usual - and this will be passed on to the seal.

And hence, if you try to date a seal by carbon dating, you'll get - not the time the seal died - but an average of the time the carbon dioxide molecules which started this whole food chain entered the antarctic water. Which may have been hundreds or thousands of years before the seal died.

Not very well explained, but there you go Wink

Quote:
Well, there are those sects. But since we're generalizing I will agree with you. Christianity is probably the most intolerant religion, right up there with Islam. And nothing hurts more than a knife in the back from a fat conservative bigot who's afraid of change. Soon the day will come when they will march the streets in guerilla warfare, simply to protect the name of their precious LORD--the prophet of which will be guiding us all with a sceptar and a gun. (I kinda stole that scenario from Dream Theater's "In the name of God")


I'll refrain from discussing this (since this is not about religious tolerance - I know I started it). You know my opinion anyway Smile

Quote:
Isn't that worth eternal peace and happiness?


Not if it makes you waste the only life you know for certain that you have, by being a sheep (and I know you don't, this is about certain religious people in general). People who base their life on science aren't better off, though (which is why I do neither Wink)
irsmart
Creationism should be really disquised. Meaning, students should be taught that science doesn't have all of the answers of how we evolved. Nothing more- and absolutely nothing about religion. Let the kids figure that out themselves.
Verbato
Okay. I lost the track somewhere.

I think a lot of you probably don't even know what creationism is and don't even know what C-14 is etc, so I'll link to some videos by Dr. Kent Hovind, which are really good and funny to watch. Might even teach you a thing or two Smile

http://www.trebuiesazicceva.com/Videos/Hovind%201a%20-%20HQ.avi
http://www.trebuiesazicceva.com/Videos/Hovind%201b%20-%20HQ.avi
http://www.trebuiesazicceva.com/Videos/Hovind%202a%20-%20HQ.avi
http://www.trebuiesazicceva.com/Videos/Hovind%202b%20-%20HQ.avi
http://www.trebuiesazicceva.com/Videos/Hovind%203a%20-%20HQ.avi
http://www.trebuiesazicceva.com/Videos/Hovind%203b%20-%20HQ.avi
http://www.trebuiesazicceva.com/Videos/Hovind%204a%20-%20HQ-a.avi
http://www.trebuiesazicceva.com/Videos/Hovind%204a%20-%20HQ-b.avi
http://www.trebuiesazicceva.com/Videos/Hovind%204b%20-%20HQ.avi
http://www.trebuiesazicceva.com/Videos/Hovind%205a%20-%20HQ.avi
http://www.trebuiesazicceva.com/Videos/Hovind%205b%20-%20HQ.avi
http://www.trebuiesazicceva.com/Videos/Hovind%205c%20-%20HQ.avi
http://www.trebuiesazicceva.com/Videos/Hovind%206a%20-%20HQ.avi
http://www.trebuiesazicceva.com/Videos/Hovind%206b%20-%20HQ.avi
http://www.trebuiesazicceva.com/Videos/Hovind%206c%20-%20HQ.avi
http://www.trebuiesazicceva.com/Videos/Hovind%207a%20-%20HQ.avi
http://www.trebuiesazicceva.com/Videos/Hovind%207b%20-%20HQ.avi
http://www.trebuiesazicceva.com/Videos/Hovind%207c%20-%20HQ.avi

Download the first one. It will make you want to watch the rest. Oh, and there are quiet a lot of videos out there with him debating creationists. He even takes them on three professors at a time!

(these vids are intentionally left without copyright and Kent Hovind himself advocates people copying them and passing them out in these videos, so no american, or otherwise, copyright-law applies)
schnitzi
> He even takes them on three professors at a time!


Not to mention the whole government!

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51236
schnitzi
Juparis wrote:

Out of curiousity, do you know why the numbers were so far off?



There's a good explanation here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html.
Related topics
I hate school
I want scripts please come here
Merseyside Primary School
The School Report
The downfall of american society
school campus
Me going to school ;)
School starting
School chat.. Need approval...
Website made for a school assessment
school? bad or good?
Rigid School system in Asia
Are we afraid to discover our past?
Creationism & ID (split from sticky)
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.