Creationist school's plea is denied by state board

[arbitor]

oops i kinda messed up the quote so my comments were mixed in with yours. im sure you can make it out.

 

[PLC1]

oops i kinda messed up the quote so my comments were mixed in with yours. im sure you can make it out.

Yes, I can make it out.

Your quotes and your spelling are both messed up. That doesn't really detract from what you're posting, though.

Your logic and understanding of evoltion is messed up also, and that does detract from your post.



Here is a link to a serious discussion of evolution on another forum. Read it, get back to us, and I'll forgive you the "incredibily ignorant" comment.

http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=60126

Here is more: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

 

[Coyote]

im am purplexed by this comment. are you saying that evolution=logic/reason? if so then that is incredibly ignoorant of you. i may disagree but im not saying that you are incappable of reasoning.

The scientific theory of evolution is arrived at through logic and reason based upon available evidence.

The idea that the earth is 6000 years old and some sort of undefinable unproveable supernatural being created everything as is in a one-shot deal...hasn't even a passing aquintance with logic or reason.

 

[The Scotsman]

The scientific theory of evolution is arrived at through logic and reason based upon available evidence.

....why the hedge? "based upon available evidence" its a fact simple as that.... end of story! The only "creationism" going on is that being conducted by Scientists researching genes, DNA, Stem Cell research and all that malarchy - guess they must be Gods then Huh!!

The idea that the earth is 6000 years old and some sort of undefinable unproveable supernatural being created everything as is in a one-shot deal...hasn't even a passing aquintance with logic or reason.

....or even reality.

Ahhh C'mon...... its kindda neat in a way that people believe in alternative theories such as religious creationism; like love it makes the world go round and all that jazz. But for people to put it up as real and viable reason to disprove reality is just bizzaar.

 

[top gun]

Ahhh C'mon...... its kindda neat in a way that people believe in alternative theories such as religious creationism; like love it makes the world go round and all that jazz. But for people to put it up as real and viable reason to disprove reality is just bizzaar.

And the funniest things are when the creationist just pull something out of their butt to plug a gap in their fable.

Man eventually finds dinosaur bones. Nothing about that in the Bible or in any of the writings of the time but they had to be there roaming around with man and destroyed at the same time everything else was OR be on Noah's Ark. Says 2 OF EVERY CREATURE was put on the ARK... and there the bones are now just sitting there. So they out of the blue just come up with... OK dinosaurs were on the Ark. WHAT!!!

Carbon dating. We carbon date provable items all the time. Things that we already know how old they are... very accurately.

We take a bowel that we know is from the time of Jesus... it carbon dates out exactly as expected back a few thousand years.

We take a dinosaurs bone and carbon date it... it comes back millions of years old.

The obvious creationist answer: Well carbon dating only works to about 6000 years back (conveniently the Biblical time line for how old the earth and everything on it is)????????????????????

Yep this is definitely the stuff we want taught to our future scientist. It goes well with the earth is flat and it's not gravity but the hand of God that keeps us from floating off into space. Good stuff!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

And the funniest things are when the creationist just pull something out of their butt to plug a gap in their fable.

Man eventually finds dinosaur bones. Nothing about that in the Bible or in any of the writings of the time but they had to be there roaming around with man and destroyed at the same time everything else was OR be on Noah's Ark. Says 2 OF EVERY CREATURE was put on the ARK... and there the bones are now just sitting there. So they out of the blue just come up with... OK dinosaurs were on the Ark. WHAT!!!

Carbon dating. We carbon date provable items all the time. Things that we already know how old they are... very accurately.

We take a bowel that we know is from the time of Jesus... it carbon dates out exactly as expected back a few thousand years.

We take a dinosaurs bone and carbon date it... it comes back millions of years old.

The obvious creationist answer: Well carbon dating only works to about 6000 years back (conveniently the Biblical time line for how old the earth and everything on it is)????????????????????

Yep this is definitely the stuff we want taught to our future scientist. It goes well with the earth is flat and it's not gravity but the hand of God that keeps us from floating off into space. Good stuff!

Science has finally figured out how Noah got all those animals on the boat though: Freeze Drying, yep, and when the flood was over Noah dumped them overboard into the receding waters by the bucket load, they reconstituted and here they are. Not the dinos, they were too big and the water receded before they got completely reconstituted, so they died. That's why elephants are so wrinkly, they didn't get fully reconstituted either, but enough to stay alive anyway. You can prove this too: you know how your fingers and toes get wrinkly in water? Well, elephants don't do that, when they are in water they soak up and get really plump like a fresh grape. Try it, get an elephant and soak it a long time, you'll see.

 

[top gun]

Science has finally figured out how Noah got all those animals on the boat though: Freeze Drying, yep, and when the flood was over Noah dumped them overboard into the receding waters by the bucket load, they reconstituted and here they are. Not the dinos, they were too big and the water receded before they got completely reconstituted, so they died. That's why elephants are so wrinkly, they didn't get fully reconstituted either, but enough to stay alive anyway. You can prove this too: you know how your fingers and toes get wrinkly in water? Well, elephants don't do that, when they are in water they soak up and get really plump like a fresh grape. Try it, get an elephant and soak it a long time, you'll see.

That's great! Good to see ya again my friend.

 

[Coyote]

....why the hedge? "based upon available evidence" its a fact simple as that.... end of story!

Not meant to be a hedge - I didn't word it correctly. Scientific theories are theories that best explain a phenomena based on all available evidence - when that evidence changes, theories change to accommodate it. Evidence is examine first...then the theory is build upon that evidence.

That's unlike the "theory" of "Creationism" which starts out as a fully fledged theory and then they scramble to peice together evidence to support it (and that "evidence" usually consists of as yet unanswered questions in evolution - negative evidence). That's anti-science.

The only "creationism" going on is that being conducted by Scientists researching genes, DNA, Stem Cell research and all that malarchy - guess they must be Gods then Huh!!

I could be a good creationist. I'm very creative. I have my own theory about all this but when I ever I state it they just point their fingers and laugh hysterically. Wonder why? Silly creationists don't believe in the Great Coyote.

....or even reality.

Ahhh C'mon...... its kindda neat in a way that people believe in alternative theories such as religious creationism; like love it makes the world go round and all that jazz. But for people to put it up as real and viable reason to disprove reality is just bizzaar.

There's lots of good creation stories...we could pick and choose

Just don't call it science...

 

[top gun]

Not meant to be a hedge - I didn't word it correctly. Scientific theories are theories that best explain a phenomena based on all available evidence - when that evidence changes, theories change to accommodate it. Evidence is examine first...then the theory is build upon that evidence.

That's unlike the "theory" of "Creationism" which starts out as a fully fledged theory and then they scramble to peice together evidence to support it (and that "evidence" usually consists of as yet unanswered questions in evolution - negative evidence). That's anti-science.



I could be a good creationist. I'm very creative. I have my own theory about all this but when I ever I state it they just point their fingers and laugh hysterically. Wonder why? Silly creationists don't believe in the Great Coyote.




There's lots of good creation stories...we could pick and choose

Just don't call it science...

Very rational thought process my friend. Hey one could even say God created evolution if they wanted to be spiritual and speculative about it.

But the science starts at evolution.

 

[Coyote]

Very rational thought process my friend. Hey one could even say God created evolution if they wanted to be spiritual and speculative about it.

But the science starts at evolution.

EXACTLY!!! There is no reason why evolution might not be God's tool for the development of life, and that is why I say religion - as in spirituality, need not be antagonistic to science. It's when you run up against fundamentalism that you run into serious problems with rantionality

 

[PLC1]

Very rational thought process my friend. Hey one could even say God created evolution if they wanted to be spiritual and speculative about it.

But the science starts at evolution.

It's quite possible that god did create evolution, or at least use it as a tool to create life. There is no scientific basis for that statement, of course, since creationism of any sort is by definition not in the realm of science, but of metaphisics.

It is interesting to see the mental gymnastics performed by those who seem to believe that a belief in god requires a denial of evolution.

Here's an idea to help out with those mental gymnastics and explain how the findings of modern science don't have to be denied after all:

All those animals from the seven continents (at least five of them unknown at the time of Noah) were gathered by the hand of God and one single cell of each preserved for the Ark. After the flood, God cloned all of the animals back to life, using the DNA that was preserved, ala Jurassic Park, then transported them (again by the hand of God) back to their native habitats on those unknown continents. Does that seem far fetched? Why, yes, yes it does, but not as far fetched as believing that the creation myths of the Bible are to be taken as literal historical fact at the expense of modern science.

 

[numinus]

I don't have the knowledge to understand singularities very well - but...higher mathamatics are structured so that they can be proven or disproven correct?

Correct.

Something that can neither be proven nor disproven can not be answered by the scientific method, so by definition - not science.

Proof isn't the same as evidence. There is proof that the square root of 2 is a real number (irrational number). It exists between the numbers 1 and 2. And yet, you cannot point to its actual position on a ruler, can you?

Same can be said about the infinite number of transcendental numbers (like pi and e). They are transcendental numbers whether you look at them in base 2, base 10 or base n number system.

Same can be said about creationism simply because the idea that the universe came from nothing is so counter-intuitive and abhorrent to logic.

I think there is overlap or maybe it's complimentary. For example if you are looking into the origin and nature of life (which isn't really evolution) - you can easily cross over into philosophy. I don't think anyone argues that...but to argue the literal biblical view of creation and a young earth as science doesn't even come close to the definition.

They are complimentary in that the operation of logic in all of them is the same.

 

[numinus]

Listen to what I'm saying.

What isn't debatable is Creation theory is religion pure and simple. And it's so silly The Creation Museum itself just randomly shoved dinosaurs into the story of the Ark because the whole comical attempt had so many holes in it. It is all totally made up poppy cock.

Just like I don't want someone teaching the reincarnation in Hinduism as how life is created and recycled... (I.E. that if you're bad in this life you may come back as a fly) as science. Creationism is just as groundless, fictional and expectedly unprovable.

Please don't make me repeat what I have just said.

Creationism is an umbrella term to describe philosophical cosmology. While I share your disdain regarding this young-earth nonsense, it simply isn't representative of what an academic understanding of creationism is all about.

Try reading the cosmological argument and its many variations. There is nothing religious about it, btw.

 

[numinus]

Very rational thought process my friend. Hey one could even say God created evolution if they wanted to be spiritual and speculative about it.

But the science starts at evolution.

Isn't that exactly the idea behind the FIRST CAUSE -- that the first cause is the cause of EVERYTHING IN EVERYTHING?

In the beginning, there was void.....

 

[arbitor]

amen brother. and plc1, that source you gave me was biased. the evidence was crap. three fossils huh? thats TOTALY enough evidence to prove millions of years of evolution. in millions of years the changes would be gradual and minor. you would see a greater gradual change that took place over millions of years. that evidence was pathetic and the people who made the site obviously thought in their minds from the begining that evolution is fact and undeniable. next time give me a NONbiased source. also i do have an understanding of evolution.


P.S. christians dont beleive the world is 6000 years old. that is a lie. most of us beleive it is around 20,000 years old. dont put words in our mouths.