Originally posted by KellyJay"teaching" creationism in a science class has one goal: to discredit evolution, which by definition makes it anti science. Creationists who push for creation to be taught in a science class would drop any pretense of interest in science if they actually were able to run evolution out of town. They would drop the whole issue and go on to try to expand their outmoded and pathetic ideas into every angle of life, just like the Taliban.
I agree with you that creation is not science and science class is not
the place for it to be taught; however, anti-science I'm not sure what
that means, but if it is to question the results of science I'd say there
isn't any such thing as anti-science, because science is all about
questioning the results and making sure they are right, to look at
things every which way. If you refuse to do that you do not have
science you have dogma.
Kelly
That is the ultimate goal, a christian taliban which is about as anti science as you can get. There is no such thing as fundamentalist science, it's an oxymoron.
Originally posted by KellyJayAnti-science is to deny evolution without giving a better explanation of what we actually are observing.
I agree with you that creation is not science and science class is not
the place for it to be taught; however, anti-science I'm not sure what
that means, but if it is to question the results of science I'd say there
isn't any such thing as anti-science, because science is all about
questioning the results and making sure they are right, to look at
things every which way. If you refuse to do that you do not have
science you have dogma.
Kelly
Anti-science is to deny the BigBang theory without giving a better explanation of what we actually are observing.
Anti-science is to deny a round earth without giving a better explanation of what we actually are observing.
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't believe I am - You stated "nothing tuoches it" I believe you were stating creation is the best explanation for the start of all things , including life. You also asked for a explanation grounded in science.
You know you are changing the subject correct, we would be moving
from the creation of all things to the start of life?
Kelly
Abiogenesis has a few science theories for how life may have first got going......
So my two questions still stand.
Do you believe there is zero evidence for life coming from non life?
Do you have more evidenve in favour of life being created?
They are yes no questions, but if you don't want to answer them, please just say so.
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm not abdicating teaching creation in science class, I have never
"teaching" creationism in a science class has one goal: to discredit evolution, which by definition makes it anti science. Creationists who push for creation to be taught in a science class would drop any pretense of interest in science if they actually were able to run evolution out of town. They would drop the whole issue and go on to try to expand their ...[text shortened]... science as you can get. There is no such thing as fundamentalist science, it's an oxymoron.
abdicated teaching creation in science class. So why am I in the
middle of a discussion where everyone is now very concern about
someone else wants creation taught in science class?
Can we limit our discussion to those things you bring up and
support or those things I bring up and support? I’m again NOT
for teaching creation in science class and if someone is doing
that let them defend that stance.
I’m not apposed to questioning evolution if it needs to be, it isn’t
a sacred cow where no one is supposed to voice questions is it?
If that is true I’d say it has become dogma and data and logic no
longer have anything to do with evolution within scientific circles
where questions and concerns cannot be voiced.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by timebombtedNothing does touch it; creation is the beginning of all things in
I don't believe I am - You stated "nothing tuoches it" I believe you were stating creation is the best explanation for the start of all things , including life. You also asked for a explanation grounded in science.
Abiogenesis has a few science theories for how life may have first got going......
So my two questions still stand.
Do you believe t ...[text shortened]... ted?
They are yes no questions, but if you don't want to answer them, please just say so.
our universe, where abiogenesis supposedly the process which
led to life, then we get the evolution of life. Again not the same
thing, you must have material to work with to get to the
formation of life in abiogenesis then evolution. Where again does
the material come from, it isn’t a minor detail, but one not
discussed at length without jumping through hoops like no time,
then time, everything not from nothing/something, straight lines
that starts and ends in the same place and so on. Creation speaks
to the start of all things and processes, the origin of it all is an
eternal God if you stick to the biblical creation story.
No, I do not believe in we can go from non-living material and get
life that will change into the variety we see today through small tiny
changes of evolution. Evidence again is all we see in the universe so
the evidence is the same, it is how it is described that matters, are our
descriptions of it correct reflections of reality or not?
Kelly
Originally posted by FabianFnasOkay
Anti-science is to deny evolution without giving a better explanation of what we actually are observing.
Anti-science is to deny the BigBang theory without giving a better explanation of what we actually are observing.
Anti-science is to deny a round earth without giving a better explanation of what we actually are observing.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAbdicating? Like royalty giving up their title? Do you mean 'advocating'?
I'm not abdicating teaching creation in science class, I have never
abdicated teaching creation in science class. So why am I in the
middle of a discussion where everyone is now very concern about
someone else wants creation taught in science class?
Can we limit our discussion to those things you bring up and
support or those things I bring up and su ...[text shortened]... with evolution within scientific circles
where questions and concerns cannot be voiced.
Kelly
So by that I assume you mean to keep religion in church and not spread it to schools? I hope that's what you mean. It is a huge problem in the US that some fundies are trying to overthrow the educational system, and it is literally making us the laughing stock of the world, our already bad educational system going even more nutsoid.
Originally posted by sonhouse🙂 yep brain fart my part. advocation 🙂
Abdicating? Like royalty giving up their title? Do you mean 'advocating'?
So by that I assume you mean to keep religion in church and not spread it to schools? I hope that's what you mean. It is a huge problem in the US that some fundies are trying to overthrow the educational system, and it is literally making us the laughing stock of the world, our already bad educational system going even more nutsoid.
Originally posted by sonhouseI'd be willing to bet if you honestly believed something that others
Abdicating? Like royalty giving up their title? Do you mean 'advocating'?
So by that I assume you mean to keep religion in church and not spread it to schools? I hope that's what you mean. It is a huge problem in the US that some fundies are trying to overthrow the educational system, and it is literally making us the laughing stock of the world, our already bad educational system going even more nutsoid.
belittled you'd stand up for it. I understand those that do push that,
but I do not agree with them on that point. I more than make up for
it on the stances I do take. 🙂
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI think you are saying you agree that creationism should not be taught in science class along side of evolution which is good, but it sounds like you would still like to rid the world of the ugly head of evoltion anyway, is that accurate? I don't care about that as long as you leave little kids out of it, let the adults fight it out in court and such where I think reason will win out and good luck with your effort, which I think destined for failure. The latest push to get creationism in schools is the freedom of expression card, they gave up on pushing creation and ID, now calling it freedom of expression, a lot harder to reject legally so you can take whatever pleasure you derive from that. I think we will still win out over creationism though.
I'd be willing to bet if you honestly believed something that others
belittled you'd stand up for it. I understand those that do push that,
but I do not agree with them on that point. I more than make up for
it on the stances I do take. 🙂
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI was referring to your opinion on "the creation of life" vs abiogenesis. (not universe formation).
Nothing does touch it; creation is the beginning of all things in
our universe, where abiogenesis supposedly the process which
led to life, then we get the evolution of life. Again not the same
thing, you must have [b]material to work with to get to the
formation of life in abiogenesis then evolution. Where again does
the material come from, it isn ...[text shortened]... escribed that matters, are our
descriptions of it correct reflections of reality or not?
Kelly[/b]
OK, so it just comes back to your faith then, not an evidence based decision. Thats fine.
Ps
I have no trouble understanding the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, not sure why you think I'm confusing the two?
Originally posted by KellyJayInterpretation of the evidence is what counts, it has to be logical and with reason, thats the only way we will get close to reality.
Nothing does touch it; creation is the beginning of all things in
our universe, where abiogenesis supposedly the process which
led to life, then we get the evolution of life. Again not the same
thing, you must have [b]material to work with to get to the
formation of life in abiogenesis then evolution. Where again does
the material come from, it isn ...[text shortened]... escribed that matters, are our
descriptions of it correct reflections of reality or not?
Kelly[/b]
What logic and reason do you have to conclude life was created / designed? The answer to this is probably still the magically post we're all still waiting for......
Again, i have no problem waiting, please take your time.
Originally posted by timebombtedWhy are you ignoring my point? I gave you a solid answer which you
I was referring to your opinion on "the creation of life" vs abiogenesis. (not universe formation).
OK, so it just comes back to your faith then, not an evidence based decision. Thats fine.
Ps
I have no trouble understanding the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, not sure why you think I'm confusing the two?
did not even respond to.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseI believe evolution occurs! I do not believe it has occured as much
I think you are saying you agree that creationism should not be taught in science class along side of evolution which is good, but it sounds like you would still like to rid the world of the ugly head of evoltion anyway, is that accurate? I don't care about that as long as you leave little kids out of it, let the adults fight it out in court and such where ...[text shortened]... whatever pleasure you derive from that. I think we will still win out over creationism though.
as many people think.
Kelly