Creationism in Schools?

[Hera Ledro]

A topic like this, dying? I'll not hear of it!

In effect, Jquestionmark has put forth a very controversial topic: is it right to instruct children in religious historical interpretation, or only in scientific historical interpretation?

I tend to lean to a more scientific side, but I'll not disagree that there should be education on creationism in religious courses, but only in very succinct, concise, and cautious methods. It must be taught such that it is not professed to be 'true' any more than evolution is, for both are theories from the mystical and scientific aspects of humanity, respectively. That being said, we cannot educate solely on Christian values; the Western world is supposed to be promoting variety in cultures and equality among all (notice I said supposed to, but that's a debate for another day), so it stands to reason that if they instruct students in the theories of Christian creationism they must also instruct them in non-Christian religious theories on the creation of the world and life.

Basically, I agree that creationism is a subject our children should learn, but only as part of religion-based classes that treat all cultures equally. I do believe that evolution must be taught as an example of the scientific method in its 'successful' step of theorizing and as an example of a topic which is still undergoing the scientific process. Evolution is more plausible than creationism in the scientific view, but equally plausible from a mystical point of view.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Basically, I agree that creationism is a subject our children should learn, but only as part of religion-based classes that treat all cultures equally.

As you mentioned, there's a bunch of issues with that because our culture is predisposed to what we're familiar with.

In a mythology class I took, the teacher had to stress repeatedly that referring to Christianity's myths or talking about Christianity and, say, Norse mythology on the same level wasn't an insult or claiming that they were false. There are quite a lot of people who would be upset about Christianity and Norse mythology being taught as equally valid, because in our culture there's this idea that polytheistic religions are somehow more primitive and less possible (which I find rather offensive).

but equally plausible from a mystical point of view.

Which is why I agree it should remain in religion courses; Creationism doesn't hold up in science and so it shouldn't be taught in a science class. And I'd argue that the education should also include "This is what some people believe" when discussing religions rather than "This might be possible".

 

[Sum1sgruj]

It must be taught such that it is not professed to be 'true' any more than evolution is, for both are theories from the mystical and scientific aspects of humanity, respectively.

Exactly, Hera, exactly. Evolution is theory and should not be put above anything else

But historical and creationist aspects should be taught as evolution is taught, as it is no more evident.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will reach public schools. There is too much controversy, however vain, that will keep it from happening. People are panicky about such things, thinking it's going to warp minds or something of the sort. It's not so much the students disagreeing as it is parents and the like. And in America, you can be sure some douche is going to Supreme Court the idea. lmao

 

[Jquestionmark]

Exactly, Hera, exactly. Evolution is theory and should not be put above anything else

Well, theories are supported by evidence, so I don't know that it has the same place as myth (the flying pasta monsters come to mind).

But historical and creationist aspects should be taught as evolution is taught, as it is no more evident.

I disagree fully. Creationism should be taught as a myth (because it is), not a theory. Theories have evidence, myths are ideas constructed by religion. These are very different things, and shouldn't be treated as the same.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will reach public schools. There is too much controversy, however vain, that will keep it from happening. People are panicky about such things, thinking it's going to warp minds or something of the sort. It's not so much the students disagreeing as it is parents and the like. And in America, you can be sure some douche is going to Supreme Court the idea. lmao

Like I said, in a religious studies class, creationism is cool. But it's not cool to say that myths are the same as theories and teach them together. Unless you want to teach all of the creation myths of all of the religions in science class. And point out that they're myths, not theories (you don't have to say that theories are better, just point out that they're supported by evidence and myths are not).

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Spoken like a true atheist. Assuming there is no god is a belief in itself, ironically. Evolution is a theory by scientists who make a career out of getting desirable results.
Putting all this trust into scientists who work exactly as a lawyer or any other subject of study/career simply because it's science.
If schools should teach creationism as myth, than they should also outline the fact that evolution is far-fetched theory. There are so many holes and patches in the theory it makes you wonder why it is so popular.
We cannot construct a single cell organism in the most controlled, sophisticated lab in the world. So how did it occur naturally? Until this can be answered, you have no right to deem creationism a myth. In fact, nothing but the basics of evolution should be taught in schools, if creationism cannot be taught.

 

[Hera Ledro]

In this last I heartily disagree; I'll not deny that there are scientists out there who are slimy and stubborn, but any scientist worth their salt knows that practical science isn't perfect and it is therefore possible to make mistakes. What makes science more credible than religion is that it appeals to the senses that all humans share in common: sight, sound, touch, etc. Evolution has been established as a highly plausible theory on the grounds of sensory perception through repeated studies and workings of the scientific method.

If schools should teach creationism as myth, than they should also outline the fact that evolution is far-fetched theory. There are so many holes and patches in the theory it makes you wonder why it is so popular.

If you want to outline holes in theories then you need look no further than the Christian concept of creation for one of the most 'hol(e)y' theories, for it is based in experiences that not all people are prone to and are experienced by only a select type of person. Creationism in the Christian sense has basically one and only one claim: that God created the universe and all life in it. It varies between sects on whether the universe he created is the exact same as the one we experience now or whether it has changed over the eons into our current world. Evolution has a different base claim: if it is true that there are fundamental similarities between creatures in different parts of the world then it is also plausible that these creatures 'evolved' from a common ancestor. This claim is incredibly more complex than any claim Christianity makes for creation. Evolution is an attempt to explain our current forms and the progress and process of life on our planet.

Some examples that strongly contradict Christian creationism are the dinosaur fossils found all over the world. Nowhere are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible, yet studies have shown that dinosaurs and birds have a very strong link. And if we wish to discard that, then how can we account for the similarities in skeletal structure between apparently different animals. As an example of this, the bi-pedal human skeleton has a similar structure to the quadrupedal dog. My point here is this: that Evolution can account for things that Creationism skips over and assumes to be trivial.

As I have already stated, Evolution is an (ongoing) attempt to explain life on the planet. Creationism does not explain our world; it accounts for its origins, but goes into little else. In our post-modern culture, therefore, it seems rather reasonable that the vast majority of Western culture (and perhaps Eastern as well, though I've no experience to base that off of) turns to evolution for its answers to the world - to the theory which tries to answer "why" over more than just a single instant in or brief span of time.

To that end I will reiterate and clarify my previous point: both Evolution and Creationism are theories, however Creationism is a theory that varies between cultures and thus loses credibility when faced with evolution, a theory whose appeal to sensory perception transcends all cultures and uses abilities that we all possess (rather than a select few within a population). Thus I feel Evolution is appropriately taught in a science class - where the scientific method and its methodology are taught - and Creation is best taught in a class where it is appropriately recognized as a theory grounded only in religion, a.k.a. a religious myth.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Spoken like a true atheist.

What? Spoken like someone who understands the difference between the words myth and theory, maybe. Also, stop saying I'm an atheist. I've yet to say what my beliefs are, and it's really offensive when you attempt to apply labels to me when you're unaware of my beliefs. You can try addressing what I said instead of calling me labels.

Also, even if I was an atheist, it doesn't make anything I've said wrong. Try debating, not name-calling.

Assuming there is no god is a belief in itself, ironically.

I never assumed that. I just pointed out that the bible is a work of myth. Same as the Eddas. Same as Dianetics. Same as Russell's Teapot. Same as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Same as The Invisible Pink Unicorn. Same as the Koran. If you have a reason that those things are myth and creationism isn't, please tell us. But without that, we'll treat creationism the same as all of the other myths I mentioned.

Evolution is a theory by scientists who make a career out of getting desirable results.

Actually, science is about finding accurate information, not desirable results. You might be a little confused on how science actually works. I believe someone posted a link to some books on the scientific method and the workings of science; if you like, I can find the links for you so you can look into what really goes on in the scientific community.

Also, the simple fact that science is a peer-reviewed field helps avoid the issue of scientists claiming what they feel like and not what is accurate. Just so you know.

Putting all this trust into scientists who work exactly as a lawyer or any other subject of study/career simply because it's science.

Not to complain about your writing, but I literally cannot decipher what this sentence means or is meant to mean. Could you try again?

If schools should teach creationism as myth, than they should also outline the fact that evolution is far-fetched theory.

Regardless of your claim that evolution is far-fetched, you are agreeing here that evolution is a theory.

But, more importantly, it's not far-fetched, and your attempts to show it to be so in the past were dismantled. It's actually a very well supported theory that has been constantly affirmed by evidence.

There are so many holes and patches in the theory it makes you wonder why it is so popular.

You can't point out any holes in it (I've seen you try before), and it's popular because it's accurate and well supported.

We cannot construct a single cell organism in the most controlled, sophisticated lab in the world.

This has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with the origins of life. I don't understand why you're mentioning it here, in this thread that talks about creationism and evolutionary theory being taught in schools.

So how did it occur naturally?

We don't know. But even if we did, evolution wouldn't address it, because evolutionary theory has nothing to do with how life occurred.

Until this can be answered, you have no right to deem creationism a myth.

Actually, I do have a right. Creationism is a myth (by definition), being a religious story and irrelevant to fact, science, or evidence. Evolution, on the other hand, is a theory, supported by fact, science, and evidence.

Answering that question has nothing to do with evolution, and pretending it does will not make for a good argument.

In fact, nothing but the basics of evolution should be taught in schools, if creationism cannot be taught.

I don't know what you mean by "basics of evolution," but since creationism is an unsupported story and evolution is a well supported theory, I think it's safe to say that only one of them belongs in a science class. Hint: not creationism.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

What? Spoken like someone who understands the difference between the words myth and theory, maybe. Also, stop saying I'm an atheist. I've yet to say what my beliefs are, and it's really offensive when you attempt to apply labels to me when you're unaware of my beliefs. You can try addressing what I said instead of calling me labels.

Nothing in this thread or any others have indicated you otherwise. In fact, the shallowness of your intuition on agnosticism highlighted the idea.

I never assumed that. I just pointed out that the bible is a work of myth. Same as the Eddas. Same as Dianetics. Same as Russell's Teapot. Same as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Same as The Invisible Pink Unicorn. Same as the Koran. If you have a reason that those things are myth and creationism isn't, please tell us. But without that, we'll treat creationism the same as all of the other myths I mentioned.

Well your reasoning of calling it a myth is to dissuade it's likeness of being real. You can say what you want, but it's true nonetheless.

Actually, science is about finding accurate information, not desirable results. You might be a little confused on how science actually works. I believe someone posted a link to some books on the scientific method and the workings of science; if you like, I can find the links for you so you can look into what really goes on in the scientific community.

Yeah, tell that to the 1000's scientists who are theists.

Also, the simple fact that science is a peer-reviewed field helps avoid the issue of scientists claiming what they feel like and not what is accurate. Just so you know.

It also promotes desirable results.

Not to complain about your writing, but I literally cannot decipher what this sentence means or is meant to mean. Could you try again?

Whatever makes a dollar. That was the meaning of statement.

Regardless of your claim that evolution is far-fetched, you are agreeing here that evolution is a theory.

But, more importantly, it's not far-fetched, and your attempts to show it to be so in the past were dismantled. It's actually a very well supported theory that has been constantly affirmed by evidence.

Some of it is supported by the little bit of evidence that is there, but that's about it. I have exemplified this many of times.

You can't point out any holes in it (I've seen you try before), and it's popular because it's accurate and well supported.

See above. It's popular because it's interesting, nothing more. Most people who like the idea couldn't tell ass from elbow about the logic within it. And it's no secret that there are holes and literally millions of gaps in the fossil record. It is all brought together by far-fetched theory and constant patching to keep from being false. The doomsday comet is probably the most famous, but definitely not the most damning one.

This has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with the origins of life. I don't understand why you're mentioning it here, in this thread that talks about creationism and evolutionary theory being taught in schools.

I am aware of what this thread is. This is necessary to bring out why evolution should not be put over creationism. Evolution stretching a billion years cannot possibly be true if there is no natural way of life being made. Unless of course you believe that a god made this earth over a billion years ago.

I only state that last sentence because I know you'll come on here with a ridiculous technical inquiry.

Actually, I do have a right. Creationism is a myth (by definition), being a religious story and irrelevant to fact, science, or evidence. Evolution, on the other hand, is a theory, supported by fact, science, and evidence.

Science cannot prove where this reality came from. Only theory will ever grace the conception.
Also, Creationism is actually very educated and worthwhile to study upon. It brings out a lot of inconsistencies with science.
This alone should be reason enough to put it in a classroom, if only for philosophical teaching.

I don't know what you mean by "basics of evolution,"

How and why we evolve. Nothing about millions of years of evolutionary intrigue. See all statements above.

The point is, creationism should be taught on a philosophical basis in school. The reason why it likely will not happen is because of controversy.

Which is ironic, if you ask me.

 

[Tmoo]

i agree with the OP. religious studies should be a mandatory class. they are too relevant to the world to not be included. this isn't in favor of religion or secularism, but to inform the youth so they're armed with the knowledge needed to make rational, informed decisions not swayed by religious/political bias in the future. if that's done, there just might be less intolerance among religions in the coming decades.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Nothing in this thread or any others have indicated you otherwise. In fact, the shallowness of your intuition on agnosticism highlighted the idea.

"Shallowness of {my} intuition?" You mean my ability to read various sources? Just because you made up your own definition for agnosticism and I refuse to use it and instead point out how it contradicts other definitions that are commonly accepted doesn't mean my intuition is shallow. You seem a bit confused about this.

Calling something myth requires evidence. Ra, the Egyptian god, was the sun. We know the sun is not a god. Myth.

We don't know the sun is not a god. How would we know that? It's an unfalsifiable claim, just like creationism. That's part of why both are classed as myths. The other part being that they are both religious stories, and not theories based on evidence.

Yeah, tell that to the 1000's scientists who are theists.

This response makes no sense. They already know how science works. You're the one that needs to look into it and try to understand it.

It also promotes desirable results.

How? How does checking other people's work to make sure it is accurate promote desirable results (unless you mean that being accurate is a desirable result, which is definitely true)?

This is a conspiracy theory, and not how science actually works.

Whatever makes a dollar. That was the meaning of statement.

Evolutionary theory doesn't make money - it just investigates how evolution occurred.

Some of it is supported by the little bit of evidence that is there, but that's about it. I have exemplified this many of times.

No, you haven't. Not even a little. You spouted a large amount of inaccurate information and were shown to be mistaken.

See above. It's popular because it's interesting, nothing more. Most people who like the idea couldn't tell ass from elbow about the logic within it. And it's no secret that there are holes and literally millions of gaps in the fossil record. It is all brought together by far-fetched theory and constant patching to keep from being false. The doomsday comet is probably the most famous, but definitely not the most damning one.

The gaps in the fossil record don't mean anything against evolutionary theory. This has already been explained to you. The point that arises with the fossil record is: everything we find supports evolution. Ill say that again: it only serves to support evolution. That we don't have every single creature of every single species in every single generation does nothing to hurt evolution. What we have found only supports evolution, and if you think otherwise, then you aren't talking about evolution, you're just very confused.

I'm assuming the "doomsday comet" is a dinosaur extinction reference. How they became extinct doesn't really matter. How they evolved and how things evolved after the extinction incident only supports evolution. Evolutionary theory is a theory about how things evolve - it does not cover every instant that impacted life on this planet through its entire history. Evolution doesn't explain (or try to explain) natural disasters. That wouldn't make any sense. It's not a theory about that.

I am aware of what this thread is. This is necessary to bring out why evolution should not be put over creationism. Evolution stretching a billion years cannot possibly be true if there is no natural way of life being made. Unless of course you believe that a god made this earth over a billion years ago.

Here is where you are completely wrong: "Evolution stretching a billion years cannot possibly be true if there is no natural way of life being made." Life could be made by any mechanism (such as a flying spaghetti monster), and evolution would still be a valid theory. The thing is, there's good evidence showing the age of the earth and the organisms that have been on it, and evolution has had plenty of time to happen. If a god or a monster or a natural process made life on this planet does not matter to evolutionary theory - it is only about how creatures that already exist have evolved. Where life came from is 100% irrelevant to evolutionary theory.

Unless you're a young earth creationist. Most people have already abandoned the idea that the universe is only 6000 years old because it contradicts the evidence that exists in reality. Some people are still into that idea/myth, so to each their own.

I only state that last sentence because I know you'll come on here with a ridiculous technical inquiry.

There's nothing technical about what I'm saying. Evidence supports the earth being more than 6000 years old. Only a work of myth/fiction supports the idea that the earth is only 6000 years old. It's a pretty cut and dry situation.

Science cannot prove where this reality came from. Only theory will ever grace the conception.

Theories are part of science. These two sentences contradict each other.

And either way, it still has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Save it for somewhere else - we're talking about evolution here, not how reality came to be.

Also, Creationism is actually very educated and worthwhile to study upon.

It is a sad attempt to prove mythology true. There's nothing educated about it. If you like, I can explain how a flying spaghetti monster made the universe, this world, and all the life on this world, and it will be equally valid and "educated" to creationism.

It brings out a lot of inconsistencies with science.

That source you pointed us to once upon a time lied a lot about science. Is that what you mean by "brings out a lot of inconsistencies?" Do you mean that it is just lying?

This alone should be reason enough to put it in a classroom, if only for philosophical teaching.

Then put it in a philosophy class, where it can lie all it wants. Creationism is not science, not scientific theory, and therefor has no place in a science class.

How and why we evolve. Nothing about millions of years of evolutionary intrigue. See all statements above.

The span of time it has happened over is well supported by evidence, unlike creationism, which has no evidence (since it's an unfalsifiable myth, like all other myths). That is why they teach it: because it is supported by evidence.

The point is, creationism should be taught on a philosophical basis in school. The reason why it likely will not happen is because of controversy.

The reason we should hope it never happens is because it is religious myth and teaching it to children is religious indoctrination, something schools should not be supporting.

Which is ironic, if you ask me.

There's no irony in thinking it's a good idea to try to force religious indoctrination on children. That's just disturbing.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

That source you pointed us to once upon a time lied a lot about science. Is that what you mean by "brings out a lot of inconsistencies?" Do you mean that it is just lying?

There was nothing fiction about it, you just want it to be a lie. You're willing to take the word of a scientist over a clear-cut, rational truth.

In the source, it stated that carbon-14, for example, is created in the atmosphere, not one's body. There is no way of knowing how old the carbon-14 was before it was absorbed into the body. Furthermore, c-14 decays into nitrogen-14, which is in the atmosphere just as c-14. This renders carbon-dating obsolete altogether.

Isotopes were tested with dating techniques at St. Helens lava dome with a known age of 10 years. This was a test to see how accurate the technique was. The results came back with an age between 340,000-2.8 million years old. This was the result of igneous rock.
Fossil-bearing rock is sedimentary, and cannot be directly dated period. It must be within an igneous stratum, and even then, look at the results.

Inconsistencies. Mind you this does not prove the age of the Earth is only 6000 years old, but it does show that it has yet to be disproven. What scientists do is re-date and re-date until they have satisfactory results. This is done just to assure that they can't be proven wrong, and is the 'evidence' that supports their claims.

This is no conspiracy theory. In fact, this needs to be in a science book, if not in a creationist class.
Unfortunately, that won't happen because of the incredible general consensus.

I don't know how you are getting the idea that I was 'corrected' and such on the other thread bearing this subject, but it's two clicks away if you need to refresh your memory.

If creationism was taught in schools, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Everyone gets a course in science, not the contrary, and therefore people assume science is so much more than it is.
I wish there was such a class, just so people could get off these stubborn ideas of science. Evolution, as I said, is true in the idea that we evolve. The rest is ridiculous and if people complain about creationism in schools, they should also be complaining about the depths of evolution.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

In the source, it stated that carbon-14, for example, is created in the atmosphere, not one's body. There is no way of knowing how old the carbon-14 was before it was absorbed into the body. Furthermore, c-14 decays into nitrogen-14, which is in the atmosphere just as c-14. This renders carbon-dating obsolete altogether.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how c-14 dating works. I will explain how it works for you.

C-14 is formed in the atmosphere, yes, and then it is absorbed into plants through respiration and into animals through eating. The amount of c-14 stays constant throughout the lifespan of a creature. All living things contain the same percentage of c-14. When a creature dies, it no longer takes in c-14 and it begins to decay. The amount of c-14 left is compared to the amount of c-12 in the sample. C-12 is stable, which means it does not decay, and is the constant that c-14 is checked against. The c-14 and c-12 are what's looked at, the n-14 is completely irrelevant. There is a very small margin of error, which is why the date of something is a range instead of a specific year.

Your source doesn't understand c-14 dating and those questions it asked have been answered for a long damn time.

Isotopes were tested with dating techniques at St. Helens lava dome with a known age of 10 years. This was a test to see how accurate the technique was. The results came back with an age between 340,000-2.8 million years old. This was the result of igneous rock.

I hate this stupid example. It's another instance of a misunderstanding of how something works being lauded as an example of why it doesn't work. Let me explain:

The potassium-argon dating they used requires that the source be at least 10,000 years old. In addition, the doctor that performed the experiment, Dr. Austin, had equipment that was only sensitive to test samples of roughly 2 million years old or older. Testing something that was only 6 years old was completely meaningless. Dr. Austin's claim was that the presence of phenocrysts was what gave the inflated number and isn't accounted for in the dating technique, which is why dating techniques are inaccurate (when it was really a terrible application of the dating and shitty equipment). However, phenocrysts are taken into account in potassium-argon dating and you never only use one form of dating - that would be stupid. You cross reference multiple dating techniques to reach the most accurate conclusion. Dr. Austin deliberately misrepresented the data and formed a terrible experiment.

You've made a lot of assertions that scientists are essentially con-men and that they make things up. Well, Dr. Austin is an example of just such a scientist. He was forced to sensationalize his findings and print them in popular magazines when every other scientist that responded shot his terrible findings to pieces. Once again, peer-review triumphs. The failing was in the media and misinformed laymen, like you, who continue to believe that the findings of Dr. Austin were accurate and anything resembling proper science.

This is no conspiracy theory. In fact, this needs to be in a science book, if not in a creationist class.

That example and how dating works is in science books, specifically geology books, if you cared to read them. But you obviously have not, otherwise you wouldn't be saying what you're saying. These things are taught, you simply haven't been taught them.

If creationism was taught in schools, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

You're correct there. There'd be nobody arguing because we'd all be ignorant and brainwashed.Well, most of us. Science is taught in schools and yet some people slip through the cracks and become Creationists.What a waste of human potential.

Evolution, as I said, is true in the idea that we evolve.

That's all that the theory of evolution covers so thanks for agreeing that it's correct!

Despite the poor example you set, Sum1sgruj, I do believe that a theist can be a proper and well-informed scientist. About half of my science teachers and professors have been theists, actually. They believed in god, but they also understood science. There's no reason the two have to conflict until you get into the silly notions of Creationism. Their beliefs varied, but I had the utmost respect for all of them.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Yeah, that's completely untrue. I left out the fact that c-14 is actually nitrogen-14 before the sun's radiation transforms it, and n-14 is much more abundant, which therefore omits any knowing what and what isn't viable for testing inside a fossil.
Just to see how willing you all are towards the truth

The incident at St. Helens was babysitted by creationists during their testing. There is also one at a university regarding a tyrannosaur fossil. And many more instances, but the fact remains that if you date something and it comes back 300 years old, then re-date and it comes back a million years old, you have concluded nothing.
The fact that something has to be a certain age to date is a mockery to science, as the only thing they have done switch up variables in the dating technique to have more desirable results.

Accordingly, everything else you posted is obsolete.

It should be taught in schools, as it being theory needs to be highlighted more. It is ridiculously mislead to have some amazing truth or something.

I made no reference to scientists being con-men. I simply stated that the field is cut-throat. If you come up with some ridiculous conclusion, whether it's true or not, your career goes tumbling. Just because it's science doesn't mean it's anything different than criminal law, medicine, etc.

It's called reality. I'm really tired of these wishful thoughts of the world being so intriguingly perfect. You need to open your eyes, bro.

 

[M1ghty Mous3]

I don't see anything wrong with it.

Their are Christian schools, and if you don't ant your kid learning about creationism, put then in a christian school.

OR...BETTER YET. BAN ALL RELIGIONS FROM BEING TAUGHT ON SCHOOL GROUNDS ALL TOGETHER.

If you wanna learn about Jesus, cool. Do it on your own time though.

You do not got to school to learn about how David killed a cyclops. You go to school to learn about science, math, geography, and other stuff.

 

[der Astronom]

It should be taught in schools, as it being theory needs to be highlighted more. It is ridiculously mislead to have some amazing truth or something.

It's not even a theory (we're talking about creationism, right?); in order for it to classify as a scientific theory, it would have to have at least some evidence backing it up and have been subjected to enough peer review; and while it probably has been subjected to peer review (and failed horribly, I might add), there's no evidence for creationism, so it's not even a scientific theory. That it has to have some sort of amazing truth is a strawman; what we are asking for here is that there exists some evidence for it that is demonstrable to other people who usually happen to be scientists, and who can conduct their own research of the same thing. And if they can do this and arrive at the same results, then there probably is at least some truth to it--is it 100% true? Probably not, but anyone expecting 100% certainty from a scientific finding is being absurd.
But creationism fails even this basic test; none of the things asserted by creationism are supported by even a shred of evidence. You could not call any of the results you get from this true, and not with any real degree of certainty.
And that's basically why it's got no place in science.

I made no reference to scientists being con-men. I simply stated that the field is cut-throat. If you come up with some ridiculous conclusion, whether it's true or not, your career goes tumbling. Just because it's science doesn't mean it's anything different than criminal law, medicine, etc.

If a conclusion is labeled ridiculous, how would you know if it's true or not?

It's called reality. I'm really tired of these wishful thoughts of the world being so intriguingly perfect. You need to open your eyes, bro.

You're the one that needs to open your eyes. You've misunderstood the way science works completely. Science does not operate on the idea of perfection; it operates as a means of finding out what is true based on what we can observe and see. It's the best thing we have next to perfect knowledge; because we can't obtain such knowledge, the best thing we can do is to discover it through our own finite means of observing and researching things. If it's sometimes wrong, it's not as if we didn't expect it. No scientist worth his salt would ever claim 100% certainty over any of his scientific discoveries.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Yeah, that's completely untrue. I left out the fact that c-14 is actually nitrogen-14 before the sun's radiation transforms it, and n-14 is much more abundant, which therefore omits any knowing what and what isn't viable for testing inside a fossil.
Just to see how willing you all are towards the truth

This is just comedic. Please, read a real source on carbon dating.

The incident at St. Helens was babysitted by creationists during their testing. There is also one at a university regarding a tyrannosaur fossil. And many more instances, but the fact remains that if you date something and it comes back 300 years old, then re-date and it comes back a million years old, you have concluded nothing.

I'm assuming you're referring to some specific instance here. Could you explain what it is? I'm not familiar with these things, just the many times that dating techniques have been shown to be reliable. If you could reference/provide links I'd appreciate it (you know, so then I could know that you're not just making it up).

The fact that something has to be a certain age to date is a mockery to science, as the only thing they have done switch up variables in the dating technique to have more desirable results.

You have evidence for this conspiracy theory? Are you hanging out in science labs watching them falsify data? I guess that's why other scientists are able to confirm the results: because they're all part of the scientific mastermind conspiracy to only tell us what they want us to believe.

Accordingly, everything else you posted is obsolete.

Even if dating techniques were unreliable, that does not make the bible reliable. Evolution would still be valid, the speed it happens at would just have to be re-assessed (in fact, the speed it happens at is still under study. there's a debate between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium going on even now).

It should be taught in schools, as it being theory needs to be highlighted more. It is ridiculously mislead to have some amazing truth or something.

We're all aware that evolutionary theory is a theory. There's no absolutes to it. You're jumping to quite the conclusion thinking that many people assume it to be a truth. Those people are just as confused as you about how science works.

I made no reference to scientists being con-men. I simply stated that the field is cut-throat. If you come up with some ridiculous conclusion, whether it's true or not, your career goes tumbling. Just because it's science doesn't mean it's anything different than criminal law, medicine, etc.

Actually, you're constantly implying that they are promoting incorrect information because it will make them money. What do you think con-men do?

Regardless, there's a reason that people like the man who created the source you promote aren't included in peer-reviewed journals: it's not because their conclusions are ridiculous, it's because they are incorrect and unrepeatable.

It's called reality. I'm really tired of these wishful thoughts of the world being so intriguingly perfect. You need to open your eyes, bro.

Perfect? The world is terribly fucked up, and science has incredible amounts of things that it has yet to develop good theories on (not evolution, though; that one is well covered). You need to stop assuming what other people think.

Also, people don't want creationism in their schools because it is religion, not science. You agree time and again the evolution is a theory (even if you make the incorrect claim that it's far-fetched), but there's no information pointing to creationism being other than myth. If creationism isn't myth, what about every other religious creation story?

You know what, time for me to be absurd: screw creationism, schools need to be teaching the Norse creation myth alongside evolution. We need schools teaching about the first world to exist, Muspel, and how its interaction with Niflheim created the frost giant Ymir. Not only does this myth make as much sense as creationism, it doesn't set a specific timeline, and as a result can actually get along with reliable information like carbon dating and evolution (which I guess means it makes more sense than creationism, since it doesn't conflict reality). So lets all forget creationism. Just because it's popular among a major religion doesn't make it correct (logical fallacy to claim so). Lets go the creation event outlined in the Prose Edda. If nothing else, it's way cooler: there are badass gods doing badass things.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Yeah, that's completely untrue. I left out the fact that c-14 is actually nitrogen-14 before the sun's radiation transforms it, and n-14 is much more abundant, which therefore omits any knowing what and what isn't viable for testing inside a fossil.
Just to see how willing you all are towards the truth

How many times will I have to explain this? The amount of n-14 means nothing.The c-12 does not decay and the c-14 decays at a constant rate. That c-14 decays into n-14 means nothing. The rate of c-14 leaving the body and being taken into the body maintains equilibrium. The important part is that the percentage of c-14 and c-12 within a body upon death is constant across all living things.

Please, read a geology textbook or even Wikipedia. I'm sure you will find it enlightening as your gripes with dating techniques seem to be rooted in ignorance rather than any actual flaws. Just remember nothing's wrong with ignorance (unless it's willful).

And many more instances, but the fact remains that if you date something and it comes back 300 years old, then re-date and it comes back a million years old, you have concluded nothing.

Of course nothing was concluded. The moron of a scientist in the example you listed used inaccurate equipment, the wrong dating technique, and misrepresented his findings. It means nothing because he had no idea what he was doing. That reflects upon him, not dating techniques in general. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

The fact that something has to be a certain age to date is a mockery to science

No, it has to be a certain age to use that technique. That is all. This is also why multiple techniques and methods are used on the same samples.

It should be taught in schools, as it being theory needs to be highlighted more.

It is taught as a theory. The only problem is when people, like you, mistake science as attesting to 100% truth and the scientific use of the word theory being the same as the layman term.

I made no reference to scientists being con-men.

You keep talking about them falsifying data and doing it for money. So yes, you were.

I simply stated that the field is cut-throat.

As well it should be. Peer review needs to be scathing and as critical as possible. If there is a flaw in the reasoning or experiment, it must be found.

If you come up with some ridiculous conclusion, whether it's true or not, your career goes tumbling.

If your ridiculous claims actually hold up to all of the criticism they receive, they will eventually be adopted. The pursuit of knowledge should be done for mankind, not for personal glory. Catastrophic failure is a very real danger in a peer-reviewed field.

Just because it's science doesn't mean it's anything different than criminal law, medicine, etc.

Except that the only money you can get in science is grants for more research and maybe a book deal. If you want to become rich, become a doctor or lawyer or evangelist preacher, not a scientist.

It's called reality. I'm really tired of these wishful thoughts of the world being so intriguingly perfect.

This world is beautiful but also totally fucked. Our eyes, despite working, are horrendously bad creations. Perfection is found in imperfection (and is a human concept that has little to do with reality other than appreciation of what is around us).

You need to open your eyes, bro.

Cool story, bro.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

It's not even a theory (we're talking about creationism, right?); in order for it to classify as a scientific theory, it would have to have at least some evidence backing it up and have been subjected to enough peer review; and while it probably has been subjected to peer review (and failed horribly, I might add), there's no evidence for creationism, so it's not even a scientific theory. That it has to have some sort of amazing truth is a strawman; what we are asking for here is that there exists some evidence for it that is demonstrable to other people who usually happen to be scientists, and who can conduct their own research of the same thing. And if they can do this and arrive at the same results, then there probably is at least some truth to it--is it 100% true? Probably not, but anyone expecting 100% certainty from a scientific finding is being absurd.
But creationism fails even this basic test; none of the things asserted by creationism are supported by even a shred of evidence. You could not call any of the results you get from this true, and not with any real degree of certainty.
And that's basically why it's got no place in science.

I was talking about the reality behind the theory of evolution. There you go trying to mislead my statements.
The lack of evidence going against creationism is just as important as any amount of evidence that shows the Earth is older than a day.
Pun intended.

If a conclusion is labeled ridiculous, how would you know if it's true or not?

I don't know how this question is relevant. Having it being labeled 'ridiculous' would be that of it not matching the theories of evolution. Dating something is like the lottery. Sommetimes, on the 1st try, it will be 1 million years old. Other times it could be 100 years old.
The other dating technique included that the object must be a certain age to be testing. If you use a little bit of reasoning, you could see the huge problem with that.
Because as I said, it's a mockery to science.
Actually, it's a mockery to reason.

People just fail to see that this ordeal is just a way to keep evolution on the books.

(Of course I am not talking about basic constructs of evolution, but rather the fossil record, age of Earth, etc., God knows even though I have stated it, someone is sure to straw man this shit)

You're the one that needs to open your eyes. You've misunderstood the way science works completely. Science does not operate on the idea of perfection; it operates as a means of finding out what is true based on what we can observe and see. It's the best thing we have next to perfect knowledge; because we can't obtain such knowledge, the best thing we can do is to discover it through our own finite means of observing and researching things. If it's sometimes wrong, it's not as if we didn't expect it. No scientist worth his salt would ever claim 100% certainty over any of his scientific discoveries.

For one, you need to open your eyes to the world and stop wasting your rationale on what other people claim. If you wish to learn a lot about science, or anything for that matter, you have to take a step back and take in the variables.
Making these statements which I surely already know does not in any way defend any claims on how evolution cancels out creationism in any way.

Gnosticism should be the key term to describe any philosophical/historical teaching in school. It's indiscriminate against religions, and yet explores aspects of creationism.
A more modern teaching of course- contraries with science included.

 

[Jquestionmark]

I was talking about the reality behind the theory of evolution. There you go trying to mislead my statements.

You didn't actually make that clear, which is why der Astronom was nice enough to point out which of the two possibilities he was responding to.

The lack of evidence going against creationism is just as important as any amount of evidence that shows the Earth is older than a day.
Pun intended.

Well, evidence of the age of the earth is evidence against creationism. So there's already a problem. But what about all the other creation stories? There's no evidence against the Prose Edda either, so why aren't you fighting for that to be taught in school?

I don't know how this question is relevant. Having it being labeled 'ridiculous' would be that of it not matching the theories of evolution.

Ridiculous conclusions that have been accurate have won out before. I don't know if you're familiar with how wireless technology came to be, but when first proposed, wireless transmissions were considered "contrary to science." Good science won out in the end, and now we have cell phones.

The important thing to note is that the science and math supported the conclusion: when others tested it they found it supported as well. There's a precedence in science for ridiculous but true things winning out in the end. That's why peer-review exists.

Dating something is like the lottery. Sommetimes, on the 1st try, it will be 1 million years old. Other times it could be 100 years old.

Again, I ask, have you been hanging out in science labs, watching this happen? Cause this is not what the peer-review of these results suggests.

The other dating technique included that the object must be a certain age to be testing. If you use a little bit of reasoning, you could see the huge problem with that.

I can certainly see you getting some weird results if you use the wrong dating technique for the wrong item, yeah. When you try to make bread, and use salt instead of flour, it doesn't work out.

Because as I said, it's a mockery to science.
Actually, it's a mockery to reason.

Nah, some guy making a mistake isn't a mockery. Kinda silly, a little funny, but there's no mockery happening.

People just fail to see that this ordeal is just a way to keep evolution on the books.

What ordeal? Evolution being evidence and peer-review supported? Yeah, that tends to keep it on the books.

(Of course I am not talking about basic constructs of evolution, but rather the fossil record, age of Earth, etc., God knows even though I have stated it, someone is sure to straw man this shit)

We quote what you say and respond directly to it. That's not straw-manning.

For one, you need to open your eyes to the world and stop wasting your rationale on what other people claim.

Using our reason on the claims of others is how debate works.

Or do you mean the claims of scientists? Yeah, we rely on something called peer-review to help us determine the accuracy of science. We can expect a bit of honesty because other scientists would say "hey, that's wrong" if something was.

If you wish to learn a lot about science, or anything for that matter, you have to take a step back and take in the variables.

We've been doing that. It's how we've come to our current conclusions.

Making these statements which I surely already know does not in any way defend any claims on how evolution cancels out creationism in any way.

Evolution doesn't need to cancel out creationism. One is a theory, the other a myth. No need to fight: one addresses reality, the other is religion. Creationism fails to cancel out evolution because it is not science (and that is why it has no place in a science class).

Gnosticism should be the key term to describe any philosophical/historical teaching in school.

Mixing philosphy and history sounds like a problem.

It's indiscriminate against religions, and yet explores aspects of creationism.

Gnosticism is a religion in and of itself, and this would still be religious indoctrination. Also, teaching it instead of the Prose Edda is discriminatory. Why should the time not be given to the epic deeds of Odin and his brothers? They had to work hard to make our world out of Ymir, and it's unfair to them to talk about Gnosticism instead.

A more modern teaching of course- contraries with science included.

Modern gnosticism is still a religion. And I'm not sure where it's contrary to science, or why teaching that in a religion class would be helpful (since science isn't relevant to religion).

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Dating something is like the lottery. Sommetimes, on the 1st try, it will be 1 million years old. Other times it could be 100 years old.

How many more baseless assertions would you like to make? The 'source' that you gave has been thoroughly beaten into the ground, yet you cling to this notion that dating techniques are a crapshoot. Protip: They're not.

The other dating technique included that the object must be a certain age to be testing. If you use a little bit of reasoning, you could see the huge problem with that.

I could see that being a problem if we only used one form of dating. But proper scientists don't do that, so it's not an issue.

People just fail to see that this ordeal is just a way to keep evolution on the books.
(Of course I am not talking about basic constructs of evolution, but rather the fossil record, age of Earth, etc., God knows even though I have stated it, someone is sure to straw man this shit)

Alright, it's time for caps lock. I heard that it's louder or something.

THE AGE OF THE EARTH, THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE, OR EVEN THE GENESIS OF LIFE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.

As far as the fossil record is concerned: There are no gaps in the fossil record. I repeat, there are no gaps in the fossil record. Everything we've found has fit into evolutionary theory. There'd be a gap if we found something and could only go "What the fuck is this?"

how evolution cancels out creationism in any way.

Evolution doesn't need to 'cancel out' anything. Creationism is thoroughly disproven in every claim it makes that is falsifiable. Now if you could organize Creationism on science's terms and have it stand up to peer review, then we could really discuss its merits. Because right now it has none. It's not even cool.