Creationism in Public Schools

[Spodehaven]

This thread is just going back and forth with nothing new to be said at this point. I know this isn't really adding to the conversation but still....

[The Alma Mater]

This thread is just going back and forth with nothing new to be said at this point. I know this isn't really adding to the conversation but still....

I really would like it to change into a debate on which creation story is the coolest. Egypt ? Greek ? Some exotic science fiction?

Share your favourites !

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

It’s important to note that creationism literally cannot stand up as truth in a court of law, i.e. in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. Creationists are lying to themselves and others to protect their fears about an ancient mythic deity’s punishment on the ungodly. Ironically, of course, this breaks the ninth commandment.

If there is a creationist argument that is not a lie or logical fallacy, or a statement taken dishonestly on faith, I have yet to see it. We should not teach our children to lie to themselves to make them more comfortable. We should teach our children the value of seeking understanding based on reason, so that they don’t need to fear the wrathful bigot Jehovah or his maniacal and supremacist son Jesus for comfort.

I will go on an extra limb and assert that there is no argument a creationist can make that will convince someone who has all the facts about the Bible and who acts in good faith. However, I may be wrong, so I challenge creationists: prove to me that your holy book is sustained by evidence outside your personal faith. Prove to me that your holy book needs to be interpreted from a fundamentalist point of view. Prove to me that your holy book is entirely God-breathed. Then, give me the falsifiable tenets of creationist theory, so that we can see if it’s true.

[Tekania]

This thread is just going back and forth with nothing new to be said at this point. I know this isn't really adding to the conversation but still....

I really would like it to change into a debate on which creation story is the coolest. Egypt ? Greek ? Some exotic science fiction?

Share your favourites !

I've always been partial to the one held by the Jatravartids of Viltvodle VI.

[Spodehaven]

This thread is just going back and forth with nothing new to be said at this point. I know this isn't really adding to the conversation but still....

I really would like it to change into a debate on which creation story is the coolest. Egypt ? Greek ? Some exotic science fiction?

Share your favourites !

Imagine teaching Janist (non)creation in school lol.

[The Alma Mater]

I really would like it to change into a debate on which creation story is the coolest. Egypt ? Greek ? Some exotic science fiction?

Share your favourites !

I've always been partial to the one held by the Jatravartids of Viltvodle VI.

Bless you

[Farnhamia]

This thread is just going back and forth with nothing new to be said at this point. I know this isn't really adding to the conversation but still....

I really would like it to change into a debate on which creation story is the coolest. Egypt ? Greek ? Some exotic science fiction?

Share your favourites !

Go start your own thread.

[The Alma Mater]

I really would like it to change into a debate on which creation story is the coolest. Egypt ? Greek ? Some exotic science fiction?

Share your favourites !

Go start your own thread.

I should have added "and since creationists here claim that popularity should be the determining factor to teach something or not; the winner gets to be in the classroom".

But you are right. A seperate thread is better.

[Tekania]

It’s important to note that creationism literally cannot stand up as truth in a court of law, i.e. in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. Creationists are lying to themselves and others to protect their fears about an ancient mythic deity’s punishment on the ungodly. Ironically, of course, this breaks the ninth commandment.

If there is a creationist argument that is not a lie or logical fallacy, or a statement taken dishonestly on faith, I have yet to see it. We should not teach our children to lie to themselves to make them more comfortable. We should teach our children the value of seeking understanding based on reason, so that they don’t need to fear the wrathful bigot Jehovah or his maniacal and supremacist son Jesus for comfort.

I will go on an extra limb and assert that there is no argument a creationist can make that will convince someone who has all the facts about the Bible and who acts in good faith. However, I may be wrong, so I challenge creationists: prove to me that your holy book is sustained by evidence outside your personal faith. Prove to me that your holy book needs to be interpreted from a fundamentalist point of view. Prove to me that your holy book is entirely God-breathed. Then, give me the falsifiable tenets of creationist theory, so that we can see if it’s true.

To be fair the case wasn't about whether or not creation was true, it was about whether or not teaching intelligent design in a public school was a violation of the Establishment clause of the first amendment. the court's decision affirmed that it was indeed a violation. The court's decision also included that Intelligent Design did not meet ground criteria required to be a science as it sought to inject untestable supernatural phenomenon. And that Intelligent Design was no more than poor attempt to veil Christian creationism in false legitimacy.

Another interesting part of the case results is that every single school board member in Dover who voted to put ID into the curriculum was voted out of office during the following election cycle. So it appears the public was generally none to happy with their shit either.

[United Muscovite Nations]

How can randomness even be proven?

See here.

Can you give a brief summary? I'm not a physicist, nor do I have time to read such a long article. I'm genuinely curious how randomness can be proven when there isn't anything to compare the supposedly random result to.

[Tekania]

See here.

Can you give a brief summary? I'm not a physicist, nor do I have time to read such a long article. I'm genuinely curious how randomness can be proven when there isn't anything to compare the supposedly random result to.

Science does not prove things, it attempts to falsify them. There is a key difference there. Proof is something that only exists in mathematics.

[Rojava Free State]

It’s important to note that creationism literally cannot stand up as truth in a court of law, i.e. in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. Creationists are lying to themselves and others to protect their fears about an ancient mythic deity’s punishment on the ungodly. Ironically, of course, this breaks the ninth commandment.

If there is a creationist argument that is not a lie or logical fallacy, or a statement taken dishonestly on faith, I have yet to see it. We should not teach our children to lie to themselves to make them more comfortable. We should teach our children the value of seeking understanding based on reason, so that they don’t need to fear the wrathful bigot Jehovah or his maniacal and supremacist son Jesus for comfort.

I will go on an extra limb and assert that there is no argument a creationist can make that will convince someone who has all the facts about the Bible and who acts in good faith. However, I may be wrong, so I challenge creationists: prove to me that your holy book is sustained by evidence outside your personal faith. Prove to me that your holy book needs to be interpreted from a fundamentalist point of view. Prove to me that your holy book is entirely God-breathed. Then, give me the falsifiable tenets of creationist theory, so that we can see if it’s true.

Just saw a couple evangelicals crumble into dust like thanos snapped his fingers. I'll assume you did that

[Geneviev]

It’s important to note that creationism literally cannot stand up as truth in a court of law, i.e. in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. Creationists are lying to themselves and others to protect their fears about an ancient mythic deity’s punishment on the ungodly. Ironically, of course, this breaks the ninth commandment.

If there is a creationist argument that is not a lie or logical fallacy, or a statement taken dishonestly on faith, I have yet to see it. We should not teach our children to lie to themselves to make them more comfortable. We should teach our children the value of seeking understanding based on reason, so that they don’t need to fear the wrathful bigot Jehovah or his maniacal and supremacist son Jesus for comfort.

I will go on an extra limb and assert that there is no argument a creationist can make that will convince someone who has all the facts about the Bible and who acts in good faith. However, I may be wrong, so I challenge creationists: prove to me that your holy book is sustained by evidence outside your personal faith. Prove to me that your holy book needs to be interpreted from a fundamentalist point of view. Prove to me that your holy book is entirely God-breathed. Then, give me the falsifiable tenets of creationist theory, so that we can see if it’s true.

Just saw a couple evangelicals crumble into dust like thanos snapped his fingers. I'll assume you did that

I'm a little curious, what do you mean?

[Rojava Free State]

Can you give a brief summary? I'm not a physicist, nor do I have time to read such a long article. I'm genuinely curious how randomness can be proven when there isn't anything to compare the supposedly random result to.

Science does not prove things, it attempts to falsify them. There is a key difference there. Proof is something that only exists in mathematics.

Aka another subject many Americans barely grasp. I had a teacher tell me in second grade that 1.2 is actually pronounced "1 and 2." Bruh, this isn't a numerical sequence, it's an integer. At least she didn't say " actually 1+2 equals three because God wills it and the numbers must obey him out of fear for him. "

[Rojava Free State]

Just saw a couple evangelicals crumble into dust like thanos snapped his fingers. I'll assume you did that

I'm a little curious, what do you mean?

Demanding actual evidence is a death blow for most religions. They usually can't prove much beyond their historical figures existing

[Geneviev]

I'm a little curious, what do you mean?

Demanding actual evidence is a death blow for most religions. They usually can't prove much beyond their historical figures existing

That's fair.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Science does not prove things, it attempts to falsify them. There is a key difference there. Proof is something that only exists in mathematics.

Aka another subject many Americans barely grasp. I had a teacher tell me in second grade that 1.2 is actually pronounced "1 and 2." Bruh, this isn't a numerical sequence, it's an integer. At least she didn't say " actually 1+2 equals three because God wills it and the numbers must obey him out of fear for him. "

1.2 isn’t an integer.

[Rojava Free State]

Aka another subject many Americans barely grasp. I had a teacher tell me in second grade that 1.2 is actually pronounced "1 and 2." Bruh, this isn't a numerical sequence, it's an integer. At least she didn't say " actually 1+2 equals three because God wills it and the numbers must obey him out of fear for him. "

1.2 isn’t an integer.

Oh no, my education was worse than I imagined

[Tabor-Zion]

I mean, history at least leaves evidence for what happened, in many cases.

So does evolution.

And so does Creation. Much more so than evolution in fact. History can be taught because we had eyewitness, there was no eyewitness to creation do evidence must be interpreted through a preexisting worldview. However, the Bible tells us there is one eyewitness to creation, the creator himself. I think you guys need to read up on the philosophy of science because you're missing the real point here. Hopefully this helps:

https://creation.com/origins-vs-operational-science

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

1.2 isn’t an integer.

Oh no, my education was worse than I imagined

Especially since your teacher was apparently trying to teach English, rather than Math. Seems odd to quibble over the way somebody describes a number. ‘1 and 2’ comes across as addition, not a decimal. Weird.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

So does evolution.

And so does Creation. Much more so than evolution in fact. History can be taught because we had eyewitness, there was no eyewitness to creation do evidence must be interpreted through a preexisting worldview. However, the Bible tells us there is one eyewitness to creation, the creator himself. I think you guys need to read up on the philosophy of science because you're missing the real point here. Hopefully this helps:

https://creation.com/origins-vs-operational-science

“If you just squint really hard at the bullshit, it becomes a coherent worldview”

[The New California Republic]

I mean, history at least leaves evidence for what happened, in many cases.

So does evolution.

And so does Creation. Much more so than evolution in fact.

OK, I'll bite. What evidence is there of Creation?

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

So does evolution.

And so does Creation. Much more so than evolution in fact. History can be taught because we had eyewitness, there was no eyewitness to creation do evidence must be interpreted through a preexisting worldview. However, the Bible tells us there is one eyewitness to creation, the creator himself. I think you guys need to read up on the philosophy of science because you're missing the real point here. Hopefully this helps:

https://creation.com/origins-vs-operational-science

What point is it you want us to take away from that mind-numbing puddle of inanity you just linked?

[New Legland]

So does evolution.

And so does Creation. Much more so than evolution in fact. History can be taught because we had eyewitness, there was no eyewitness to creation do evidence must be interpreted through a preexisting worldview. However, the Bible tells us there is one eyewitness to creation, the creator himself. I think you guys need to read up on the philosophy of science because you're missing the real point here. Hopefully this helps:

https://creation.com/origins-vs-operational-science

Why don't you give us the actual "evidence" for creationism instead of blindly believing a book, lying about the opposition, and bastardizing the definition of the word science? And don't make me laugh. Creationism has more evidence than evolution? You're either keeping yourself in an echo chamber or lying to yourself if you think that's the case.

[New Legland]

And so does Creation. Much more so than evolution in fact. History can be taught because we had eyewitness, there was no eyewitness to creation do evidence must be interpreted through a preexisting worldview. However, the Bible tells us there is one eyewitness to creation, the creator himself. I think you guys need to read up on the philosophy of science because you're missing the real point here. Hopefully this helps:

https://creation.com/origins-vs-operational-science

“If you just squint really hard at the bullshit, it becomes a coherent worldview”

Their vision must be at least 20/80 if that's true.