Creationism in Public Schools

[Tabor-Zion]

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

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

Thanks for being the only one so far responding with a genuine question. Carbon 14 in diamonds, well-preserved dinosaur blood cells, radiohalos and spiral galaxies are a few examples. While I won't try to get deep into the evidence for creation as that's not the topic, I will leave you a few links to check out for yourself:

https://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world

https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

However, what I believe to be more important here is still understanding the philosophy of science and keeping consistent definitions. For anyone just starting to genuinely look into the Creation-Evolution debate, I really recommend they start here:

https://creation.com/its-not-science

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

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

Thanks for being the only one so far responding with a genuine question. Carbon 14 in diamonds, well-preserved dinosaur blood cells, radiohalos and spiral galaxies are a few examples. While I won't try to get deep into the evidence for creation as that's not the topic, I will leave you a few links to check out for yourself:

https://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world

https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Looks like we’ve got a Gish Gallop! Hot dog!

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

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

Thanks for being the only one so far responding with a genuine question. Carbon 14 in diamonds, well-preserved dinosaur blood cells, radiohalos and spiral galaxies are a few examples. While I won't try to get deep into the evidence for creation as that's not the topic, I will leave you a few links to check out for yourself:

https://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world

https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

1. Carbon 14 isn’t the only substance we use for radiometric dating.

2. Disbelief that something can be preserved so well for so long is kind of hypocritical.

3. Not knowing how nuclear physics works does not constitute evidence supporting your position.

4. Spiral Density Waves call bullshit on you.

---

Addressing the edited in portion: trying to use an inherently unscientific site to tell us how science should comport itself is both hilarious and brain-breakingly stupid.

[The New California Republic]

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

Carbon 14 in diamonds.

Explain how this is evidence of creation.

well-preserved dinosaur blood cells

Or this.

radiohalos

Or this.

and spiral galaxies.

Or this.

[Kowani]

Thanks for being the only one so far responding with a genuine question. Carbon 14 in diamonds, well-preserved dinosaur blood cells, radiohalos and spiral galaxies are a few examples. While I won't try to get deep into the evidence for creation as that's not the topic, I will leave you a few links to check out for yourself:

https://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world

https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Looks like we’ve got a Gish Gallop! Hot dog!

And look at those sources! Clearly, they are unbiased and objective!

[Salandriagado]

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.

Broadly, because if it wasn't random, then it would violate relativity. I'm not sure that I can do better than this explanation.

[Salandriagado]

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

Sure, if (young earth) creationism were true, then we would expect to see lots of evidence. The fact that we don't see that evidence is how we know it's bullshit.

[Salandriagado]

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.

Honestly, "1 and 2" parses to me as a set containing the elements "1" and "2" (which, depending on your formalisation, might or might not be precisely what 3 is).

[Salandriagado]

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

Thanks for being the only one so far responding with a genuine question. Carbon 14 in diamonds,

I've already debunked this in this very thread.

well-preserved dinosaur blood cells,

Apart from not existing to nearly the degree that you're claiming (except inside chickens and the like), that's not unexpected.

radiohalos and spiral galaxies are a few examples.

Neither are evidence of creationism.

While I won't try to get deep into the evidence for creation as that's not the topic, I will leave you a few links to check out for yourself:

No, you're going to make your own argument. I've already trauled through one pile of links to utter bullshit in this thread, and I really can't be arsed to do it again.

However, what I believe to be more important here is still understanding the philosophy of science and keeping consistent definitions. For anyone just starting to genuinely look into the Creation-Evolution debate, I really recommend they start here:

You quite clearly have no idea what the philosophy of science even is.

[Korhe]

I would welcome creationism of all sorts being taught in public schools, as part of an elective class on religion or mythology, but not in a class on the natural sciences.

[Tekania]

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

You know, some time ago people used various theories of evolution and geology to come up with the hypothesis that there would be some sort of transitional fossil between fish and tretrapods. They used their knowledge of the geologic column and the ages of rocks as well as the existing knowledge of fossils found along certain periods to hypothesize that that if we look in rocks of such and such age and in such and such an environment that we would find some transitional fossil there for such a creature. So then scientists looked in rocks of the necessary age that represents such an environment and viola we found Tiktaalik.... a transitional form between tetrapods and fish.

This is why evolution has use. It's predictive. And why creationism isn't... it's useless.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

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

You know, some time ago people used various theories of evolution and geology to come up with the hypothesis that there would be some sort of transitional fossil between fish and tretrapods. They used their knowledge of the geologic column and the ages of rocks as well as the existing knowledge of fossils found along certain periods to hypothesize that that if we look in rocks of such and such age and in such and such an environment that we would find some transition fossil there for such a creatue. So then sciencists looked in rocks of the necessary age that represents such an environment and viola we found Tiktaalik.... a transitional form between tetrapods and fish.

This is why evolution has use. It's predictive. And why creationism isn't... it's useless.

The really funny part of those links is that they demonstrate a wide variety of misunderstandings and ignorance about various scientific phenomena, while trying to tell US how science should work.

It’s like mansplaining, but dumber.

[Tekania]

You know, some time ago people used various theories of evolution and geology to come up with the hypothesis that there would be some sort of transitional fossil between fish and tretrapods. They used their knowledge of the geologic column and the ages of rocks as well as the existing knowledge of fossils found along certain periods to hypothesize that that if we look in rocks of such and such age and in such and such an environment that we would find some transition fossil there for such a creatue. So then sciencists looked in rocks of the necessary age that represents such an environment and viola we found Tiktaalik.... a transitional form between tetrapods and fish.

This is why evolution has use. It's predictive. And why creationism isn't... it's useless.

The really funny part of those links is that they demonstrate a wide variety of misunderstandings and ignorance about various scientific phenomena, while trying to tell US how science should work.

It’s like mansplaining, but dumber.

Yes, but the creationists need evolution to be some sort of unobservable untestable thing so they can pretend it's on equal footing with their creation myth. And unfortunately for them it is neither. But that isn't going to stop them from convincing the ignorant by repeatedly presenting it that way.

[Rastrian]

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

Thanks for being the only one so far responding with a genuine question. Carbon 14 in diamonds, well-preserved dinosaur blood cells, radiohalos and spiral galaxies are a few examples. While I won't try to get deep into the evidence for creation as that's not the topic, I will leave you a few links to check out for yourself:

https://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world

https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

However, what I believe to be more important here is still understanding the philosophy of science and keeping consistent definitions. For anyone just starting to genuinely look into the Creation-Evolution debate, I really recommend they start here:

https://creation.com/its-not-science

A lot of us have asked the same question. We're met with the same answers. Those answers are lacking. These ones are also.

[Jolthig]

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 eyewitness argument fails when put next to the scientists of various fields of study who have concluded there is strong empircal evidence for evolution.

Also, as a Muslim theist, the creator eyewitness argument can also be used for evolution

[Thepeopl]

In geography and in history, evolution will be taught.

shouldn't that be taught in science class?

Sorry, we don't have science as a subject in the Netherlands. We teach science in different subjects like biology and chemistry and physics.

But yes, evolution theory should be taught as fact.
Creationist theory should be mentioned in religion classes as also existing belief. Just as other " how we believe the world/ live was created " theories in other religions.

[United Muscovite Nations]

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.

Broadly, because if it wasn't random, then it would violate relativity. I'm not sure that I can do better than this explanation.

I'm not really convinced. For it to be truly random, there would have to be no variables which determine it. Moreover, there's still no observation of randomness, because, as said before, there's nothing to compare the outcome to. It still seems to be stuck on mistaking the inability to predict and outcome for randomness.

[Godular]

Broadly, because if it wasn't random, then it would violate relativity. I'm not sure that I can do better than this explanation.

I'm not really convinced. For it to be truly random, there would have to be no variables which determine it. Moreover, there's still no observation of randomness, because, as said before, there's nothing to compare the outcome to. It still seems to be stuck on mistaking the inability to predict and outcome for randomness.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would like a word with you...

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'm not really convinced. For it to be truly random, there would have to be no variables which determine it. Moreover, there's still no observation of randomness, because, as said before, there's nothing to compare the outcome to. It still seems to be stuck on mistaking the inability to predict and outcome for randomness.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would like a word with you...

Which is, again, an issue with ability to measure.

[Godular]

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would like a word with you...

Which is, again, an issue with ability to measure.

Wait... is this you trying to pull another variant of that self-evidence argument?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Which is, again, an issue with ability to measure.

Wait... is this you trying to pull another variant of that self-evidence argument?

No, they're not related at all.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Wait... is this you trying to pull another variant of that self-evidence argument?

No, they're not related at all.

What I'm saying is that the Uncertainty Principle has implications for our ability to know variables, not necessarily for the existence of those variables.

We are uncertain in measuring the position and velocity of some particles, but that doesn't mean that those particles don't have definite position and velocity.

[United Muscovite Nations]

But even if Quantum Physics is able to observe randomness, that doesn't mean that everyday events like coin-flips, card shuffles, or even macro-scale events like evolution by natural selection, are random. I'm not even using this as an argument for a God, I'm just arguing for a more deterministic view of the universe.

[Rojava Free State]

You know, some time ago people used various theories of evolution and geology to come up with the hypothesis that there would be some sort of transitional fossil between fish and tretrapods. They used their knowledge of the geologic column and the ages of rocks as well as the existing knowledge of fossils found along certain periods to hypothesize that that if we look in rocks of such and such age and in such and such an environment that we would find some transition fossil there for such a creatue. So then sciencists looked in rocks of the necessary age that represents such an environment and viola we found Tiktaalik.... a transitional form between tetrapods and fish.

This is why evolution has use. It's predictive. And why creationism isn't... it's useless.

The really funny part of those links is that they demonstrate a wide variety of misunderstandings and ignorance about various scientific phenomena, while trying to tell US how science should work.

It’s like mansplaining, but dumber.

Considering they're all creationist website links, I'm guessing they were desperate for evidence of creationism because without it, their whole religion gets called into question and these folks are too weak minded to survive without God being there to protect them from everyone

[Rojava Free State]

But even if Quantum Physics is able to observe randomness, that doesn't mean that everyday events like coin-flips, card shuffles, or even macro-scale events like evolution by natural selection, are random. I'm not even using this as an argument for a God, I'm just arguing for a more deterministic view of the universe.

What or who is determining these events then? Brian Boytano?