God vs. Science: The Inclusion of Creationism in School Textbooks?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
One doesn't have to reference a specific theistic religion in order to look at the universe and its complexity and understand the [b]simple concept of intelligence in its design. As one of the most respected Scientests of the Century, Albert Einstein understood this theistic principle. I'll close my argument with some quotes from him.

Taken from http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Albert_Einstein/

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

""Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

"Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly."

"At any rate, I am convinced that He [God] does not play dice."

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science."

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."[/B]

Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930:

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere...."

Albert Einstein, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side:

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science."

Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Take a breath..and ask yourself the question, which one of these theological concepts below seems more logical..

To me the second theory sounds much more scientific/logical..I'll put my FAITH in it.

Again, these things do not occur by chance alone but by a combination of chance and the laws of physics. Congratulations on misrepresenting another argument.

Furthermore, you may believe that the second theory is more logical but considering your understanding of logic, I would be inclined to say that your faith is misplaced.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[B]Oh, so now The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language is a greater authority on Buddhism then the Dalai Lama?

So you believe that a man made "religious icon", who goes by the name of "Dhali Lama"..has more knowledge/authority of the English language than...

..a group of scholars, who have studied the English language for many years, and have provided an extensive compilation of definitions of the words they have studied, which have been reviewed countless times by countless other scholars from other accreditted universities?

You believe all of this..yet you still have the problem accepting "Creationism" as a "scientific" theory..lol...to take one from Adam Poe..

Pardon me while I continue to laugh at your absurdity. 😆 😆 😆

“…dictionaries define words lexically, or by the relationship of the word to the vocabulary, words, or morphemes of a language.”

Clearly, the meaning of the above statement is not “words are defined by words” but “words are defined by their relationship to the vocabulary, words, or morphemes of a language.”

This means that definitions from a dictionary do not necessarily denote the actual meaning of a word, but its common usage in the language. 🙄

More non-sensical contradictions. This is essentially what your saying..

Originally posted by Adam Poe..and translated by whobdamandog
A word is defined by how its commonly used..however it's common usage does not represent its actual definition??!!!

Just for sh*ts and giggles...please enlighten me as to how Adam Poe defines a word....

You provided a link to the Dictionary.com definition of “Buddhism”. The definition you posted however, is not the primary definition of Buddhism that appears on that page..

Now your just lying..the same definitions were posted at the top and the bottom of the page..you know that as well as I do. And look up venerate in any dictionary(I would say dictionary.com, but you don't seem to like that site very much)..accept next time don't ADD the word's deity/idol/worship to the definition...lol..as you did in the example above...(good try)

Anyway..it's obvious that your going to believe what you want to believe so I won't pursue this matter any further. I still think it's funny however how you believe that by calling yourself a Buddhist, revering a man who found the way, and practicing his doctrine does not qualify you as practicing a religion..but hey everyone has the right to their own opinion..however silly/illogical/contridictory that opinion might be..

Good Nite Everybody..

how did the dalai lama got twisted into the english language?
the point is, which you have turned around, that he knows the best what buddhism is and not those that write a dictionary.

if you look up (to keep it a bit ontopic 😉) evolution, you will rather believe that then to go to a professor that is an expert in that field?
I hope you're not considering a carreer in any university cause with that way of thinking, they'll mock you all the way till you graduate 😑

ok im WAY to lazy to read this whole thread so imma just say my opinion right now..

i think god IS there because how do you explain earth here? you say because of the science of space...well how did space get here? can anyone explain to me how space was created? and w/e created that, how did that get there? someone...explain

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
So science is theoretical and cannot be proven by physical means but trying to explain the universe in terms of physicality contradicts scientific laws, principles, and theories... Are you even sure what you mean? 😕

The message is quite clear..but I'll defer to another source on this..I think it summarized the point I made very well...

http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~carling/god&bb1.html

IS SCIENCE THE ULTIMATE TEST?

In the early 20th century, some scientists and philosophers thought so. But, curiously, science itself turned out to be the first victim of this way of thinking. This is because, in order to get started, science has to make certain assumptions that cannot be proved scientifically. They are:

Rationality - that our thinking processes are basically reliable. (This assumption is needed in every area of life - even to discuss rationality!)

Orderliness - that there is an order to be discovered in nature - otherwise why do science at all?

Intelligibility - that our minds are able to discover this order.

Uniformity - that doing exactly the same experiment twice gives the same results. The scientific enterprise would be impossible without the assumption that there is a general uniformity in nature.

These basic beliefs, necessary for science, can't be proved scientifically...

So in other words, you cannot prove that the examples are not valid.

And how can you prove that what I'm writing is not valid? Come on now..we can go back and forth on this point all day. Again..you have your FAITH..and I have mine...

And you are clearly running out of arguments. If my arguments have been "rebutted in this and many other posts," by all means, post them so all can see.

Okay...but this is the last time I'll repost anything about Isochron Metholodogy..if you had read my previous post..you would have seen that your "argument" had already been rebutted before you even posted the..lol...

Answer: http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/isochrons2.html

Radiometric rock dating, the methodology of determining the date of formation of a rock sample by the well-established rate of decay of the isotopes contained, depends on accurately determination of the starting points, the original concentrations of the isotopes.

Many methods of estimating these beginning concentrations have been proposed, but all rest on tenuous assumptions that have limited their acceptance.

This most accepted of all methods has two variations, the mineral isochron and the whole-rock isochron. The logically-sound authenticating mechanism of the mineral isochron is applied to the whole-rock isochron, where it is invalid. The long-term stability of the whole-rock is applied to the mineral, where it is inappropriate.

When the isochron data are the result of the rock being a blend of two original species, the diagram is called a mixing line, having no time significance. This paper shows that all whole-rock isochrons are necessarily mixing lines. It is noted that by analogy the mixing-line logic casts strong suspicion on the mineral isochron as well.

Since only whole-rock isochrons play a significant role in the dating game anyway, isotopic geochronology can be rather generally discredited.

Okay I'm done for real this time. Now it seems like we're just carrying on circular arguments. Have a good one all.

"Concept 1

By random chance, a few stray atomic particles with origins unknown bonded together forming protoplasmic cells.

And somehow by random chance..these few protoplasmic globs of cells
developed some form of sentience.

And somehow by random chance these protoplasmic globs..developed the ability to adapt to water and form aquatic life.

And somehow by random chance...they developed the ability to adapt to air and land.

And somehow by random chance..they developed the ability to walk upright.

And somehow by random chance...they developed some form of complex intelligence."

You miss the whole point!
Its not all random. The first part is slightly, but the chances are so staggeringly high, that it will happen sooner or later, its not like the universe was going anywhere, or had anything better to do.
Then after the organism developed it adapted. It changed, and it changed the environment. It has been proven that the environment has changed over time, or evolved. The environment was once more C02 concentrated and Nitrogen heavy than it is now. Early algae adapted to use the C02, and as a product of the cycles that are used to create ATP, (Krebs cycle and light and dark reactions ect.) 02 was generated. With the abundance of 02, some plants eventually evolved to make use of this and survive better. It's all about changing yourself and the environment enough to optimize your survival rate. Humans do it too! We adapt our environment, we build cites, we improve our living conditions to optimize our survival rate.

And back on track, Evolution is part of biology, which, as a science, must adhere to certain rules to be considered a science. Scientific method, ect. Creationism does not adhere to these rules and thus is not a Science, and should not be taught in Science class.
It does follow the "rules" of a religion (completely implausible, doesn't follow laws of physics, thermodynamics, helps keep general population in line through fear ect.) therefore its not a science, so it shouldn't be taught in science classes. It IS part of religion, and should be taught there. But then you get into who's creation story are you going to teach? Because, simply they are all different, and contradiction. How are you going to know what one is correct? If any? You can't! It defies the concept of religion. So definitely not a science. And shouldn't be in science textbooks.

Tptmanno1....you make the same point I was trying to make earlier, but you do it better, nice job.
Another thing that comes to mind when debating these kinds of arguments is this: The existence of God does not necessarily preclude the theory of evolution. Perhaps there was a higher power that started the universe....perhaps this higher being created the Big Bang, but then let "the cards fall as they may", so to speak. If this is so, then believing in God is correct, and believing that God created the universe is correct, but also believing in the Scientific Method, and believing that evolution is a better explanation than creationism for life on earth is correct. Why is this so hard to understand?
Religion and science can co-exsist. But, that being said; the theory of evolution is still a far better EXPLANATION of the origins and existence of life on earth at this time than creationism.

Sorry, long post, but just to repeat one of my earlier points: In whobdamandog's last post he pasted an article that tried to discredit science. I have to ask, is the basis of your argument against the theory of evolution based on your belief that science itself is invalid?
If so, I find it ironic, that you are posting this belief by using a machine that would have no chance of existing were it not for science!
all for now....

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So you believe that a man made "religious icon", who goes by the name of "Dhali Lama"..has more knowledge/authority of the English language than...

..a group of scholars, who have studied the English language for many years, and have provided an extensive compilation of definitions of the words they have studied, which have been reviewed countless times by countless other scholars from other accreditted universities?

I did not claim that the Dalai Lama is an authority on the English language. It is your claim however, that the lexicographers that draft English language dictionaries are experts on Buddhism, which they are not.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You believe all of this..yet you still have the problem accepting "Creationism" as a "scientific" theory..lol...to take one from Adam Poe..

Creation Science is an oxymoron; Creationism is not science but theology.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
More non-sensical contradictions. This is essentially what your saying..

“A word is defined by how its commonly used..however it's common usage does not represent its actual definition??!!!”

Dictionaries define a word by how it is commonly used or understood within a language, and these definitions do not necessarily reflect their actual meanings.

Do not take my word for it:

Merriam-Webster Online

How does a word get into a Merriam-Webster Dictionary?

This is one of the questions Merriam-Webster editors are most often asked.

The answer is simple: usage.

Tracking word usage

To decide which words to include in the dictionary and to determine what they mean, Merriam-Webster editors study the language as it's used. They carefully monitor which words people use most often and how they use them.

The article goes on to state:

Merriam-Webster Online

Authority without authoritarianism

Change and variation are as natural in language as they are in other areas of human life and Merriam-Webster reference works must reflect that fact. By relying on citational evidence, we hope to keep our publications grounded in the details of current usage so they can calmly and dispassionately offer information about modern English. That way, our references can speak with authority without being authoritarian.

In other words, the dictionary is an authority on how a word is used or understood within a language, not necessarily the actual meaning of the word… as I have stated all along. 🙄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Just for sh*ts and giggles...please enlighten me as to how Adam Poe defines a word....

By identifying its essential characteristics.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Now your just lying..the same definitions were posted at the top and the bottom of the page..you know that as well as I do.

No, they are not.

Again, do not take my word for it:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Buddhism

3 entries found for Buddhism.

Bud·dhism n.

[list=1][*] The teaching of Buddha that life is permeated with suffering caused by desire, that suffering ceases when desire ceases, and that enlightenment obtained through right conduct, wisdom, and meditation releases one from desire, suffering, and rebirth.

[*]The religion represented by the many groups, especially numerous in Asia, that profess varying forms of this doctrine and that venerate Buddha.[/list]

buddhism

n 1: a religion represented by the many groups (especially in Asia) that profess various forms of the Buddhist doctrine and that venerate Buddha [syn: Buddhism] 2: the teaching of Buddha that life is permeated with suffering caused by desire, that suffering ceases when desire ceases, and that enlightenment obtained through right conduct and wisdom and meditation releases one from desire and suffering and rebirth

* This is the definition you posted.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
And look up venerate in any dictionary(I would say dictionary.com, but you don't seem to like that site very much)..accept next time don't ADD the word's deity/idol/worship to the definition...lol..as you did in the example above...(good try)

How do you suppose I provided a definition for “venerate” without referencing a dictionary? 🙄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Anyway..it's obvious that your going to believe what you want to believe so I won't pursue this matter any further. I still think it's funny however how you believe that by calling yourself a Buddhist, revering a man who found the way, and practicing his doctrine does not qualify you as practicing a religion..but hey everyone has the right to their own opinion..however silly/illogical/contridictory that opinion might be..

Good Nite Everybody..

Like your belief that Creationism is science? 🙄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The message is quite clear..but I'll defer to another source on this..I think it summarized the point I made very well...

http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~carling/god&bb1.html

IS SCIENCE THE ULTIMATE TEST?

In the early 20th century, some scientists and philosophers thought so. But, curiously, science itself turned out to be the first victim of this way of thinking. This is because, in order to get started, science has to make certain assumptions that cannot be proved scientifically. They are:

Rationality - that our thinking processes are basically reliable. (This assumption is needed in every area of life - even to discuss rationality!)

Orderliness - that there is an order to be discovered in nature - otherwise why do science at all?

Intelligibility - that our minds are able to discover this order.

Uniformity - that doing exactly the same experiment twice gives the same results. The scientific enterprise would be impossible without the assumption that there is a general uniformity in nature.

These basic beliefs, necessary for science, can't be proved scientifically...

Which begs the question, “If true scientific knowledge is impossible, why do Creationists attempt to use science to prove creation?” 🙄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
And how can you prove that what I'm writing is not valid? Come on now..we can go back and forth on this point all day. Again..you have your FAITH..and I have mine...

I do not have to prove that the 22 examples I provided are not fraudulent or incorrect for two reasons:

[list=1][*]The fossil record speaks for itself.

[*]You are challenging the validity of the examples, therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove that they are fraudulent or incorrect.[/list]

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Okay...but this is the last time I'll repost anything about Isochron Metholodogy..if you had read my previous post..you would have seen that your "argument" had already been rebutted before you even posted the..lol...

Answer: http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/isochrons2.html

Radiometric rock dating, the methodology of determining the date of formation of a rock sample by the well-established rate of decay of the isotopes contained, depends on accurately determination of the starting points, the original concentrations of the isotopes.

Many methods of estimating these beginning concentrations have been proposed, but all rest on tenuous assumptions that have limited their acceptance.

This most accepted of all methods has two variations, the mineral isochron and the whole-rock isochron. The logically-sound authenticating mechanism of the mineral isochron is applied to the whole-rock isochron, where it is invalid. The long-term stability of the whole-rock is applied to the mineral, where it is inappropriate.

When the isochron data are the result of the rock being a blend of two original species, the diagram is called a mixing line, having no time significance. This paper shows that all whole-rock isochrons are necessarily mixing lines. It is noted that by analogy the mixing-line logic casts strong suspicion on the mineral isochron as well.

Since only whole-rock isochrons play a significant role in the dating game anyway, isotopic geochronology can be rather generally discredited.

The claim of William Overn is that:

“Isochron dating is unreliable. The method assumes that the samples are cogenetic, that is, that they form at the same time from a reasonably homogeneous common pool. This assumption is invalid. In particular, mixing two sources with different isotopic compositions gives meaningless but apparently valid isochron plots.”

I already addressed this in my previous post:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

1. Mixing can be detected by plotting the total daughter isotopes against the ratio of daughter isotopes. These would not fall on a straight line if mixing occurred.

2. Isochron plots from mixing can have any slope, even negative slopes. If mixing were common, we would expect a high percentage of isochron results to show negative slopes; They do not.

3. Other factors can produce false isochrons:

[list][*]Protracted fractionation. This requires slow cooling over millions of years and produces only a small error.

[*]Inherited ages. The age given by this method is the age of the source material. Furthermore, this factor requires unusual conditions and usually produces scatter in the isochron plot.

[*]Metamorphism. This produces apparent ages younger than the age of the source material.[/list]
4. False isochrons can be avoided by choosing appropriate samples. The samples must come from an initially homogeneous source and avoiding obvious signs of weathering and metamorphism.

[QUOTE=3917885]Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[B]I did not claim that the Dalai Lama is an authority on the English language. It is your claim however, that the lexicographers that draft English language dictionaries are experts on Buddhism, which they are not.

Creation Science is an oxymoron; Creationism is not science but theology.

Dictionaries define a word by how it is commonly used or understood within a language, and these definitions do not necessarily reflect their actual meanings.

Do not take my word for it:

The article goes on to state:

In other words, the dictionary is an authority on how a word is used or understood within a language, not necessarily the actual meaning of the word… as I have stated all along. 🙄

By identifying its essential characteristics.

No, they are not.

Again, do not take my word for it:

* This is the definition you posted.

How do you suppose I provided a definition for “venerate” without referencing a dictionary? 🙄

This thread might help answer where religion and science, at least from a Christian point of view stand with each other.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t343814.html

Keep the faith 😇

could you fix the coding, cause this is getting a bit confusing otherwise 😖

Sorry..my text didn't get posted in the last message..I believe powerful forces be against me so that the TRUTH will not be heard..lol..anyway..here is my response to Adam's post...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I did not claim that the Dalai Lama is an authority on the English language. It is your claim however, that the lexicographers that draft English language dictionaries are experts on Buddhism, which they are not.

That's not true Mr. Poe..someone's being a bit misleading again. Never stated that they know more about Buddhist theology than the Dali Lhama..however..I do believe that the "lexicographers" would have a better idea as to how the word should be defined based on its "common use."

Creation Science is an oxymoron; Creationism is not science but theology.

The Macro Evolutionary theory is based on tenuous assumptions that have not been proven by science...That was my point all along. It is no more/less of a science than Creationism.

Dictionaries define a word by how it is commonly used or understood within a language, and these definitions do not necessarily reflect their actual meanings.

So even if a word is commonly understood/defined to be a "duck", and it walks like a "duck", and it talks like a "duck", then by all means we should refer to it as something else other than a duck?!!! Seriously..I can't believe your actually challenging the actual definition of a word listed in the Dictionary...but since you are so keen on siting Webster's website...I thought it would only be appropriate to post their definitions of the following words...

Taken from Merriam-Webster Online

Buddhism:
A RELIGION of eastern and central Asia growing out of the teaching of Gautama Buddha that suffering is inherent in life and that one can be liberated from it by mental and moral self-purification

Venerate:
1 : to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference
2 : to honor (as an icon or a relic) with a ritual act of devotion

*Waits patiently for Adam Poe to now contradict himself once again, by stating the above mentioned reference from the website he provided can not be deemed credible...lol...😆 😆

In other words, the dictionary is an authority on how a word is used or understood within a language, not necessarily the actual meaning of the word… as I have stated all along. 🙄

So who/what pray tell should we go by when we're trying to get the definition/meaning of a "commonly used" word such as Buddhism? The Dali Lama?!!!.....or should we define a word by whatever conjecture comes from the convuluted mind of Adam Poe..lol...😆 😆

By identifying its essential characteristics.

And those "essential characteristics" to define a word being..

a) The Dali Lama's opinion...
b) Whatever definition Adam Poe decides to make up to support his argument

No, they are not.
Again, do not take my word for it:

Thank You..caught you in the lying game..now go back to page 14 of this thread and you will clearly see that BOTH definitions are posted on the proceeding page..not just the one that you highlighted..

But wait there's more.....regardless of whether or not I took the definitions from the top or the bottom of the page that you sited..get ready for this..duh duh duh duh...

THEY'RE BOTH THE SAME DEFINITIONS...lol...

Come on now buddy you know that, and now its in plain view for all to see....the Dali Lama doesn't like it when you lie.. 😆 😆

How do you suppose I provided a definition for “venerate” without referencing a dictionary? 🙄

By using the "essential characteristics" as defined from the mind of Adam Poe..and through the magic of cut and paste.....allow me to demonstrate...

you took this definition from Dictionary.com...

venerate:
To regard with respect, reverence, or heartfelt deference.

and decided to add the words/phrase a deity, an idol, or a sacred object; worship.

and through the magic of cut and paste..you came up with

Originally cut and pasted together lexically by Adam Poe
To regard with respect, reverence, or heartfelt deference a deity, an idol, or a sacred object; worship.

lol..sigh what will he make up next?!! 😆 😆

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Which begs the question, “If true scientific knowledge is impossible, why do Creationists attempt to use science to prove creation?” 🙄

I don't believe that..in fact I've already mentioned in several different posts that Creationism supports science, and has just as much substantive evidence supporting it as "Macro Evolution." It should be given just as much credo in the science textbooks. The idea of an intelligent creator doesn't need to apply to any theistic religion and its doctrine, however, if parents do not want their children to learn such lessons..they can opt their child out of class while the lesson is being taught..

I do not have to prove that the 22 examples I provided are not fraudulent or incorrect for two reasons:

[list=1][*]The fossil record speaks for itself.

[*]You are challenging the validity of the examples, therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove that they are fraudulent or incorrect.[/list]

Judging by the track record on your credibility..(refer to previous post) I'd really have to say that the burden of proof is on you...lol..

Anyway..it's common "scientific knowledge" at this point that no "transitional fossils" have been found...but as I said before..you are welcome to believe otherwise..

The claim of William Overn is that:

“Isochron dating is unreliable. The method assumes that the samples are cogenetic, that is, that they form at the same time from a reasonably homogeneous common pool. This assumption is invalid. In particular, mixing two sources with different isotopic compositions gives meaningless but apparently valid isochron plots.”

I already addressed this in my previous post:

Which is why I did not feel the need to rebut your OPINION again..
it was already addressed in my previous post..

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Which begs the question, “If true scientific knowledge is impossible, why do Creationists attempt to use science to prove creation?” 🙄

Just wanted to add in response to this question..

Creationism supports the existence of science..rather than the other way around. To believe that the concept of "science" can explain everything in the natural world is silly and illogical, and requires a great deal of faith..which deifies the concept of science as a whole.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Judging by the track record on your credibility..(refer to previous post) I'd really have to say that the burden of proof is on you...lol..

just admit you have absolutely NO proof for creationism. The only thing you have done up till now is refusing to believe in evolution (for every unrational reason you can imagine) and say creationism is right but yet have to give any sort of proof for it

Judging by the track record on your credibility..(refer to previous post) I'd really have to say that the burden of proof is on you...lol..

You're not familiar with rules of a debate, are you. You're making statements saying "this is right and this is wrong". YOU have the burden of proof. If you want anyone to believe a damn think you're saying, as you're making the positive statements, you must back it up with solid evidence.

*pushes in 5 reindeers*
there's a whole lot more outside, can someone help me out here? 😉