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

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Actually the insults don't bother me. I've continually rebutted everyone of your so called "facts" in this thread. Most of the insults have been directed at me after I've made a pertinent argument, that someone has been proven wrong about..like BUDDHISM for example...lol..

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yersett you are truly a fool. You've essentially illustrated my point in your response...I've mentioned multiple times in this thread that Carbon Dating only goes back to a bit above 3000 years..and you've essentially proven my point with your figure above......either way..this illustrates my point all along about the Earth not being "billions" of years old. Please don't respond anymore...let someone else with a tad bit more scientific knowledge...you are embarassing yourself...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Again..you have no idea what you are talking about..I already figured this out when you stated the Dalai Lama is the only one who would be able to classify Buddhism as a religion..however..as you continue to post on this thread..it becomes more apparent..

Here read this...

*note fossils are almost always found in mixed rock formation...
Isochron Metholodogy is very inaccurate my friend..as I've stated about a million times in this damb thread..

no, you mentioned it two or three times.
I already told you what scientists do to counter the possible inaccuracies:
1. Additional tests on the same data involved in the isochron plot (such as that for mixing).
2. Cross-checks between different isotopes with different chemical properties.
3. Attention to the geologic setting from which the samples were obtained.

Read more here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#isoprobsum

Originally posted by yerssot
No, you just showed you have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about 😆
Showing how uneducated they are, creationists think Carbondating is used on everything. In reality, however, carbon dating is not that commonspread because scientists know it can only go back 5730 years. They didn't use it to date the tchadensis of course 🙄 Before you go on commenting about datingmethods, it would be wise for you to talk to someone who knows this field

Yersott..answer a couple of questions

What accepted dating methods are able to accurately date fossils over a few thousand years?

What type of rock formations are fossils generally found in?

How is the billion year figure valid..if no dating methods can gauge accurately the age of fossils over a few thousand years?

It has been brought to my attention I gravely misexpressed myself on the C14 method, for which I'm deeply sorry.
I will do my best to rectify this:
The half-life of carbon-14 has a specific number. This means it takes that amount of years to decay half of the amount of radioisotope. Of course you can half THAT amount again and so on and so forth. You can go back to the last ice age using this method (so you can date ice age animals and the Neanderthal men).

What I meant with:
"...because scientists know it can only go back 5730 years." was meant to be understood as: "...because scientists know it can only go back 5730 years each turn." ergo has limitations before the noise of the universe interferes.
Once again, sorry for this misinterpretation that could have been made

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yersott..answer a couple of questions

What accepted dating methods are able to accurately date fossils over a few thousand years?

What type of rock formations are fossils generally found in?

How is the billion year figure valid..if no dating methods can gauge accurately the age of fossils over a few thousand years?

Where is the proof there is an almighty creature high up in the sky who you call god?

Where is the proof that creationism exists?

Which (objective) sources can you possibly use to support your claims after the bible?

and out of interest:
Do you believe in genetically enhanced food?

Originally posted by yerssot
It has been brought to my attention I gravely misexpressed myself on the C14 method, for which I'm deeply sorry.
I will do my best to rectify this:
The half-life of carbon-14 has a specific number. This means it takes that amount of years to decay half of the amount of radioisotope. Of course you can half THAT amount again and so on and so forth. You can go back to the last ice age using this method (so you can date ice age animals and the Neanderthal men).

What I meant with:
"...because scientists know it can only go back 5730 years." was meant to be understood as: "...because scientists know it can only go back 5730 years each turn." ergo has limitations before the noise of the universe interferes.
Once again, sorry for this misinterpretation that could have been made

It's okay..but your still continuing to misrepresent. The bottom line is that carbon 14 dating does not gauge dates accurately over about 5000 years of age..anything beyond that is merely guess work. Either way..a bit over 5000 is still waaay off from a billion years.

Anywhoo..I've never really debated the age of earth..again..if you had read my previous posts you would have understood that I am not a 7 day adventist..and thus I do not believe that the earth was literally created in 7 days. Thus, you arguing over the age of earth with me is very moot. Again..do some research on Christian Theology, and you will see that there are several different theories on this topic.

No whob, now you are going to answer a couple of questions. We have had this "discussion" for dozens of pages now, it's time you answer for a change:

Where is the proof there is an almighty creature high up in the sky who you call god?

Based on the complexity of the Universe and order demonstrated in its design, as Einstein would say..this clock..would more than likely point out a clockmaker's handiwork...

Now answer these questions(*note you didn't directly answer my previous questions..so I will re-post them)

What accepted dating methods are able to accurately date fossils over a few thousand years?

What type of rock formations are fossils generally found in?

How is the billion year figure valid..if no dating methods can gauge accurately the age of fossils over a few thousand years?

Where is proof that a missing link between man and beast exists?

Since man and beast are so closely genetically related, how come they are unable to produce genetic hybrids, like other animals that are closely related in various animal families?

Why is there nothing in historical record(which ranges over 5000 years) that resembles Darwinian speciation?

If hybridization does not yield a unique species of animal/plant, what does that tell us about the current animal classification system we are using?

Should the term species perhaps cover a larger group of animals in each family category..particularly between animals that are able to produce fertile hybrids?

Has the process of "Darwinian speciation" ever been induced through experimentation? (ie mating a dog with a cat...bird with a lizard..etc)

Out of 100's of thousands of fossils that have been collected over the past 20-30 years..how come only a handful of "transitionals" have been found?

How come the handful of "transitionals" that have been found are not accepted as valid by a large group of the scientific community?

Where is the proof that creationism exists?

Well it's a theory..so yeah it exists...lol..🙄

Which (objective) sources can you possibly use to support your claims after the bible?

Law of Thermodynamics

Theory of Relativity

The fact that no Transitional fossils have been found.

The fact the the Creationism fits the Scientific Model better than Darwinism

The fact that the Universe as a whole seems to be intricately designed with complex mechanics that would be next to impossible to have formed by blind chance..

The fact that historical record supports Creationist Claims.

just to name a few things...

and out of interest:
Do you believe in genetically enhanced food?

Let me answer your question with a question..do you believe that the concept of hybridization..creates a completely uniqe species of plant/animal/etc?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
It's okay..but your still continuing to misrepresent. The bottom line is that carbon 14 dating does not gauge dates accurately over about 5000 years of age..anything beyond that is merely guess work. Either way..a bit over 5000 is still waaay off from a billion years.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Based on the complexity of the Universe and order demonstrated in its design, as Einstein would say..this clock..would more than likely point out a clockmaker's handiwork...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Now answer these questions(*note you didn't directly answer my previous questions..so I will re-post them)

how about explaining more indepth:

The fact the the Creationism fits the Scientific Model better than Darwinism

The fact that historical record supports Creationist Claims.[/B][/QUOTE]
and as said about the others: a simply game of chance

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Let me answer your question with a question..do you believe that the concept of hybridization..creates a completely uniqe species of plant/animal/etc?

(shortened answer cause my last one didn't come through due to taking too much time 😠 )

Originally posted by yerssot
it's 50 000, not 5000. and of course, they don't use C14 to date the world

Now your just making stuff up..it's very apparent that you have very little idea what your talking about. As I stated before..Carbon dating is only "somewhat" accurate at a bit over 5000 years. Even then it really ain't all that accurate. Isochron Methodology is about as bad. The only way to get a semi accurate reading of a fossil is if it is found in a whole rock formation, which is very untypical with fossils. Anyway as I said before..you debating the earths age with me is very moot, because I am not a complete "literalist" when it comes to interpreting the Bible, especially regarding the earths creation/age.

that doesn't mean there is a creator, science can clearly say why this and that happened, if things were slightly out of place or order it wouldn't have. It's best to be compared to a game of chance.

Do you realize how silly you and many others sound by making such assumptions?

Blind Chance makes more sense huh? By that type of logic..I could say that if I bought a table from the store and took the pieces out of the box, there would be a better chance of the earth's gravitational pull putting all the pieces together, than myself actually getting my tools out, and assembling the damb thing. Sounds pretty silly huh..but that's the type of logic you are giving me.

We have answered your questions the last 30 pages already, now it's time you answer our questions.

No you haven't...I don't believe I've received one direct answer from any of you regarding the missing links, hybrization/species classification, accuracy of dating methods, historical record, etc..etc. You all have just waffled around the issues..usually with "You are the one with the burden of proof!!" response, and typical debate logic answers..(ie logical fallacy of Authority, Exclusion..blah blah blah)

how about explaining more indepth:

Skim back to page 11 or 12 on this thread..I gave a whole two pages worth of information on both the Evolutionary and Creation Models..

The fact that historical record supports Creationist Claims.

How about the fact that a great flood that encompassed the entire earth has been mentioned and referenced in Ancient Asian, African, and Indian cultures...and the fact that fossils of various aquatic animals have been found in mountain ranges all over the world..supporting this claim..

How about the fact that ancient Asian, African, Indian cultures reference a historical time where everyone on the earth spoke one language...however....an unusual event happened that broke people off into distinct groups (go to google and type in tower of babble and history..)

Or the fact that Roman history has supported the existence Jesus and his disciples...In fact..shortly after he died..Jesus's face was put on many Roman coins..

just to name a few things...

Now give me some historical references that mention dogs turning into cats..lizards turning into birds..etc...

don't answer a question with a question.

I'll accept that as a no..😆

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Now your just making stuff up.. [etc]

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Do you realize how silly you and many others sound by making such assumptions?

Blind Chance makes more sense huh? By that type of logic..I could say that if I bought a table from the store and took the pieces out of the box, there would be a better chance of the earth's gravitational pull putting all the pieces together, than myself actually getting my tools out, and assembling the damb thing. Sounds pretty silly huh..but that's the type of logic you are giving me.

as I said: chance comes close to describing it, but it doesn't do justice to it. For life alone already it took 3 billion years to get created, time enough to get it to figure out how it could survive and adapt and in most cases to die cause it wasn't suited for "the job"

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Skim back to page 11 or 12 on this thread..I gave a whole two pages worth of information on both the Evolutionary and Creation Models..

Originally posted by whobdamandog
How about the fact that a great flood that encompassed the entire earth has been mentioned and referenced in Ancient Asian, African, and Indian cultures...and the fact that fossils of various aquatic animals have been found in mountain ranges all over the world..supporting this claim..

How about the fact that ancient Asian, African, Indian cultures reference a historical time where everyone on the earth spoke one language...however....an unusual event happened that broke people off into distinct groups (go to google and type in tower of babble and history..)

Or the fact that Roman history has supported the existence Jesus and his disciples...In fact..shortly after he died..Jesus's face was put on many Roman coins..

yet again... how many languages do they know in those parts of the world and how can they explain the difference? In papoa-new-guinea they have a lot (1/3th of all the languages in the world) but it's smaller than for example the US. You create god and myths to explain things they don't understand, it would be more than logic for them to create a story (if they have, I do not know about that) about how they got that many.
The only story I know about languages however is the christian story, the rest were some mentionings of some gods being mad at men for stealing fire.

I do not dispute the POSSIBLE existance of a HISTORICAL jesus, I however do not believe in any devine powers he has... to me he was a rebel trying to knock some sense into the jews nothing more

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Now give me some historical references that mention dogs turning into cats..lizards turning into birds..etc...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I'll accept that as a no..😆

You egregiously misrepresent what others say:

This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.

In this quote, the Dalai Lama explains that there is no need for temples or rituals; one should simply practice kindness.

In the interests of everyone the artist had a responsibility to use his medium well. In the Tibetan culture, most of the paintings are of deities or Buddhas, and they try to send a message of the value of the spiritual.

In this quote, the Dalai Lama explains that most paintings in Tibetan culture are of deities or buddhas. Note the use of the operator “or” to indicate that the subjects of the paintings are not synonymous.

Freedom is the real source of human happiness and creativity. Irrespective of whether you are a believer or nonbeliever, whether Buddhist, Christian, or Jew, the important thing is to be a good human being.

In this quote, the Dalai Lama explains that belief or non-belief in the existence of a god is secondary to being a good person.

All religions are essentially the same in their goal of developing a good human heart so that we may become better human beings.

In this quote, the Dalai Lama explains that all belief systems are worthwhile; they are all different means to achieve the same end.

To me there is no difference whether president, beggar, or king.

In this quote, the Dalai Lama explains that one becomes a good person through works, not status; all have an equal opportunity to achieve enlightenment.

Good human qualities-honesty, sincerity, a good heart-cannot be bought with money, nor can they be produced my machines, but only by the mind itself. We can call this the inner light, or God's blessing, or human qualitity. This is the essence of mankind.

In this quote, the Dalai Lama explains that good human qualities are produced by the mind, and that other belief systems may call the mind many other things.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Let me retract what I said originally about the Dalai Lama being a fool, it has now come to my understanding that he at least recognizes that the "philosophy" that he practices is classified as a religion, unlike a certain protector from the land of Eternia...Please Mr. Poe do not speak for the Dalai Lama anymore..your making a mockery out of his religion...🙄😆😆

The Dalai Lama may recognize that lay persons classify Buddhism as a religion, but it does not follow from this he believes it to be a religion. The fact that he has expressed that Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy corroborates this.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Link to a websites..where the term "illogical fallacy" has been used...

http://ie.developerpipeline.com/160911202

Congratulations on once again committing the logic fallacy of Appeal to Authority; Computer developers are not authorities on logical argumentation or the proper use of the term “logic fallacy.”

Furthermore, a “scientific theory” is “a set of explanatory statements devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, that has been repeatedly tested and the results replicated, and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”

Please, explain how Creationism qualifies as a scientific theory according to this definition, particularly in regards to being testable.

Moreover, even if we presume that the “evidence” for Creationism is correct, if a Creator does not exist, this evidence does not logically support the conclusion. Therefore, before one can evaluate the truth or falsity of the evidence in question, he must first determine whether or not a Creator exists.

In this sense, the argument for Creationism commits the logic fallacy of Begging the Question, because the truth of the conclusion, e.g. a Creator exists, is assumed by the premises, e.g. the evidence for Creationism. Therefore, the argument for Creationism is invalid unless one can provide supplemental evidence in the existence of a Creator.

So, where is the evidence that a Creator exists that is logically necessary for Creationism to be a valid argument and a viable theory?

Furthermore, a “scientific theory” is “a set of explanatory statements devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, that has been repeatedly tested and the results replicated, and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”

Please, explain how Creationism qualifies as a scientific theory according to this definition, particularly in regards to being testable.

Good luck getting an answer from him on this question, I asked him, more or less, the same question a few days ago and he just tiptoed around it claiming "it's already been answered elsewhere in the thread".

Mr. Poe,

You have done nothing to provide facts that Buddhism isn't a religion other than use apologetics to support your "FAITH" in the Dalai Lama's "OPINION." I believe my point has been made regarding this topic, that point being that a "philosophy" does not require "creator" or "supernatural elements" in order to be classified as a religion..that was my point all along..

I am no longer going to argue with you anymore regarding this topic...seeing as how I believe I've provided enough substantive evidence to support my position.

Furthermore, a “scientific theory” is “a set of explanatory statements devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, that has been repeatedly tested and the results replicated, and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”

Please, explain how Creationism qualifies as a scientific theory according to this definition, particularly in regards to being testable.

Your missing the point Mr. Poe..the point all along has been that science itself can not justify it's own existence..so based on this, how can we accept anything as scientific?

Moreover, even if we presume that the “evidence” for Creationism is correct, if a Creator does not exist, this evidence does not logically support the conclusion. Therefore, before one can evaluate the truth or falsity of the evidence in question, he must first determine whether or not a Creator exists.

Yes..and this is the same for any theoretical argument. One has to have a certain degree of "FAITH" the theory of Evolution in order to justify it...despite what you believe..there is much evidence to the contrary supporting that no "transitionals" have been found, no form of Darwinian speciation has ever been witnessed in the historical record, and their is absolutely no evidence what so ever supporting the belief that life essentially started from one single celled organism. But despite all this..you choose to have "FAITH" in your theory..which makes your belief just as speculative and argueably just as theistic as any Creationist.

In this sense, the argument for Creationism commits the logic fallacy of Begging the Question, because the truth of the conclusion, e.g. a Creator exists, is assumed by the premises, e.g. the evidence for Creationism. Therefore, the argument for Creationism is invalid unless one can provide supplemental evidence in the existence of a Creator.

Quit with the logic fallacies..that's a very silly way to debate..and generally does nothing other than weaken your overall argument.

So, where is the evidence that a Creator exists that is logically necessary for Creationism to be a valid argument and a viable theory?

Just like you have no tangible scientific evidence to support the origins of life, Darwinian speciation(other than what you believe to be true), the big bang, missing link, etc, etc..I have no real tangible evidence to support Creationism...(of course that's if you exclude historical record, law of thermodynamics, theory of relativity, probability of chance against intelligent design, etc). Regardless of the substantive evidence we have supporting our claims..we should be able to teach both of our beliefs freely and equitably to our children.

Fin.

Originally posted by yerssot
look it up then if you don't believe me. Oh and do use credited sources for this and not letslieaboutscience.com

lol..I don't have to look it up..you've already provided the figure in your previous posts. Carbon Dating does not accurately gauge the age of fossils over a few thousand years. And since you don't seem to understand the correlation between dates of fossils and the age of the earth, let me explain it to you. The earth's estimated by the "alleged" ages of fossils that have been found over the years.

putting a table together has nothing to do with this

The table anology is a very sound one....again ask yourself the question..if I let the table sit in my house for 20 years..would it be logical to assume that the table would at some point gain the knowledge,ability, sentience, to put itself together. Seriously..you evolutionists do not realize the absurdity behind your religion. It's requires more faith than any other religion I've ever encountered.

as I said: chance comes close to describing it, but it doesn't do justice to it. For life alone already it took 3 billion years to get created, time enough to get it to figure out how it could survive and adapt and in most cases to die cause it wasn't suited for "the job"

Your logic is that somehow..a single cell..gained some form of sentience and ability to adapt itself with no prior ability/knowledge to do so. Please explain to me how on earth this little cell managed to acquire the abilities/knowledge to do this, how it was able to replicate itself after dying, and how on earth one is able to justify this theory as a science through testing, scientific models, or any valid scientific evidence.

you mean that part where we proved you were wrong and you said it was all about faith?

I've never disputed Creationism requires some degree of FAITH, as well as the a certain amount of ability to apply common sense to what you read/interpret. You and many others however, have insinuated that your religion does not, which is a very untrue statement. As you can see from the examples I've given throughout this thread..your religion requires quite a bit more FAITH than any other...

You create god and myths to explain things they don't understand,

I believe this statement says it all about Darwinian theories.
Please forgive me if you believe I'm disregarding the wonderful "relgious" historical misinformation you presented..🙄 however this statement was so well though out I believed it more appropriate to address than any others...

now go and study evolution. Dogs don't evolve into cats, as has been said by other members here before: wait a few thousand years to see chances, and be on the look-out for an extra pair of wings or something so that bug can be faster. There is no need for a dog to evolve into a cat, he can perfectly survive in his current situation.

So you agree that there is a chance of a dog evolving into a cat in the next 1000 years? A simple yes or no will do...

Or how about if I take a booger from my nose..and it put it on the ground..is there a possability that the cells from the booger will evolve
into another form of life in the next 1000 years?

As Backfire would put it..

My final question to you is this - What biological or logical barriers prevent these to scenarios from happening?

EDIT: never mind, i feel like an idiot now. I was going to post an image, but don't have the privileges

Originally posted by whobdamandog
lol..I don't have to look it up..you've already provided the figure in your previous posts. Carbon Dating does not accurately gauge the age of fossils over a few thousand years. And since you don't seem to understand the correlation between dates of fossils and the age of the earth, let me explain it to you. The earth's estimated by the "alleged" ages of fossils that have been found over the years.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The table anology is a very sound one....again ask yourself the question..if I let the table sit in my house for 20 years..would it be logical to assume that the table would at some point gain the knowledge,ability, sentience, to put itself together. Seriously..you evolutionists do not realize the absurdity behind your religion. It's requires more faith than any other religion I've ever encountered.[B]

Originally posted by whobdamandog
[B]Your logic is that somehow..a single cell..gained some form of sentience and ability to adapt itself with no prior ability/knowledge to do so. Please explain to me how on earth this little cell managed to acquire the abilities/knowledge to do this, how it was able to replicate itself after dying, and how on earth one is able to justify this theory as a science through testing, scientific models, or any valid scientific evidence.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I've never disputed Creationism requires some degree of FAITH, as well as the a certain amount of ability to apply common sense to what you read/interpret. You and many others however, have insinuated that your religion does not, which is a very untrue statement. As you can see from the examples I've given throughout this thread..your religion requires quite a bit more FAITH than any other...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I believe this statement says it all about Darwinian theories.
Please forgive me if you believe I'm disregarding the wonderful "relgious" historical misinformation you presented..🙄 however this statement was so well though out I believed it more appropriate to address than any others...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So you agree that there is a chance of a dog evolving into a cat in the next 1000 years? A simple yes or no will do...

Or how about if I take a booger from my nose..and it put it on the ground..is there a possability that the cells from the booger will evolve
into another form of life in the next 1000 years?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You have done nothing to provide facts that Buddhism isn't a religion other than use apologetics to support your "FAITH" in the Dalai Lama's "OPINION." I believe my point has been made regarding this topic, that point being that a "philosophy" does not require "creator" or "supernatural elements" in order to be classified as a religion..that was my point all along..

I am no longer going to argue with you anymore regarding this topic...seeing as how I believe I've provided enough substantive evidence to support my position.

Once again, a negation cannot be proven. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the individual making a positive claim to substantiate it:

You have provided no authoritative evidence that Buddhism or any other belief system that holds no belief about the existence of a supernatural power is a religion, only weak deduction and invalid arguments.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Your missing the point Mr. Poe..the point all along has been that science itself can not justify it's own existence..so based on this, how can we accept anything as scientific?

You are evading the question, “How does Creationism qualify as a scientific, particularly in regards to being testable?”

Moreover, why do you attempt to prove creation with science if you believe that scientific knowledge is impossible?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes..and this is the same for any theoretical argument. One has to have a certain degree of "FAITH" the theory of Evolution in order to justify it...despite what you believe..there is much evidence to the contrary supporting that no "transitionals" have been found, no form of Darwinian speciation has ever been witnessed in the historical record, and their is absolutely no evidence what so ever supporting the belief that life essentially started from one single celled organism. But despite all this..you choose to have "FAITH" in your theory..which makes your belief just as speculative and argueably just as theistic as any Creationist.

Do not conflate faith, a belief that is not based on logical proof or material evidence, with logical inference, a conclusion derived from premises known or accepted to be true. The former is a component of theology; the latter is a component of science.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Quit with the logic fallacies..that's a very silly way to debate..and generally does nothing other than weaken your overall argument.

Identifying invalid arguments is a logical way to argue.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Just like you have no tangible scientific evidence to support the origins of life, Darwinian speciation(other than what you believe to be true), the big bang, missing link, etc, etc..I have no real tangible evidence to support Creationism...(of course that's if you exclude historical record, law of thermodynamics, theory of relativity, probability of chance against intelligent design, etc). Regardless of the substantive evidence we have supporting our claims..we should be able to teach both of our beliefs freely and equitably to our children.

The difference is that one argument is valid while the other is not:

In the argument for evolution, the truth of the conclusion, e.g. evolution occurs, is logically inferred from the truth of the premises, e.g. the evidence for evolution.

In the argument for Creationism, the truth of the conclusion, e.g. a Creator exists, is assumed by the premises, e.g. the evidence for Creationism.

“In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’ I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms,” Stephen J. Gould.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Once again, a negation cannot be proven. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the individual making a positive claim to substantiate it:

Semantics. You've been given much substantive proof.

You have provided no authoritative evidence that Buddhism or any other belief system that holds no belief about the existence of a supernatural power is a religion, only weak deduction and invalid arguments.

So in your "opinion"..the Dalai Lama's "opinion" is more authoratative than the Tibetan & US Governments?

You are evading the question, “How does Creationism qualify as a scientific, particularly in regards to being testable?”

The same question should be asked of speciation, in the "Darwinian" sense..it has not been observed, experimentally induced, and there is no scientific evidence supporting it. In addition..there is no link relating Adaptation to Micro evolution.

Moreover, why do you attempt to prove creation with science if you believe that scientific knowledge is impossible?

Explain to me how science is able to "scientifically prove" it's own existence. When you are able to do that, than you can justify what should and shouldn't be classified as a science...

Do not conflate faith, a belief that is not based on logical proof or material evidence, with logical inference, a conclusion derived from premises known or accepted to be true.

Faith is the only thing that justifies the concept known as science...

Identifying invalid arguments is a logical way to argue.

How can you identify an argument is invalid..what is invalid to you..may be deemed valid to another person..being a practicing Buddhist..you should understand this simple theological concept..

The difference is that one argument is valid while the other is not:

The real difference is that you have a different "faith" than myself..and you are unaware of the fact that your"faith" is the only thing that enables you to determine what is true..and what is not...

In the argument for evolution, the truth of the conclusion, e.g. evolution occurs, is logically inferred from the truth of the premises, e.g. the evidence for evolution.

In the argument for Creationism, the truth of the conclusion, e.g. a Creator exists, is assumed by the premises, e.g. the evidence for Creationism.

“In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’ I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms,” Stephen J. Gould.

Prove to me that the concept of science exists..and then you can prove to me that Darwinism is not a religion...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Semantics. You've been given much substantive proof.

So in your "opinion"..the Dalai Lama's "opinion" is more authoratative than the Tibetan & US Governments?

The same question should be asked of speciation, in the "Darwinian" sense..it has not been observed, experimentally induced, and there is no scientific evidence supporting it. In addition..there is no link relating Adaptation to Micro evolution.

Explain to me how science is able to "scientifically prove" it's own existence. When you are able to do that, than you can justify what should and shouldn't be classified as a science...

Faith is the only thing that justifies the concept known as science...

How can you identify an argument is invalid..what is invalid to you..may be deemed valid to another person..being a practicing Buddhist..you should understand this simple theological concept..

The real difference is that you have a different "faith" than myself..and you are unaware of the fact that your"faith" is the only thing that enables you to determine what is true..and what is not...

Prove to me that the concept of science exists..and then you can prove to me that Darwinism is not a religion...

Where as the evolutionists of this thread have tried to anwer your questions to the best of their ability you MR. Whob have not. The evolutionists asked you questions, so please be a sport and answer them. But please, be a little bit more mature and cease dodging questions with questions. It is ratherannoying.

Everytime you post you have only proved you are a fool over and over again. So I, being the nice person I am, have just have a little piece of advice for you:It is better to let people think you are a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

P.S. I have a little something to say about your creator. 😄 Don't worry its not a long essay on how stupid God is. In fact its a quote: God must love stupid people, he made so many!

Originally posted by Nakago
Where as the evolutionists of this thread have tried to anwer your questions to the best of their ability you MR. Whob have not. The evolutionists asked you questions, so please be a sport and answer them. But please, be a little bit more mature and cease dodging questions with questions. It is rather annoying.

Everytime you post you have only proved you are a fool over and over again. So I, being the nice person I am, have just have a little piece of advice for you: It is better to let people think you are a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

You've proven yourself to be the person that you preach against..rather than adressing the actual arguments I've presented...you blindly follow the side you believe to be correct..without examining all the facts presented before you...but since you believe yourself to be an intelligent person..why don't you attempt to answer the questions that many of your friends have avoided this entire thread...

What accepted dating methods are able to accurately date fossils over a few thousand years?

What type of rock formations are fossils generally found in?

How is the billion year figure for earth's age valid..if no dating methods can gauge accurately the age of fossils over a few thousand years?

Where is proof that a "missing link" between man and ape exists?

Since man and ape are so closely genetically related, how come they are unable to produce genetic hybrids, like other animals that are closely related in various animal families?

Why is there nothing in historical record(which ranges over 5000 years) that resembles Darwinian speciation?

If hybridization does not yield a unique species of animal/plant, what does that tell us about the current animal classification system we are using?

Should the term species perhaps cover a larger group of animals in each family category..particularly between animals that are able to produce fertile hybrids?

Has the process of "Darwinian speciation" ever been induced through experimentation? (ie lizard evolving into a bird..fish evolving into a land creature..etc..)

Out of 100's of thousands of fossils that have been collected over the past 20-30 years..how come only a handful of "transitionals" have been found?

How come the handful of "transitionals" that have been found are not accepted as valid by a large group of the scientific community?

Explain to me how science is able to "scientifically prove" it's own existence?

According to Evolutionists..a single cell..gained some form of sentience and ability to adapt itself with no prior ability/knowledge to do so. Please explain to me how on earth this little cell was created...how it managed to acquire the abilities/knowledge to replicate itself, and how on earth one is able to justify this theory as a science through testing, scientific models, or any valid scientific evidence.

if I bought a table from the store, and let the table sit in my house for 20 years..would it be more logical to assume that the table would at some point gain the knowledge,ability, sentience, to put itself together as opposed to assuming that I would at some point put the table together myself?

P.S. I have a little something to say about your creator. 😄 Don't worry its not a long essay on how stupid God is. In fact its a quote: God must love stupid people, he made so many! [/B]

Yes my friend..and all the knowledge I have is "stupidity" in the eyes of God. I realize that. However..as foolish as I may be in the presence of an intelligent creator, it's not hard for me understand..that I'm leagues above yourself....but remember..you are still dearly loved..

Dear higher-than- me MR. Whob,

I find it odd as to how exactly I have proven to be you? I do not 'blindly follow' the side which I believe to be correct. I have read this forum and other perspectives besides that of an evolutionist and I formed an opinion all by myself. That's right ALL by myself. But then maybe a being like you that is 'above' me find yourself unable to grasp such a concept.

I guess a lower being like me should apologize for my opinion? Or maybe you would like to explain by what definition a human being can be above another? But don't listen to me, after all, your knowledge is stupid in the eyes of God. You said so yourself.

Since you believe youself to leagues above me would you mind answering those questions. You still have not answered them. Perhaps you were too wrapped up in your conceit to notice?

My opinion is mine and mine alone. Do not try to blame it on ignorance because the only one blinded by is a person who won't back up what they have to say. I have read your opinions and I do not agree with them. Plain and simple.

Another thing- The main point of this thread is whether or not to allow Creationism to be taught in school. Many have said that Evolution is presented to be the one and only truth in Science classes. That is not true for everyone. My Biology class was presented briefly the theory of Evolution and it was not made out to be the sole explanation. In fact everyone of my science teachers have said to examine all theories. Including Creationism. They told me to look at this with a clear point of view. Yes, I can see that your arguments could have some valid points. They however, do not convince me that they are the likely answer to the question of how the human race came to be. This does not mean however, that should any theory come along that is more plausible I wont change my mind.

Originally posted by Nakago
Dear higher-than- me MR. Whob,

I find it odd as to how exactly I have proven to be you? I do not 'blindly follow' the side which I believe to be correct.

Yes you do..the questions listed above can not be answered by yourself or others who support what you believe in.....that means you are blindly following a cause that has little evidence supporting it..or in other words..you have FAITH in it...

I have read this forum and other perspectives besides that of an evolutionist and I formed an opinion all by myself. That's right ALL by myself. But then maybe a being like you that is 'above' me find yourself unable to grasp such a concept.

I guess a lower being like me should apologize for my opinion? Or maybe you would like to explain by what definition a human being can be above another? But don't listen to me, after all, your knowledge is stupid in the eyes of God. You said so yourself.

I shouldn't have insinuated that I am intellectually above you. I don't believe myself to be intellectually above anyone, nor do I believe any "human" to be above me. Some of us, however, clearly do not utilize the common sense that God has given to us.

Many believe that their own understanding and intellect..can be used to explain all the mysteries of life, which is a "stupid" outlook on life as a whole. I've never admitted to having all the answers, the only thing I've admitted to are the things that I believe to be based on "common sense."

Unlike yourself and many others, I've actually admitted to the fact that there are some things the human mind simply can not understand, nor will it ever be able to understand them...

Since you believe youself to leagues above me would you mind answering those questions. You still have not answered them. Perhaps you were too wrapped up in your conceit to notice?

The questions were asked to you again to demonstrate how hypocritical you were to condemn me for "dodging" questions. You/others clearly can't answer many important questions relating to your "religion".

I don't know the answers to many of the questions that come about as a result of my faith, however, I've actually been "humble" enough to admit that.

My opinion is mine and mine alone.

Your opinion is based on the "faith" that you choose. Whatever "faith" you choose in life..that's the "God" that your "opinion" belongs too...

Do not try to blame it on ignorance because the only one blinded by is a person who won't back up what they have to say.

You must be speaking of yourself. You have not answered any of my questions or given any proof to validate what you believe in.

I have read your opinions and I do not agree with them. Plain and simple.

Yes..you have the right to choose your "faith". It is different than my own, however, one of us at least realizes that our "opinions" are given to us by the "God" that we put our "faith" in.

Another thing- The main point of this thread is whether or not to allow Creationism to be taught in school.

Yes..and if you've read the thread..you'll see that from the beginning up until the current page my argument has clearly been that Darwinism should be classified as a religion, thus it could be excluded from the textbooks according to the first amendment. I've also mentioned multiple times, that both theories should be allowed to be taught in the science classroom, and parents can opt their child out of the class if they do not want them to partake in either lesson.

Many have said that Evolution is presented to be the one and only truth in Science classes. That is not true for everyone.

Currently Darwinism is the only accepted and exstensively taught religion in the science classroom. Being the only religion allowed to be taught, means that it is the only religion accepted as "truth."

My Biology class was presented briefly the theory of Evolution and it was not made out to be the sole explanation. In fact everyone of my science teachers have said to examine all theories. Including Creationism. They told me to look at this with a clear point of view.

It's good to know that you had a teacher who didn't deny that Darwinism is just a "theory"...and encouraged you to look elsewhere to formulate your own opinions of what the truth may be. Still..it doesn't take away from the fact that Darwinism is allowed to be exclusively taught in the science classroom. Being the only religion taught in the classroom gives Darwinism much more credo/acceptance as being "truth" than any other religion.

Yes, I can see that your arguments could have some valid points. They however, do not convince me that they are the likely answer to the question of how the human race came to be. This does not mean however, that should any theory come along that is more plausible I wont change my mind.

Re-evaluate your point of view. And make the decision that best suits you, however, make sure you realize that your "opinion" is given to you by the religion that you place your "faith" in.

I have never said that I can 'prove' or answer anything. That is something you assumed. I have 'evaluated' my point of view. I do not religiously follow 'Darwisnism'.

If you were paying attention and using the eyes that 'God' supposedly gave you would know that I believe that the theory of Evolution is the more likely answer to the question of how the human race came to be. Not that I follow Darwinism like a religion. I said that if something more plausible were to come along I would be willing to change my mind.

I do not find Creationism more plausible than the theory of Evolution. Do not confuse that with the 'faith' a person follows a religion with.