GOP may have Rush, Hannity and Levin moderate debates...

[Flying Crane]

But, but...I thought all scientists believed in man made global warming...and that it was just a "fact," but perhaps...there is more to the story...

oh no, we never said that. There are hacks and Fossil Fuel Industry stooges who try their best to sow uncertainty on the topic. I notice you passionately aid them in the dissemination of misinformation...

 

[ballen0351]

I am actually not claiming that creationism isn't possible. Rather, creationism cannot be proven nor disproven. It cannot be observed nor measured. If it is accepted, it is done so on faith, absent any concrete evidence, and is based on traditions that have been handed down to us by previous generations. Some people accept that faith, others do not. That is a personal choice.

Science deals with what is observable and measurable and compiles concrete evidence to describe the world around us. Let science deal with the observable and measurable. Let religion deal with that which is taken on faith. Religion and faith do not belong in the science classroom.

Science has not yet been able to describe everything in the world. Science is very open about that fact. But that does not justify bringing faith into a science class and pretending that it too is science, or that faith can be accepted scientifically. Again, that is ignorant.

Recognize it for what it is. Religion deals with faith, and it has an appropriate place in society and in the educational system. But that place is not in the science classroom.

I really have no problem with a teacher, in the context of a religion or theology class, suggesting to the students that the aspects of our existence that cannot (yet) be described by science can be seen within the faith as a guiding act of god/zeus/odin/mother goddess, etc. As science fills in the gaps, then it becomes appropriate to adjust the faith to accept what can be scientifically described and for which there is abundant evidence.

However, there is a very big problem with a teacher, in the context of a science class, telling the students that the gaps in scientific understanding should be viewed as the hand of god at work. That is a leap of faith, it is not measurable or observable, and there is no evidence to support it. So in the context of a science class, where observation, measurement, and evidence are of paramount importance and cannot be applied to faith, it is absolutely inappropriate to bring faith into the mix and couch it as scientifically plausible.

This is really a very simple concept. I am bewildered why this is so difficult to grasp.

So you admit Creationism could be possible, you admit Science doesn't know and may never know, and yet still say it shouldn't be mentioned in science class when we teach evolution? Even in evolution science takes a leap of faith from goo to humans. So how is your leap of faith better then my leap of faith

 

[Flying Crane]

So you admit Creationism could be possible, you admit Science doesn't know and may never know, and yet still say it shouldn't be mentioned in science class when we teach evolution?

yup, simply because it cannot be disproven, is why I admit it could be possible. But the inability to disprove it, is not the same as proving it. Don't make that mistake.

Even in evolution science takes a leap of faith from goo to humans. So how is your leap of faith better then my leap of faith

Evolution is not a leap of faith. There is a huge amount of concrete evidence that supports evolution as a very real phenomenon happening in the world. The fact that science has not documented or described every single evolutionary step along the way does not negate the fact of evolution. When you understand evolution, it is very easy to see how it is happening all over the place. To exclude humans from that process because we want to believe we are somehow "special" and above the rest of all existence, well that's silly to be honest. In my opinion, it's much more elegant to see how humans fit into the world along with the rest of all the critters, rather than pretending that we were specially created by a supreme being, to be different and above all others.

Your leap of faith holds ZERO concrete evidence. It is a leap of faith, pure and simple.

 

[arnisador]

its not a fear of science. you have your blind faith that the amino acid goo some how over billions of years turned into people yet you cant prove it.

You're demonstrating just the kind of ignorance of science we're decrying. You simply don't understand how it works. Science is questions that may never be answered...religion is answers that can never be questioned. Scientists will gladly show you their entire reasoning--it's freely available on the web. There's nothing "blind" about it. You just don't understand the argument ("one long argument") for evolution. It would be possible to understand and still disagree, as is the case with some IDers. But you're claiming an entirely false equivalence.

 

[arnisador]

Again your claiming that creationism isn't possible. Yet you cant prove it didn't happen. You cant prove they are not on equal footing. you "believe" its not.

Creationism is possible. This could all be your dream, on the other hand--you might be the only living sentience and imagining this conversation. These are theories but not scientific theories if they can't be tested. Science is a way of knowing. So is making stuff up.

 

[arnisador]

So you admit Creationism could be possible, you admit Science doesn't know and may never know, and yet still say it shouldn't be mentioned in science class when we teach evolution? Even in evolution science takes a leap of faith from goo to humans. So how is your leap of faith better then my leap of faith

It's a different approach. You can decide which is better--prayer or medicine, for example. But they're different.

 

[ballen0351]

It's a different approach. You can decide which is better--prayer or medicine, for example. But they're different.

A better approach is a combination of both. One does not need to be mutually exclusive of the other.

 

[ballen0351]

Creationism is possible. This could all be your dream, on the other hand--you might be the only living sentience and imagining this conversation. These are theories but not scientific theories if they can't be tested. Science is a way of knowing. So is making stuff up.

Again so prove how we went from goo to you you cant we have guesses on what happened by no proof

 

[arnisador]

A better approach is a combination of both. One does not need to be mutually exclusive of the other.

One demands evidence and the other says reason cannot get to me, you need faith--those are different approaches. You can use one approach when it seems best and another when that one seems best--this of course very common, as religious scientists must code-switch like this often--but the approaches themselves don't really lend themselves to being combined. The history of religion is a long retreat as science proves it wrong and it pulls back into smaller and smaller gaps (e.g., theistic evolution).

 

[ballen0351]

One demands evidence and the other says reason cannot get to me, you need faith--those are different approaches. You can use one approach when it seems best and another when that one seems best--this of course very common, as religious scientists must code-switch like this often--but the approaches themselves don't really lend themselves to being combined. The history of religion is a long retreat as science proves it wrong and it pulls back into smaller and smaller gaps (e.g., theistic evolution).

And Im demanding evidence. You tell me Creationism didnt happen so show me the proof. Show me where the goo came from, where the universe came from. where is the proof

 

[arnisador]

Again so prove how we went from goo to you you cant we have guesses on what happened by no proof

It's been done--by the standards of science. Virtually all scientists agree on this. In fact, there's much more disagreement about the theory of gravitation (how gravity works) than the theory of evolution (explaining speciation--why there are so many species and why some look a lot like one another but others don't). If people had any idea how little we really understand about gravity beyond how to predict its effects they'd freak out. People would never fly in an airplane again.

Science is not and may never be complete. It's more method than list of facts. Religion is allegedly divinely revealed and hence stable, though people are no longer stoning their daughters for not being virgins when they web (at least, outside of some Muslim areas).

Evolution has been proven to the satisfaction of scientists. (Check out "Project Steve", for example.) You are demanding a sort of proof other than that used by scientists, and I don't understand what it is you need to see to be satisfied. A pictorial list of every creature that ever lived would be too large to be useful. What non- or extra-scientific information are you seeking?

 

[Flying Crane]

And Im demanding evidence. You tell me Creationism didnt happen so show me the proof.

We've actually said that it might have happened but it cannot be proven.

You want us to disprove it? OK, just as soon as you prove it.

 

[arnisador]

And Im demanding evidence. You tell me Creationism didnt happen

I never said that. I've said just the opposite: It could've happened. In this very thread I've repeatedly told you that it's a theory but not of the sort science considers. It could be true yet still not subject to scientific verification.

Show me where the goo came from, where the universe came from. where is the proof

What do you mean by "show me"? We can't physically take you somewhere. In any event, religious explanations are much more vague than scientific hypotheses in these matters.

 

[ballen0351]

We've actually said that it might have happened but it cannot be proven.

You want us to disprove it? OK, just as soon as you prove it.

Prove what your all the proof I need. Your existence is proof

 

[ballen0351]

I never said that. I've said just the opposite: It could've happened. In this very thread I've repeatedly told you that it's a theory but not of the sort science considers. It could be true yet still not subject to scientific verification.

So it could happen but we just cant discuss it as a possibility.

What do you mean by "show me"? We can't physically take you somewhere. In any event, religious explanations are much more vague than scientific hypotheses in these matters.

hypotheses oh you mean a guess or belief kinda like a Leap of faith.

 

[Steve]

Ballen. Your posts are surreal. You are literally ignoring what is being said to you and refuting statements no one but your imagination have said.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Flying Crane]

Prove what your all the proof I need. Your existence is proof

It's not proof that a diety created me. My existence is only proof that I exist.

 

[ballen0351]

Ballen. Your posts are surreal. You are literally ignoring what is being said to you and refuting statements no one but your imagination have said.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

So then ignore it if you have a problem.

 

[ballen0351]

It's not proof that a diety created me. My existence is only proof that I exist.

And where did humans come from?

 

[Steve]

So then ignore it if you have a problem.

LOL. Someone woke up on the wrong side of the web server today. Seriously, take a step back and READ... really read... what people are saying. So far, I and several others have agreed with you that creationism CAN be taught in schools. No one (that I've seen) has suggested that creationism is impossible. Everyone has been VERY respectful of your right to your faith.

Over the last several pages, you've been articulating an increasingly extreme position that is falling apart around you. It's not enough that it be taught in schools. You want it taught as science. It's not enough that it be taught as science. You want it taught as an equivalent to evolution. It's not enough that it be taught as an equivalent to evolution. You want people who are not Xtians to accept it. Come on, buddy. Be reasonable. You're way out on a weird limb here, pushing a position that even many xtians would argue is unreasonable.