BOTH thankfully.
Ok, so your aguments are thus:
This has been proven to be bunk. The earth is NOT a closed system.
Am I missing something?
Well, it kinda does, that’s sort of the idea of science, sort of.
Nothing would be wrong with that, necessarily, but observed facts are simply not present in either case, (at least if you buy into the idea of carbon dating) and there’s less evidence to point to “God” as Creator than there is to prove evolution as a theory. The look back with empirical and physical evidence always carries more weight (IMO) than simply a written account.
Uncanny.
Mangetout: Can you make a few stock predictions for next week. 
Nothing clever about the prediction at all - I’m just a little surprised there wasn’t anything in there about polystrate trees or a supposed shortage of lunar dust.
It is, though, a rather apt demonstration of how shoddy creationism really is; it encourages uncritical acceptance and unthinking repetition of falsehoods - this is not only useless to children trying to learn how to think, but positively counterproductive.
buttonjockey308 said:
Sounds like freedom to me…
Are you sure that it doesn’t involve imminent danger, etc etc.??
A previos poster infered that it was a-hop-skip-and-a-jump away from believing the world was flat, the Jews ran the country, blacks were inferior and Hitler was a nice guy. :eek: 
Well I’m sorry, but it IS about as ignorant as that particular example. What’s the difference exactly? Believeing that the earth is 6000 years old, believing the myths of Noah and the flood and genesis in the light of scientifical evidence is about the same.
And funny enough the reason the idea that the earth was flat lasted for so long in mainstream ideology also had to do with religion overstepping it’s bounds.
And that is the main problem with creationism: It is religion attmepting to usurp on the territory of science.
I believe even in this thread it was agreed that the bible and other works of religion and myth deal with the supernatural, correct?
Science, it was said, deals with the natural.
And twain the two shall never meet. Or atleast that’s the point you so heartily agreed with a page ago. That the two are fundamentally different types of ideology. And I agree.
But, just as science cannot go around meddling in affairs of the unnatural (a scientist cannot postulate the non existance of god, for example, using the scientific method), neither should religion attempt to explain the natural!
This is a logical statement, no?
Therefore, creationism is breaking that same cardinal rule. It attempts to explain the natural, when science is the best tool to do so. And just like I cannot scientifically prove god’s non existance, neither should religion attempt to explain the diversity of life on this planet.
No, I said that your same arguments could be taken to defend the opting-out of education on those topics in exchange for indoctrinating children with whatever other nonsense the parents so choose.
Please explain to me how flat earth ideology is that much different from creation ideology? I mean, aside from the fact that even the ancients knew it was bunk until that thinking was thrown away in favor of a more Christian-friendly version.
Explain to me how your position is any different from someone who believes that the Jews run everything and doesn’t want his kid educated otherwise?
Hell, in a few years, the last WWII vets will be dying, and your friends over there arguing that observation is the only fact that can be determined (neverminding that that same argument disproves creationism as a “theory”) will have a very easy time saying it was all a conspiracy.
Kinthalis said:
You do a disservice to this discussion by inferring that people who hold different views are ignorant. Name calling is always poor form, no matter your audience. (And almost always speaks more about the name caller as opposed to the name “callee”)
Yes we agree. My comments, throughout this thread, have dealt with the separation of church and state and freedom of religion. specifically the freedom to not have one’s beliefs infringed upon by having opposing beliefs imposed on them. Would you not agree?
I offered no opinion on that , correct?
Once again, if creationism is violating some undefined cardinal rule, so be it. But I don’t have a dog in that fight.
Zagadka said:
With all due respect Zagadka, it is offensive and a poor reflection on you to resort to name calling. Nor are you the only one in this thread who has resorted to it as a tactic. It’s plain unnecessary.
My “position” in this thread was one of advocating religious freedom and a bright line between church and state. I think I made my point fairly clearly, isn’t that right? Is there anything in my responses in this thread that warrant calling me ignorant or senseless, or questioning the qualitative difference between my views on religious freedom and rank anti-semitism?
I’m done with this thread.
O_o
K, whatever… if I wanted to call you names, you’d know.
I never said you were spouting nonsense. I said, quite literally, that your views would allow other parents to indoctrinate their children with nonsense. If you take that as a personal attack on you, I think you’re a little touchy about your position being nonsense O_o
You mean by trying to define evolution as a religious ideology bit?
Why won’t you answer the flat-earth ideology question? I’ve been counting. You avoided it three times now, from me alone, and other have asked.
No skin off my teeth.
I can’t fanthom why people think being called ignorant on a subject is an insult. I’m ignorant on many things. I know little about physics for example, I’m quite ignorant when it comes to classical literature.
Why should I be insulted if someone discussing these subjects says that I’m ignorant on them.
Sure I am! But hopefully through asking questions and reading up more on the subject I can start learning.
Ignorance does not denote stupidity. That’s an insult
I never did that. You misread my post, I suppose. I said what is the difference between using your arguments for creationism and anti-semitism? If you want to cherrypick with what your argument works for and doesn’t, that’s up to you, but don’t blow up like a pufferfish when someone points it out. Here’s how I see it:
You made a proposal to allow parents to opt-out their children of education.
I asked what prevents children from opting-out their children from social studies to indoctrinate them with either flat earth ideology or anti-semitism.
You got all mad and started mumbling about name calling and walked off.
I even offered a more low-key topic: flat earth ideology. You also refuse to answer how that relates to your argument. Obviously, if even the proposer of an argument can’t defend the process from being used for ill-intended purposes, the argument isn’t exactly air-tight, is it?
What about the issue of intelligent design? When an archeologist unearths an arrowhead, there’s no postulating about any random process over several millenia mixed with some natural selection (and a little sunshine perhaps). There are signs of intelligent design, even more in Life itself with its incredible complexities.
Dating techniques are based heavily on assumptions, as I understand them. 1st how much of a particular particle was present at the item’s “beginning,” and 2, a predictable rate of decay.
Then there’s the issue of the survivability of a creature if it’s less than what it is. If I didn’t have fully functioning organs because they weren’t fully evolved yet, could I have survived? The preposterous idea that dinosaurs changed into birds, when bird anatomy is so unique, but because they may have strutted, one must have evolved into the other. We have extintions rather than new animals evolving.
No, that is because arrowheads have a purpose, and we know for an observable fact that arrowheads were created and for what purpose. If we find God actively making other civilizations for an obvious purpose, then we can come back and talk about this.
A side question; following the Intelligent Design ideology, if God designed all of life, why are men’s prostates so sensitive and connected to sexual arrousal if they are never meant to be touched?
Ok, I’ll bite…
Zagadka said:
Perhaps I did misread your post, and aplogize accordingly. Nonetheless, the amount of name calling in this thread is still manifest and unwarranted.
To be clear though, I made NO case for creationism. To the extent that someone inferred that, it was incidental at best.
I made a case for the bright line of separation of church and state and for individual freedom to practice one’s own religion without interference.
Indeed I did.
In fairness, I think I did answer. I made a case for freedom to practice one’s religion without interference, not freedom to practice creationism without interference.
The flat earth ideology comment seems to me to be one more analogy that infers that the theory of evolution is as manifest as the fact that the earth is a globe. In that sense, it is no different that the half dozen or more analogies that have come and gone in this thread. To wit:
Those who would deny that the world is a globe face the same **practical **hurdles that those who deny the holocaust do; namely that the evidence to refute the assertion is overwhelming. The flat earth believers must stand firm in the face of withering evidence to the contrary. The evidence that the earth is a globe is stunning and no less compelling than the evidence supporting the “reality” of the holocaust.
As I said before though, even the most ardent evolutionist must concede that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is not as complelling as the evidence supporting the holocaust, or the reality of a globe earth. You simply cannot establish the theory of evolution with the same level of moral and scientific certainty.
But in the end it makes no difference. (to me, and I presume the constitution and the SCOTUS) No matter the evidence, people in this country have the right to practice their religion without interference. Religion has a special place in our collective national consciousness and that freedom is sacrosanct. If a person looks at all the evidence and concludes that the earth is flat (for the purpose of practicing his religion) it is his right to practice that without interference. The person who holds such “wonky” views may face a daunting practical personal( intellectual) hurdle, but as a society we cannot put any hurdle between him and the practice of his religion.
(Editor’s note: In retrospect, my comments that evolution has not established the same level of moral and scientific certainty as the holocaust or a globe earth were not necessary to my point or the OP. It was a swipe at the repeated attempts to portray evolution as as patently manifest by using faulty analogies. For the sake of clarity and “purity of argument” I should have refrained. Admittedly, I couldn’t resist)
There is the practical side of all of this. Lest we think that this is a recipe for anarchy, the fact is that there is no widespread religious movement advocating flat earth views. (and presumably the consequences that these views would impose) Would the overwhelming amount of evidence have anything to do with that? This country has historically handled very diverse religious views and we’re a better nation for it.
And in the end, the solution is education, right? Isn’t that the mission here? You don’t fight ignorance by fighting freedom. My instinct is that when the theory of evolution is as patently manifest as the relaity of a globe earth this argument will be largely moot.
It’s still about freedom.
I wasn’t mad, and I don’t mumble.
prostrate, forgive my ignorance here, but is that the target of the dreaded rubber glove and ky jelly exam via a particular outer planet of our solar system?
Look, Sam, I hate to get obvious on you here, and IANA Ornithologist, but if you’re talking preposterous, there are more than a few things in the Good Book that fit that bill, so to speak. If you believe in the omnipresence of God, and ‘his’ unfathomable ability as the creator of all things, then what’s to say all of the things that the men of science have found out about the evolution of dinosaurs aren’t true, and this is all just part of the Divine Plan™?