Everyone who feels that creationism should be taught alongside or in lieu of big bang/Evolution, I have a couple of things I don’t understand. First of all, what exactly is there to teach about creationism? How can that lecture be any longer than thirty seconds?
“God created everything in 6 days. Any questions class?”
Can you explain to me what, exactly, there is to teach about creationism that cannot be explained in less than a minute. Because if that is all there is to it, then there doesn’t seem to be much of a point. How do you teach a class of students a concept that simple and that impossible to back up? What if they ask, “how do we know?”. What do you say, “Because the Bible says so.”? What more is there to it?
What about this scenario? A teacher is presenting two differing theories on a particular subject. One theory takes weeks to teach and has a lot of evidence to support it. The other theory takes ten seconds to explain and is nothing more than “it’s this way. Why? Because I said so.” Who is going to believe theory number 2?
If there are any teachers out there who are in favor of “teaching” creationism, explain to me how you would do it and have it actually mean something. Would you test them on it? How?
You left out:[ul][li]Said Creation took place at 3 pm on an October day in 4004 B.C…[/li][li]Satan planted dinosaur fossils in the ground with radioactive potassium-argon ratios designed to look like they were 65 million years old, in an attempt to fool us.[/li][li]Noah’s Flood created the fossil deposit layers in the Grand Canyon, and miraculously sorted all these layers in order of the fossils’ apparent taxonomic progression.[/li][li]The theory that the Paluxy River footprints next to the dinosaur tracks (the ones that look vaguely human-foot-like) are actually the tracks of another dinosaur, is “just a theory.”[/li][li]Since science textbooks are sometimes overturned by later evidence and re-written, but the Bible has never been re-written, the Bible is therefore a superior work.[/ul][/li]Did I miss any?
The Bible has been re-written many times though, in a sense. Is the current version the same as the original after being translated? And, how many versions are there anyway? Is the KJ version the same as the original? Ok, so that’s probably nitpicking. I admit it. But, still. This is an especially important point for Bible literalists to consider. Those that take every word literally. That’s really another conversation though.
Back to the point. I still don’t see how a teacher is supposed to teach that. I can’t imagine a teacher trying to explain those points and not be laughed at. How do you teach something that has absolutely no proof or evidence of any kind, whatsoever, other than a book says so and expect anyone who isn’t already a christian and has an IQ greater than their shoe size to accept it? Especially if there is another theory with evidence competing with it.
[ul]
[li] Light from distant stars was created en route[/li][li] Or, maybe light used to travel really, really fast.[/li][li] Genetic similarities between species is due to God’s desire to copy.[/li][li] They never found the missing link. Its still missing.[/li][li] Neanderthal man is just an old man with arthritis.[/li][li] All the “junk” DNA is necessary. Its there so the scientists will have something to do.[/li][li] Diseases are caused by demons, so don’t worry about washing your hands.[/li][li] No,no,no… A prostate gland susceptible to inflammation is supposed to surround the urethra. The windpipe and solid food intakes should be together by intelligent design. This way, when you inevitably have problems, you will be motivated to speak directly with the Almighty.[/li][/ul]
One thing to think of all of you evolutionists out there, is WHERE exactly is the proof of a Geologic column? And WHy exactly did Mr. Darwin himself on his death bed recant everything he taught and prayed that only God would forgive his horrible sin? HISTORY itself records ALL events in the Bible. Written history! I have been a Christian for 11 years. I STILL havent learned EVERYTHING there is to know about life and all. Because the clear fact that people want to ignore is that There IS a God and u have to answer to HIM when you die. Therefore, people choose to believe we came from a monkey or an amoeba. Therefore, NO ONE cares for us but ourself so that we can reach the next step of Godliness or what have ya. No Heaven, No hell. Just a nothingness after death. Sounds promising to me! I have news for you. Christians have something to look forward to.
Another fact of information. The Big Bang theory TOTALLY goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (aka the Law of Entropy) It states that in any system, things are more likely to go from order TO disorder. The Big bang says that it came from no where and BANG everything was there, in order. I think not.
At ANY time if the earth were to move 1 inch off of the track it is on, closer to the sun or farther, either way, we would either freeze to death or burn to death, depending on which it went.
You can NOT tell me that CHANCE made that happen. There is NO Missing Link. Yes, there have been dinosaurs before. The Bible itself records two of said creatures, Behemoth and Leviathon.
It takes MORE faith, yes, to believe in Creationism. It takes NOTHING to believe you are a nothing. If I knew I came from nothign and was gonna go to nothing, I’d have no reason for life. Which is clearly what Evolutionists have. No reason.
Personally, I have studied out the theory of evolution mroe than most evolutionists have. I think that if they would study up on the facts of such things as the Geologic column, which the WHOLE theory of Evolution is based upon, has never been found, and that Darwin (this is the catcher) himself even recanted his belief of it on his death bed then they would be able to see the truth from the false
Please provide at least three cites, preferably from neutral historians, with primary evidence, that this event ever occurred. Jack Chick tracts do not count.
If you can do so, and if this turns out to be a generally accepted fact among historians and Darwin biographers, I will personally pay $10,000 to either you, or the charity or party of your choice. If it is not, you must admit publicly, on this message board, that you are an uninformed liar.
Deal?
These also are both lies, lies which Christian creationists spout off again and again and again because they don’t know any better, but which have been refuted again and again and again.
The first is a lie because: a) It, for some odd reason, assumes that a state in which all matter and energy are compressed into a single point is somehow less ordered than a state in which galaxies are flying away from each other in all directions at increasing speed, stars and planets are dying and being born constantly, and the universe is slowly approaching heat death; and b) it ignores the propensity for small pockets of order to develop in the presence of increasing entropy.
Even accounting for exaggeration in the use of “1 inch,” the second is a lie because it rests on incorrect assumptions about the Earth’s orbital path and the conditions under which life can develop.
The rest is just philosophical claptrap with no basis in reason or fact. “The WHOLE theory of evolution is based on the geologic column”? No, it isn’t, but you can join moronmountain over in the corner.
Since I’m here first, winglessangel, I’ll take the easy one. Darwin did not recant evolution on his deathbed. Here is a link (from a creationist site, yet) about this pervasive legend. I’m sure some other Dopers (ones who’ve taken more than one college biology class) will be around to take care of the rest of your “arguments.” BTW, (just to take a ceap shot), this:
is laughable. As you will find out when my compadres (where are you guys?) arrive.
Well, I would assume that layers of sedimentary rock holding common fossils and often dateable using radioisotopic means, combined with igneous rock which is nearly always so dateable and often comes between sedimentary layers, suggests that God created the world in a way that caused them to be formed in sequence according to His plan. Since both phenomena are going on today, at rates that enable one to interpret what when on in the past, it suggests to me how He made it happen.
My goodness! If this were true, and not a lie about a good Christian made up by a woman with a personal agenda about Creationism, it would be fascinating. Somebody else can give the cite for this. As for “horrible sin,” when has it been in error for a good Christian like Mr. Darwin to learn about the world God created and the means he used to do it?
Considering that the Bible is written, I’d say you have an excellent tautology here – although there are those who’d question the historicity of the Bible account.
That’s quite clear.
And for what you do today. Including turning people who choose to use their intelligence off to God.
I know nobody who believes either of these propositions.
Huh? Very few Lennonists around here.
Right. I urge you to become one. Instead of a Creationist. There’s some lines in there about humility, and acknowledging the rule of God, and, oh yeah, loving one’s neighbor as oneself.
Right. And Who do you think put that law in place? And caused the Big Bang?
Nor were we attempting to tell you that. “Missing Link” is a stupid way of suggesting a transitional fossil, picked up by popular culture. You’re correct; we have a fairly intact sequence of transitions from slightly-more-intelligent-than-chimpanzee hominids to modern man. But I’ve never heard anyone suppose that wild oxen and crocodiles were dinosaurs before. You got cites on that?
Naah. It takes more intentional blindness to adhere to a dogma that tries to justify one reading of the Bible by making God into a liar. That’s not faith, that’s wilful stupidity. Typically, evolutionists have the honesty to explore the data available and the explanations proposed by students of that data, and decide what answer best fits. Including the one that says that God worked through natural law, including the one discovered by Charles Darwin and refined in the 150 years since.
Dealt with above. Your information is in error.
Thank you. And I, and the other Christians and Jews here, will pray for yours. And that you may have the gift of wisdom and discernment, and be led from Bibliolatry to trusting in God alone.
I don’t know why creationists seem to see evolution as a theological argument as opposed to a scientific argument. I don’t see how proof of evolution’s existence is proof against God’s existence. The evolution/creation debate is not over whether or not God created, but over the method used to create.
It is entirely possible to believe in evolution and be a Christian. The only time this becomes impossible is when you rely on a literal interpretation of the Bible, which virtually no sects outside of American fundementalism embrace. Hell, even the Pope acknowledges that evolution is a very good possibility - http://www.christusrex.org/www1/news/10-96/es10-23-96.html. St. Augustine taught against accepting literalism, as well, as it makes Christians look foolish.
One does not have to believe in Special creationism to be a God-fearing, morally upright Christian. One does have to be a blind fool, though, to believe in Special creationism.
The existance of God is not a fact. It would only be considered a fact if it had been conclusively proven. You need onbective physical evidence (and a lot of it I might add) which would pass rigorous scientific testing and cannot be explained by any other means before god’s existance would become a fact. The very idea of proving gods existance negates the idea of faith. Ask yourself, what is Christianity based on? Is it 100% stone cold factual knowledge of the existance of God, or is it faith? If it the former, prove it to me. Anyway even if there is a God, which God is it? The Christian God? Allah? What?
I’m sorry but I am going to have to ask for a cite for real on this. I haven’t heard anything about this supposed recanting of his lifes work. I’m not saying you’re trying to deceive me, just that I need a little outside evidence.
Uhoh, we aren’t going down the old ‘If you don’t know everything about the Universe you can’t say for sure that there isn’t a God so you have to accept the possibility that there is one’ argument, are we? If so then you must extend that logic to fit anything and everything your imagination can come up with. Hell, for all I know, the milky way is actually made out of milk. We haven’t examined all of it so how do we know? How do we know that the earth and all of the other planets aren’t just marbles in some interstellar game of solitaire? We don’t. That doesn’t make it true.
Again, I’m going to have to ask for a cite. For all I know this could be right but it sounds wildly implausible to me. If we were talking in terms of thousands of miles then perhaps you would have a case but an inch? Even if it were true, the universe is pretty much infinite by all accounts, it had to happen somewhere. Hell, there’s probably another planet way out the other side of the universe where you and I are on another board of this very same nature but taking the opposite sides.
If the bible is now a quotable source on archeology then why doesn’t it mention Tyrannosaurus Rex, Brachiosaurus, Brontosaurus or veolciraptor which have been found and their bones carbon dated to prove the earth is a lot older than 6000 years.
What are you talking about? I have plenty of reasons, just not the one you have. Just because I don’t live my life scoring points for the afterlife doesn’t make me a useless person.
I doubt it. I really, really doubt it. Collounsbury! Clean up on aisle 5.
Thank you for that wonderful troll, winglessangel02. You’ve certainly struck a knee-jerking nerve.
The OP has a point, though. Creationists spend a lot of time talking about the flaws in evolution (real or imagined) without really having much of a positive nature to say themselves. The few positive things I’ve heard from the creationist end are:[ul][]the “radiation halo”[]some noncommittal happiness about the effects of Mt. St. Helenssome speed-of-light measurements that would seem to indicate that light was slowing down[/ul]Nothing much, really. Creationism seems to be mostly about not liking evolution without much of an opposing theory.
As a corollary to PLD’s brave bet, if you can meet said demands, I will personally fly over to your home town and dance the hootchie-coo naked down your high street while singing the showtune of your choice.
Fail, and you must ring up Coldfire in Holland and Sing Rush tunes in the style of Mariah Carey.
I’m not sure what you mean by there being only two minutes to talk about it…I could gloss over evolutionary theory in that time as well.
“The earth was created X years ago when dust and rocks coalesced into our, and other, planets. There was the right kind of stuff for molecules to create themselves, and then to be self-creating in that they could make copies of themselves. Over time, more and more copies were made. But not all copies were 100% accurate. Some of the copies were flawed with respect to the original, but not necessarily flawed in a bad way. Some of these false copies actually copied themselves better than the rest. And so on, until single cells, multi-cellular creatures, and eventually animal and plant life came about.”
Gee, did I leave anything out?
IANAC, but come on. There is clearly much more to say about creationism than the glossing we gave it. What I don’t understand is why we should teach it at all, at least in public schools.
BTW, welcome winglessangel, though I wonder if you’ll be here to stay… :wally
