[Tom Hanks voice on] There’s no joking in Great Debates [Tom Hanks voice off]
Great answer to the angleless, Polycarp.
On the OP. I dunno, but my state (MI) is legislating the inclusion of this curriculum right now. Of course, when I emailed my State Rep to complain, he responded in a stock reply that included a misspelling of the word “Intelligent”.
I’ve always been under the impression that the problem is more about pride than anything else. Somebody (who didn’t understand the [sub]it’sjusta[/sub]theory) latched onto the idea that evolution put forth “man came from monkey”. Well, God knows I didn’t come from no monkey (I’ve got baby pictures). Besides, monkeys are hairy, smelly, and have prominent genitalia. Is that the image you want associated with your past?
I usually get the arguments of “God created man in His image” yadda yadda. The people I deal with aren’t sophisticated enough to know what a transitional fossil is, let alone refute it.
I respond “God takes a dump? How frequently, do you think? God has sex to reproduce? When is God horny? What does he eat? Does it give Him gas? Does He get a haircut? Clip His toenails? Floss? Shouldn’t He be worried about bone deterioration at His age?”
Assuming for the moment that there is a God, I would think He would have been more concerned with the souls than the mortal container which carries them for such a short time.
As far as the geologic column goes, here is an article that shows all the places in the world where a complete one shows up:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
(I like the bit about a creationist complaining that because this data is only for sale by an oil exploration research firm, it is therefore not valid for some reason.)
Even though we won’t see winglessangel again, I thought I should point out that even if Darwin had recanted on his deathbed, that would not change the validity of the theory. If Newton would have recanted his Law of Gravity on his deathbed, would that have made it untrue?
Also, someone teach that boy about elliptical orbits. I am not sure what the eccentricity is, but I would bet that it is more than a few inches.
I don’t see any discussion of this point, but I feel compelled to create some. There are so many errors in so few words …
Thermodynamics is a tricky and complex subject, and there are many misconceptions (and erroneous Web pages) floating around. The “creationism” movement has contributed spectacularly to the errors.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not state that “in any system, things are more likely to go from order TO disorder.” It does state requirements on the total entropy content of systems at different times. It does not directly deal with disorder (although in a few very limited cases there is a correlation between disorder and entropy), it does not have anything to do with the distribution or redistribution of entropy within a system, and it does not have anything to do with the process by which a system moves from one state to another.
It also does not have anything to say about whether matter can be created or destroyed. You have the 2LOT confused with the law of conservation of mass-energy.
The Big Bang theory does not state where the Universe came from. There are various speculations, none of which are overwhelmingly accepted. Since “gravitational energy” is negative and “mass energy” is positive, it is possible (and maybe even likely) that the total energy content of the Universe is exactly zero, and the Universe is indeed a “vacuum fluctuation” that just popped into being without violating any of the laws of thermodynamics or the law of conservation of mass-eanergy.
Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability
Well, I haven’t gotten a response to my original question from any proponents of “teaching” creationism. I guess that means that noone has an answer, at least noone that has seen this thread. So if there is no point to teaching creationism, than why all the debates? Isn’t it sort of a moot point if noone has any idea about the execution of this “teaching”? Why are we debating if it should be done, if noone has considered how it should be done or what it is supposed to accomplish?
If noone can answer these questions than all further debates on teaching creationism should be dropped in my opinion.
Airbeck -
I think what the direction of this thread demonstrates is that teaching creationism in large part involves teaching what is “wrong” with evolution.
It’s not simply a matter of explaining that God created the world in six days, it’s about listing all of the thousand and one anti-evolution arguments that are brought up in this and the many other creation vs. evolution threads.
The teaching of creationism in an age when science and society in general have accepted evolution is a defensive maneuver, designed to instill in students a skepticism about evolution that will lead them to question it and therefore to be willing to accept creationism.
I am not a creationist (God told me that Darwin was right), but what I see whenever I look into this debate is that creationists are far more intent on somehow discrediting evolution than they are on convincing people that the creation happened as written in the Bible.
I would imagine that hypothetical science class to be less “here are two theories” than “here is the theory of evolution. But creationists believe it’s wrong because…” [entire semester of anti-evolution arguments].
According to this site, North Dakota is a good start - shall we go?
http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/origins/icr-visit/bartelt3.txt
He did? His own son says not. It seems Mr. Darwin was an agnostic from what I can find.
http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/ladyhope.html
Really? Where does it record the sun standing still in the sky? Where is the flood recorded? I bet the Chinese are pissed off they forgot to write about it. Maybe they did and it’s written in their crazy characters we Westerners can’t read so well.
And for 11 years, you’ve been heading in the wrong direction to gain much of an understanding about “life and all.” Turn around!
Bingo on Sunday? Oh, you mean they get to look forward to being all smug while the infidels burn in hell. Gotcha.
So ice can’t freeze into crystalline patterns? A body can’t develop and self-organize as in the womb?
The Earth’s distance from the sun at perihelion is 147.5 million miles and at aphelion is 152.6 million miles. That seems like a little more than 1 inch doesn’t it? Do you really have an education or are you just joshing? (No offense to intelligent people named Josh)
I don’t think a visit to the ICR web page really beats, say, the knowledge of a Gould or Dawkins, but maybe in your world it does. What color is the sky there?
I prefer cash. I take checks and credit cards also. I find everytime I get prayers I don’t get a damn thing. 
I’m not sure why we bother replying - perhaps for the fun of it - when you are most clearly a 100% certified _______ (insert your own word choice here).
David B, I trust the use of a blank that the reader may self complete is not the same as an insult. If so, please let me know. 
Well thank you to Spoilervirgin and a couple of other for getting back to the OP, which I for one find very interesting. And brickbats to all those that responded to Winglessangel with pointless attempts to debate creationist misinformation. When are you evolution guys going to learn that it is utterly pointless to have fact based arguments with people who would place more trust in the word of a televangelist than an article in a scientific journal as to what the facts are?
Which leads me back to the OP. When creationists attack, there is only one line you should pursue IMHO. DO NOT discuss evolution. It is pointless. Explain to them instead that evolution is a theory, that it has its strengths and weaknesses (which, you acknowledge, they can undoubtedly point out to you), but that what you’re really interested in (as the OP implies) is the technical details of creation of the six day kind. Do not waver. Do not let them change the subject and go back to criticizing evolution.
If you stick to your guns, sometimes if rarely, a creationist who has no belief in science has some sense of logic and can see the anomaly in insisting on applying the blowtorch of (quasi) scientific rational debate to evolutionary theories, while being unwilling or unable to do the same to or for creationism. Sometimes, just rarely, you will make them stop and think, for just a moment.
And I would really like to hear from someone (you must be out there somewhere) who actually teaches creationism in a US school. Just what does the curriculum consist of? Do you have anything positive to say? Or are you only interested in being negative about someone else theories in the mistaken belief that doing so bolsters your own, about which you have little positive to say?
[hijack]
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by tracer
You left out:[ul][li]Said Creation took place at 3 pm on an October day in 4004 B.C…[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
Citation please. I’ve heard this claim (that anyone claimed a day and hour of creation) bandied about before, but have yet to see it backed up with a quote from a source.
I don’t excuse bad science or bad history.
*Originally posted by emarkp *
emarkp, Check here.
Ah, so there is year, month, and day, but not the time of day. Thanks.
Ussher is typically given credit for coming up with a creation date, but it was Lightfoot who came up with the time (on a different date and year than Ussher, BTW). See:
http://www.freemasonry.bc.ca/Writings/ussher/published_errors.html
First of all, regarding all of the messages you have sent me, thatnk you for the WARM words. I really appreciate them. I mean, here I was thinking that is was just a friendly debate. NOT a name calling event.
Second of all, If you choose, you may believe that you came from a monkey.
Third of all, GOD (Yahweh, Jehovah, Dios, etc.) created the Heavens and the earth. As far as you saying it being a proven fact, it WILL be proven once again when Jesus comes back and those not saved are left behind. Because, there are no second chances. The way I see it, you can go on believing that there is a God and he just initiated the Big bang and let everythign else go on by itself for us all to determine our own destiny and all that stuff. Or you can have FAITH. Yeah, faith. That little thing you have to have to believe in something unseen. The Bible is QUITE clear Faith is the ONLY way one may go to heaven. FAITH in The SON of God.And one more thing. I am contemplating the point of being a Jew AND and evolutionists. BECAUSE the JEWS are looking for their Messiah to come. Evolution denies the need for a Messiah to save your sins. So, if you can kindly explain that to me, I would greatly appreciate it.
As far as evolutionists studying things out, taken out of context I can understand that gave you more “coal for you fire”. BUt, what it was meant to say is that the COMMON evolutionist just accepts the easier to believe without researching it. Therefore, you people would not be the COMMON evolutionists because you are on this board. You care.
As far as YOUR rights to teach Evolution in school, I would fight for them. Yes, you heard me. As much as I believe evolution is wrong and {personally} believe it is against God, I would fight for the right of BOTH it and Creationism to be taught in school.
The advantage of having them both taught in school would be letting students decide for themselves what they want to believe. And, no matter what anyone says, given the right teacher and the right book (A BIBLE) one could teach quite a lesson on Creationism.
And to all of you who offered me money to prove Darwin’s recanting I must first admit it may be hear-say. It is something I was taught. I will research it though.
The law of entropy also applies to the idea that we evolved from monkeys to humans and the next step in the “chain” is becoming gods and goddesses. Now, if you are the type of evolutionists who dont believe in this step then skip it. But I know many who do believe it. There is NO God but the Lord God Jehovah. There goes that idea. Ok, but back to the point. Entropy says everything gets worse given time. Evolution says we’re evolving into something better. So we start out amoebic, then we turn to a tadpole or whatever then eventually over millions and millions of years, we become monkeys. THEN finally when we’ve reached our peak monkey mentality then somethign decides its time to evolve into a human. Well, first we have to be the neanderthal type of human right? Or do we just automatically evolve into a higher intelligent human?
As far as higher intelligence goes, how do you explain the evolution process of such great men like Einstein, Edison, Gutenburg? They obviously “evolved” into higher humanity than the rest of us joe bloes. Does that mean they had more potential to be fully evolved?
One more thing before I go for you to answer. Why is it that we are seeing people dying? I mean, sense would say that if we were “evolving” into something better, we’d not need to die. So, the average lifespan in the Us is 77 years old now. Why now 77 million years old? People are dying? Then what?? godhood? Whats after that? Heaven? Hell? well, How do you get there if so?
For your information, I am a Christian. Maybe not your type of Christian. Nevertheless, I am a Christian. I take no pleasure in the idea of ANYONE burning in Hell.
Thank you and have a good day,
KK
Read and laugh, my friends.
But remember, this . . . er, person has studied evolution–probably more than most evolutionists!! This person claims to understand science in general and evolutionary biology in particular.
Haaaaaaahahahahahaahahaha! Ha! Woohoo! ::::giggle, snort::: wipes tears from face Oh geez, oh man, oh wow. Haahahahahahaha!
You weren’t exactly a happy bunny yourself either.
Evolution is a very, very gradual process. It takes millions of years to introduce such a change. It’s not as if there were dinosaurs then poof there were monkeys then poof there were people.
So, let me get this straight. When the day of Judgement comes intelligent and good hearted people like Polycarp who, although I’ve never even met him, comes across as one of the most genuine guys I’ve ever met and is an exemplery Christian will burn in hell whilst you and your ignorant creationist brood will scoff from on high in heaven, safe in the knowledge that your belief in a myth was all that saved you, not your good intentions. That doesn’t sound very Christian to me.
How? All evolution does is explain the way in which we came to be about as we are. It doesn’t negate God. For all we know God initiated the big bang, set in place all the physical laws which run our universe and used evolution as a method to create us. There’s nothing silly about believing that. As a matter of fact that is what the majority of Christians believe. That’s what the Pope believed fro crying out loud! Why do you have a problem with it.
Does that mean we’re saved then? Thought not.
Not at all, they were just gifted people. just because man A is more intelligent than man B doesn’t make an A more evolved. It just goes to show the diversity of the species.
If that’s the case then why are you forcing yourself to ignore the obvious in exchange for an antideluvian dogmatic approach which results in non-believers doing exactly that?
For what it’s worth, here is a link which gives you a lowdown on the basics of evolutionary theory with a good FAQ about the more technical proncipals involved. Check it out.
Glad to hear it.
Cite please. I know of no evolutionists who “believe” this, please provide a specific example.
No it doesn’t. The second law says that a spontaeous process in an isolated systems causes an increase in entropy. Entropy does not equal “worseness.”
No it doesn’t. New phenotypes are selected for when they give a reproductive advantage. This does not equal “betterness.”
Another misconception about evolution here, one that many people make. Evolution is not a linear process, with organisms getting “better and better” as they evolve. It is like a bush, with many paths and dead ends. There is no reason to think people will evolve into more intelligent organisms. Intelligence confered a evolutionary advantage hundreds of thousand years ago, greater intelligence would not make us more reproductively successful today. Mainly because we have no hominid competition.
Individuals do not evolve, populations do. Besides, all species have a continuum of traits. Only when there a net change in genotypic ratios between two populations within a species do you have evolution.
After people finish having children, there is little evolutionary pressure for them to live any longer.
That was something I’d always wondered about. People had said, if evolution was true, why are there still monkeys.
But someone once said that we didn’t evolve from monkeys, but had a common ancestor we branched off this way, the monkeys thataway.
Aren’t we 2% different genetically from chimps?
But I would not fight to have Creationism taught in school. As a matter of fact, I’d be against it. Why? Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that Creationism is wrong, I’d be against teaching it because public schools are state-sanctioned and funded institutions. To teach Creationism is equivalent to the state endorsing the Christian religion as the correct and state-approved religion. So, teaching Creationism in public schools violates the constitution. Unless you are willing to give equal time to the “it’s turtles all the way down” theory. If you give equal time to all the “theories” out there, how much will be left for things like reading and math? Creationism is one religions interperation of their doctrine. Teach it in your church. Keep it out of our government.
If you wish to send your child to a private religious school where they do teach Creationism, such as the one I attended, by all means do so. Or home school your children. I’ll thank you to stop demanding the right to shove your religious zealotry down my childs throat.
Winglessangel102,
I think it’s glaringly obvious that your science education is seriously deficient. When you say that you “have studied out the theory of evolution more than most evolutionists have,” what do you mean? You would do well to go to talkorigins.org to check out the evidence for evolution and speciation. I would also suggest going to your local public library and check out books by Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. Let me clear up a few misconceptions for you:
1)Evolutionary biology deals with the frequency of genes in a population over time. Period. There is no idea of “progress” or “becoming gods and goddesses.” Evolution explains, for example, why bacterial populations become drug-resistant, and why whales and dolphins share characteristics with land mammals.
2)Evolution and cosmology are two separate disciplines. The Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution are completely independent, so stop conflating them.
4)The theory of evolution does not stand or fall on Charles Darwin’s authority, so stop spreading lies about fake deathbed conversions, which are not borne out by any of Darwin’s biographers. The theory of evolution has been tested and retested by reputable biologists around the world. The essence of science is that a good theory will yield reproducible results, and does not depend on any argument from authority.
Short answer? Never. You might be interested in this thread, which poses the same question: Proving People Wrong.