I agree. Especially about the arts and it’s a shame. But creation belongs in a philosophy or human studies class or even a world religions class not in a science class. I don’t see no value in teaching these things. I think children should be exposed to as much cultural and religious diversity as possible.
Do not however pretend that the theory of evolution and intelligent design are somehow two side of a coin. You’re comparing mountains to grains of sand.
I twisted nothing. That was a quote of something YOU said. The only thing I changed was the colour of two parts, for emphasis.
Nope. I don’t think I’m really even making fun of you - just pointing out what I perceive to be an inconsistency in something you said. And I’m not scared of you. What a weird thing to say.
I’m not scared of you. I expect I disagree with you on a number of points, but that doesn’t scare me. Why should it?
And yet you have stated that your mind will not be changed on certain issues. So you’re not necessarily a seeker of truth on those matters. If you’re wrong about those, you’ll never know.
Maybe the moon really IS made of green cheese. I mean, nearly everyone thinks it’s made of rock, but they could be wrong, right?
Creationism, by and large, isn’t about ‘thinking outside the box’ - it’s about constraining the minds of the faithful inside a box - creationism doesn’t seek the answers, because it thinks it already knows them. Instead,
it tries to rephrase the question.
If we just don’t know, why are you even bothering to argue with people who - after all, if you just don’t know - could be right?
No serious person believes that “aliens,” (not even aliens sneaking up from the Southern Kingdom), built the pyramids. We know how they were built. There is a small group of charlatans who make enormous amounts of money proposing nonsense to explain some things about which we do not yet know all the details, (and a lot of things about which we know pretty much everything). The “History” channel makes a lot of money by broadcasting shows made by other charlatans to publicize, (and make money off of), the work of the earlier charlatans. It is entertainment that has nothing to do with science, engineering, or any other form of knowledge.
Maybe so (although I’m not sure about the twice thing - if your existing hypothesis predicts some phenomenon, you could be ready for it and could gather useful data the first time it manifests.
But the point is that in order to study supernovae, scientists don’t need to reproduce them in the lab in order to study them and make worthwhile, truthful observations about their nature.
What if aliens made God, God created earth then there was a war where God rebelled but the aliens had to kill him? Maybe they built the pyramids as a super weapons against God?
I wonder if I could get a special made about this? Or at least start a small religion and get tax exempt status and make a boatload off of suing people for making fun of me.
True. The universe is their laboratory. But they have learned what they know about supernovas by being able to watch them repeatedly. It’s not like they observed their first one and said “Right, that’s that subject wrapped up. We don’t need to see another.”
Why can’t scientists just say “We’d be guessing at best, so ask us another question.”?
They could, but demanding they do this when we really do have some good data and well-developed theories is just daft and pointless.
Absolutely - the more something is studied, the more likely it is to be better understood.
Creationism doesn’t do that, by and large - because it’s a political/religious movement that creates arguments, rather than data.
Ivan,
They kind of do say that. Don’t they. Isn’t that what a hypothesis is? Except it’s a really really really good guess usually backed up by pages of math. Not to mention I’m pretty sure the scientific community has been challenged on supernovas and had to re-evaluate. See: Gamma-Ray bursts. Which at first scientists thought actually defied e=maccheesburger squared.
Also, a list of detected supernovae. http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/Supernovae.html. I’d say even without directly observing all of them you get enough pieces you can put together a pretty good puzzle.
Yes, but what will answering this question actually achieve? Does anyone in the scientific community seriously think that in endeavoring to solve this query, we are likely to come upon some mind-blowing knowledge with practical applications, or are they doing it because, like Everest, it is there?
Why can’t it be both? Studying the sun has led us to understand solar weather and be more able to predict solar storms which in modern society could have devastating impact to our electrical infrastructure. Knowing this we can be better prepared for times of high solar flair activity. We didn’t even know there was solar weather cycles until we studied the sun closer from space. That might turn out to be a big deal. I mean imagine being deprived of the internet for months?
Some of science has immediate practical application, some has application only in the future and some may be interesting, but ultimately useless.
Trouble is, it’s not always easy to tell in advance which is which, so humans end up researching everything.
Well, that and pure curiosity and the desire to be recognised for making a discovery - but between those two and the drive to innovate something useful, there’s a lot going on.
But as I said, it’s just plain daft to demand that scientists say they just don’t know they answer when they really do. That’s not what it’s about at all.
And yes, they could be wrong (nothing is ever beyond question) - but the way to demonstrate that something is wrong is to do the research and discover the evidence demonstrating that they’re wrong, not to formulate convincing but superficial arguments about it, motivated by offended religious sensibilities.
Percival,
I’m a Christian. I have been one since my early teens; almost 30 years. And when I was young I believed in Creationism.
And just like the OP, as I grew older and learned more, I realized I had a problem: evolution wasn’t an anti-Christian conspiracy; it really was scientifically valid. And I also realized something even more important: taking the Bible seriously was not the same thing as taking in literally.
Unlike the OP, this realization made my faith stronger, not weaker, because I could love God with all my mind as well as my heart, soul, and strength. I didn’t have to deny obvious facts about the world because they contradicted what the Bible seemed to teach.
So I’m just posting to reassure you that if Evolution is true, it doesn’t make your God false. Millions of faithful Christians are perfectly content with evolution explaining the diversity of life on this planet. You don’t have to be afraid of being convinced that Darwin was right.
Do you understand the scientific method at all?
Okay, this is an argument. This is something you can sink your teeth into and debate. If you insult someone’s intelligence with with the cite you provide, there’s inevitably going to be backlash. On the other hand, when you express a differing view with grace and clarity, . . . well, naturally there’s still gonna be antagonism, owing to the fact that it is the internets; but sorting through the white noise, there’ll be people here to debate it on its merits. Even though Fr. Barron and I are 100% opposed on the question of whether there is an omnipotent being in the sky who has a compelling personal interest in how often I masturbate, it’s obvious he is fundamentally a man of reason, who argues honestly and in good faith.
Unfortunately, now you’ve brought up the more pressing issue that he is saying substantially different things than you are. His position is that there are things in the world that defy all human analysis and quantification, and opposes reductionist viewpoints. You have stated
which is very much the opposite of what Barron said, that science is built on nothing but verifiable facts: remember, his pontiff straight up said that an unbiased examination of the available evidence shows all living things on Earth share a common ancestor that lived 3.5-4 billion years ago, and Catholics don’t see any conflict between that and their faith. From what you’ve written about your views on the subject, they ain’t the same as his.
[quote=“Skammer, post:133, topic:536394”]
Percival,
I’m a Christian. I have been one since my early teens; almost 30 years. And when I was young I believed in Creationism.
Thanks Scammer. I’m all done on this subject. It is like dealing with a bunch of lunatics. I have never understood why people with no beliefs have problems with people with beliefs?
" I believe in nothing and you must too"… 
I say, Good for you and have a nice day 
When those people with beliefs demand that their beliefs be treated as fact in the science classroom, it’s no longer simply about people with beliefs and other people without.
I don’t have a problem with your religious beliefs. I do have a problem with you expecting the state to proselytize your religious beliefs with my tax dollars. And so should you, as it is a practice that is destructive to both good government and honest faith.
There are posters who do not share your belief in God and wish that you would also shed that belief.
HOWEVER, when discussing the issue of Creationism, we are not discussing forcing other people to refrain from belief. We are discussing whether some people with particular religious beliefs should be permitted–in violation of the First Amendment–to compel schools to teach religious beliefs in place of scientific facts. (Because even if they taught Creationism alongside science, they would need to remove some of the science in order to have enough time to insert the religious belief.)
Given that there is no science in Creationism and that even the subterfuge of “Intelligent Design” has no scientific underpinnings, the question becomes “why do you want to insert Creationism into a science curriculum?”.
If you have some need to cling to Creationism or Intelligent Design as having any scientific support, (they do not), you might want to spend some time reading the works of Kenneth Miller, a Catholic biologist who recognizesthe difference between the phony claims of the Creationists and actual science. Or, you might want to check out some of the comments of a scientist in the Vatican about the poverty of Creationism and Intelligent Design.
Wait, what makes you think skeptics/humanists/scientific materialists are “people with no beliefs”?