A new attempt to get creationism into schools

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: A new attempt to get creationism into schools

Postby cathy » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:48 pm

Have you ever sat in a scientific meeting and seen the reaction of a scientist (who remember are human) whose work is criticised!?
People defend their pet theories with the same energy whether they are creationist or evolutionist.
And you conveniently forget that evolution can't be wrong because it is a fact.
Yep-that is why we have peer review. So their theories are critiqued by those less engaged in the pet theory and more interested in the evidence for it. Creationism doesn't have peer review in that sense. All creationists believe genesis to be literal hence no nothing to defend cos nobody will attack.

Pet theories are only as good as the evidence at the end of the day. Evolution has mountains. Creationism has none.

And I know someone involved in the LHC, they were all really excited by the notion of not finding the God particle even though it was what their research was based on-their pet theory.

And evolution has been around for 150 years. The time when it was a new pet theory still being tested has long since past. It has been tested to destruction-nowt has dented it. Certainly not creationism.

So stop being disingenous Marc.
cathy
 
Posts: 3662
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: A new attempt to get creationism into schools

Postby Dagsannr » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:56 pm

marcsurtees wrote:And you conveniently forget that evolution can't be wrong because it is a fact.


Evolution -is- a fact, even you and other creationists acknowledge that so-called 'micro-evolution' occurs. Evolution has been witnessed, documented and commented on many times. That you accept micro-evolution but not 'macro-evolution' prompts the question "how does evolution know when to stop?"

Evolution is also a theory, used to describe why and how evolution as a fact happens. It seems cDesign Proponentists have no issue with the mechanisms involved in this theory when it applies to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, or crop breeding, or genetic treatments for disease, but accuse it of being false if it's applied to anything else.

Double standards, aren't they great?
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: A new attempt to get creationism into schools

Postby Moon Fire » Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:24 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
Moon Fire wrote:Cathy's reply to mark has emphasised a key difference between science and creationism. Science is capable of rolling with the critisim, in fact science needs it. Scientists won't know that their is faulty without it and science works by finding the faults and correcting them (the faults being in our explanations of what the data/evidence shows). Creationism and creationists can't hack critisism because it show the holes in their arguements, and even if another creationists cakes a critical comment it's only critical to a point as it misses the obvious fact that theres no evidence to support creationism.


Have you ever sat in a scientific meeting and seen the reaction of a scientist (who remember are human) whose work is criticised!?
People defend their pet theories with the same energy whether they are creationist or evolutionist.
And you conveniently forget that evolution can't be wrong because it is a fact.


Evolution is a fact, it happens, the theory of evolution is the way we explain it. And as it happens i've been doing some additional study in which i've had to present my work and defend it to questions from my peers and lecturers. Also if you'll read back i said science is capable of rolling with the critisim. Scientists can take the challenge to their work differently, it depends on how long they've worked on something and the like. Don't try and pick holes in my arguement when they arn't there.
Moon Fire
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: A new attempt to get creationism into schools

Postby marcsurtees » Thu Aug 18, 2011 11:06 am

Natman wrote:
marcsurtees wrote:And you conveniently forget that evolution can't be wrong because it is a fact.


Evolution -is- a fact, even you and other creationists acknowledge that so-called 'micro-evolution' occurs. Evolution has been witnessed, documented and commented on many times. That you accept micro-evolution but not 'macro-evolution' prompts the question "how does evolution know when to stop?"

Evolution is also a theory, used to describe why and how evolution as a fact happens. It seems cDesign Proponentists have no issue with the mechanisms involved in this theory when it applies to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, or crop breeding, or genetic treatments for disease, but accuse it of being false if it's applied to anything else.

Double standards, aren't they great?


The problem with a term like evolution is that it is rather flexible. So I often say that I am a YEC evolutionist (when referring to things like antibiotic resistance in bacteria and crop breeding.) but when it comes to universal common descent the mechanisms for these things are not adequate.
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: A new attempt to get creationism into schools

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Aug 18, 2011 11:49 am

The problem with a term like evolution is that it is rather flexible. So I often say that I am a YEC evolutionist (when referring to things like antibiotic resistance in bacteria and crop breeding.) but when it comes to universal common descent the mechanisms for these things are not adequate.

Ah, the old variation within a kind argument. Of course, clearly if the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old then evolution, as Darwin and Wallace envisaged it, would clearly be impossible.

By the way Marc, I noticed this one on CMI yesterday:

http://creation.com/do-i-have-to-believ ... -christian

Do you have to believe in a literal Creation to be a Christian? The short answer is ‘No’. The long answer is ‘No, but …’.


I would suggest that but is a very big but. Contrary to what I was told by a YEC minister, CMI are stating in no uncertain terms that those Christians that accept science should have no role within the church. Do you agree with this statement ?

I think they are actually stating, in a round about way, that Christians who accept science cannot have a leadership role within the church(I,e, they can't be pastors, ministers, or evangelists.

I found the article offensive.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4338
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: A new attempt to get creationism into schools

Postby Dagsannr » Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:17 pm

marcsurtees wrote:The problem with a term like evolution is that it is rather flexible. So I often say that I am a YEC evolutionist (when referring to things like antibiotic resistance in bacteria and crop breeding.) but when it comes to universal common descent the mechanisms for these things are not adequate.


Seriously?

I often wonder if someone extracted the brains from your head.

The mechanisms for common descent are EXACTLY the same mechanisms for those other things.

If you can show us how they're different, how evolution within a species to adapt to a changing environment does not lead to speciation, I'd be very impressed.

Just be honest, accept that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming and your objections to it are entirely dogmatic, irrational and based upon a personal belief that cannot be justified by evidence.

I'd have more respect for you if you said that.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: A new attempt to get creationism into schools

Postby cathy » Thu Aug 18, 2011 3:13 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
The problem with a term like evolution is that it is rather flexible. So I often say that I am a YEC evolutionist (when referring to things like antibiotic resistance in bacteria and crop breeding.) but when it comes to universal common descent the mechanisms for these things are not adequate.

Natman wrote: Seriously?

I often wonder if someone extracted the brains from your head.

The mechanisms for common descent are EXACTLY the same mechanisms for those other things.

If you can show us how they're different, how evolution within a species to adapt to a changing environment does not lead to speciation, I'd be very impressed.

That would indeed be impressive. I'm guessing if you get an answer at all it will involve some vague waffling that involves the words 'the fossil record shows' minus explanation and 'genetics show' minus explanation and we've never seen it minus acknowledgement of time periods involved.

Don't ask how they show, that information-like the rest of Marcs claims-has never been forthcoming. I guess DNA just magically knows when to stop.

Natman wrote: I often wonder if someone extracted the brains from your head.

You're still wondering?

Just be honest, accept that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming and your objections to it are entirely dogmatic, irrational and based upon a personal belief that cannot be justified by evidence.

I'd have more respect for you if you said that.
And so would I. Or rather I would have some respect for you.
cathy
 
Posts: 3662
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: A new attempt to get creationism into schools

Postby cathy » Thu Aug 18, 2011 3:51 pm

Peter wrote: would suggest that but is a very big but. Contrary to what I was told by a YEC minister, CMI are stating in no uncertain terms that those Christians that accept science should have no role within the church. Do you agree with this statement ?
I would guess Marcs short answer here (and only here I suspect-where he knows nobody is stupid enough to buy YECism) would be no.

But actions speak louder than words and Marc is more than happy to turn people from Christianity (despite what his church seems to believe about the consequences for the 'unsaved') and completely wreck the reputation of his church, his Christian faith and his God for it.

He attends a openly and blatently YEC church (our YEC churchs at least keep it a bit quiet-don't push it too hard and certainly don't advertise it too blatenly yet). He has said disenting views are NOT promoted in his church and there is no balance. If you attended and started to try and inject balance I doubt you would survive there for long. Or at least not happily. He has said that anyone not accepting it will be led (read coerced/bribed-you want God it would be better to swallow this YEC crap) to it.

He links to creationist websites where people like Steve Lloyd have clearly stated that they've developed talks especially for those agnostic on the issues because they see them as divisive and not important enough to warrent that divisiveness. In short creationists want thinking people out of positions of authority in churches. And nowhere on Marcs website does it seem to clearly suggest YECism is not necessary for believe in God or salvation-contrary to what he says here.

So I would guess Marcs honest answer would be yes he does agree. Intelligent people, capable of seeing through YEC arguments are not welcome in church and shouldn't play any important leadership roles.


think they are actually stating, in a round about way, that Christians who accept science cannot have a leadership role within the church(I,e, they can't be pastors, ministers, or evangelists.

I would have to disagree that it is in a round about way, looks pretty obvious to me, but other than that yes I would agree that would be what they are stating. They want to convert the world to YECism.

Just as an addition, Marcs little club the Edinburgh Creation Group say they want Edinburgh to be a creationist city. You can't achieve that with sane intelligent pastors/vicars/priests telling the truth.

Getting science accepting leaders out of churches first has got to be an important goal. While they exist people will keep referring to Christians who accept science. That will be more appealing to most of your average Christians who would prefer to inhabit reality and not have to remove their intellects and reason. So if thats the case-how on earth can they increase their profit margins!!!
cathy
 
Posts: 3662
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: A new attempt to get creationism into schools

Postby Michael » Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:23 pm

As a vicar I would argue that no YEC should be allowed any position of authority in any church as they have shown themselves as either duplicitous or totally stupid. On either ground they should be given no responsibility
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: A new attempt to get creationism into schools

Postby marcsurtees » Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:28 am

Natman wrote:
marcsurtees wrote:The problem with a term like evolution is that it is rather flexible. So I often say that I am a YEC evolutionist (when referring to things like antibiotic resistance in bacteria and crop breeding.) but when it comes to universal common descent the mechanisms for these things are not adequate.


Seriously?

I often wonder if someone extracted the brains from your head.

The mechanisms for common descent are EXACTLY the same mechanisms for those other things.


Really, now do you know that? By the way I am talking about universal common descent and the associated problem of the origin of biological novelty (multicellular organisms, sex, legs, eyes, brains, wings etc.)
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: A new attempt to get creationism into schools

Postby marcsurtees » Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:35 am

Natman wrote:
The mechanisms for common descent are EXACTLY the same mechanisms for those other things.

If you can show us how they're different, how evolution within a species to adapt to a changing environment does not lead to speciation, I'd be very impressed.


Sorry can't help you there. :( Mutation and natural selection does lead to speciation and there is plenty of good scientific evidence for that and it is completely consistent with the Bible. :D See I am a YEC-Biblical-evolutionist and I accept most of science.... :P
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: A new attempt to get creationism into schools

Postby Dagsannr » Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:43 am

marcsurtees wrote:
Natman wrote:
marcsurtees wrote:The problem with a term like evolution is that it is rather flexible. So I often say that I am a YEC evolutionist (when referring to things like antibiotic resistance in bacteria and crop breeding.) but when it comes to universal common descent the mechanisms for these things are not adequate.


Seriously?

I often wonder if someone extracted the brains from your head.

The mechanisms for common descent are EXACTLY the same mechanisms for those other things.


Really, now do you know that? By the way I am talking about universal common descent and the associated problem of the origin of biological novelty (multicellular organisms, sex, legs, eyes, brains, wings etc.)


Universal common descent? As opposed to what? Non-universal? There is only one common descent, hence usage of the word -common-.

There also is no problem with the origins of biological functions, they all evolved quite well, as you can see everyday. I suggest you go and examine the fossil record which contain numerous examples of the progress in evolution of aforementioned features.

Seriously though, you're really applying the blinkers if you're denying evidence of common descent. It, and its mechanisms, are one of the most well understood aspects of evolutionary biology. It explains all of the anachronistic features found in all species that have them. Something that creationism cannot.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: A new attempt to get creationism into schools

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri Aug 19, 2011 9:55 am

and I accept most of science


Sorry Marc, but I beg to differ.

You reject virtually all of geology, astro physics, biology etc, and even the zoology that your qualified in.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4338
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: A new attempt to get creationism into schools

Postby cathy » Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Peter wrote: By the way Marc, I noticed this one on CMI yesterday:

http://creation.com/do-i-have-to-believ ... -christian


Do you have to believe in a literal Creation to be a Christian? The short answer is ‘No’. The long answer is ‘No, but …’.

I would suggest that but is a very big but. Contrary to what I was told by a YEC minister, CMI are stating in no uncertain terms that those Christians that accept science should have no role within the church. Do you agree with this statement ?

Peter as Marc doesn't seem to answered your question this is from his Paradigm Shift website.

The Christian faith is under attack and the Bible is undermined. Even prominent figures in the church argue for evolutionary interpretations of the scriptures. We are ceaselessly bombarded with the "fact" that the universe, the world and all that is in it is the result of purposeless processes. The media and state education are being used by Satan to promote atheistic science to blind people to the fact that God made everything. Many claim that God no longer serves any purpose and the majority of today’s scientists have declared him to be dead.

Yet the Bible still speaks today and tells us that


Which suggests my guess may well have been accurate and he would agree with CMI, especially the way he phrases his comments about prominent figures in the church. I am amazed the satan ref is still there-given its offensive and dishonest nature.
cathy
 
Posts: 3662
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: A new attempt to get creationism into schools

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:30 pm

Marc: "[Speciation] is completely consistent with the Bible. See I am a YEC-Biblical-evolutionist and I accept most of science.... "

Yes, Marc and Dominic Statham and even Jonathan Sarfati appear to accept speciation (though they may sometimes call it diversification within kinds or micro-evolution).

But does the Bible ever mention speciation? I rather suspect not.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8123
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron