Creationists suffer another legal defeat

[JakeStarkey]

Which means that the theory of creationism is just as valid as other theories which explain creation.

Wrong.

Some HYPOTHESES about creation have evidence to support them

There are no facts that support creationism. Creationism is supported by faith, and nothing more

No, AllieBaba, it certainly means no such thing. You would be better off schooled by sangha then by revealing such ignorance.

 

[CurveLight]

Creationists suffer another legal defeat | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

once again math and common sense wins

Why are you mad at Texas when they discriminate against gays, but cheer when they discriminate against Christians? Just odd

They aren't discriminating against Christians you Pontius Pilate cocksucking punk.

 

[CurveLight]

Which means that the theory of creationism is just as valid as other theories which explain creation.

Why can't you fundie fucks make up your mind? If the bible tells you how the world was created why degrade it to a "theory?"

End Sarcasm

It's pretty simple. Just because you can dream up a theory about X that doesn't mean it is "just as valid" as other theories about X. You have to do crazy things like analyze the information leading to the conclusion. You're the kind of dumbass that would claim ice doesn't come from water if it meant making an agenda friendly claim.

 

[HUGGY]

Which means that the theory of creationism is just as valid as other theories which explain creation.

The only problem you have is that there was no "creation" whatsoever. Of any kind..nada..zippola.. There are many good ideas how we got from there to here but no good ideas how we got from nothing to here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact is that atheism takes more faith than belief in deity. The absence of God is not proven philosophically or logically, and it can't be proven physically. Thus . . . .

Watch the athies and agnostis wiggle around on this one.

 

[IanC]

Its funny how math and science only counts for certain subjects.

As far as the bible and creationism goes...
You have to remeber the time when it was written. God would have to speak to those people in terms that they could understand. Perhaps God would speak differently today now that we actually have a form of science because people would understand that better than just pronouncements.

And of course there is the most plausible expanation. No understandable God exists and all religions are fairy tales meant to pass along culture and knowledge to the next generation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is why Bacon and Newton and others hoped that scientific experimentation and knowledge would bring man closer to God. It is certainly plausible but not provable any more than your comment about creation stories, IanC.

 

[Father Time]

Which means that the theory of creationism is just as valid as other theories which explain creation.

No, creation does not qualify as a theory, it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis because it can't be tested.

 

[Father Time]

What about it, National Center for Science Education still can't prove (without a shadow of doubt) how the world was created.

That's why it's called a theory. Just like any other scientific principle that can't be 100% proven.

Umm, scientific "principles" (actually, they're called "hypotheses") that are proven are called "theories". IOW, theories are proven

I bet you still think you can float because gravity is "just a theory"

Those that are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt are called Laws.

There's always the possibility that new information may force them to change some aspects of the theory. That's why it's still called a theory.

 

[sangha]

That's why it's called a theory. Just like any other scientific principle that can't be 100% proven.

Umm, scientific "principles" (actually, they're called "hypotheses") that are proven are called "theories". IOW, theories are proven

I bet you still think you can float because gravity is "just a theory"

Those that are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt are called Laws.

Not by scientists. The scientific term is "theory"

There's always the possibility that new information may force them to change some aspects of the theory. That's why it's still called a theory.

Nope. I think you need to read about what a scientific theory is.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]

A scientific theory is a type of deductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[2]

In the humanities, one finds theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment.

Creationism isn't a scientific theory

 

[Father Time]

Creationism isn't a scientific theory

I know that, I even said it doesn't qualify as a scientific theory.

 

[Toro]

Which means that the theory of creationism is just as valid as other theories which explain creation.

Why is creationsim any better than the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Open Letter To Kansas School Board - Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Serious question. I'm not being disrespectful.

 

[CurveLight]

The fact is that atheism takes more faith than belief in deity. The absence of God is not proven philosophically or logically, and it can't be proven physically. Thus . . . .

Watch the athies and agnostis wiggle around on this one.

That deserves an entry into the FSTDT database.

 

[CurveLight]

Which means that the theory of creationism is just as valid as other theories which explain creation.

Why is creationsim any better than the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Open Letter To Kansas School Board - Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Serious question. I'm not being disrespectful.

People with heartburn can safely consume creationism.

 

[mudwhistle]

Creationists suffer another legal defeat | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

once again math and common sense wins

As if the reality of the facts on evolution or creation could be decided in a friggen courtroom.

Imagine the unbelievable audacity of this article.

It's stupid beyond belief.

 

[Gadawg73]

Creationists suffer another legal defeat | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

once again math and common sense wins

As if the reality of the facts on evolution or creation could be decided in a friggen courtroom.

Imagine the unbelievable audacity of this article.

It's stupid beyond belief.

Read the Judge's opinion.
The entire case was presented with science.
Read it and then get back to us.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mudwhistle, no one is saying that creationism or ID can't be taught in public schools, just not in the science classroom. Why? The doctrines cannot be empirically tested or verified. That doesn't mean they are false, only that they cannot be verified physically, which is what science is all about.

So: teach it in philosophy, humanities, liberal arts, or comparative religions classes.

 

[Gadawg73]

not proven YET. religious people are always holding on to temporary beliefs as science knocks down more and more of their crap. its why when religion takes over the world as the christians did in the dark ages science is restricted because it always trumps their beliefs. what are you going to do in 20 or 30 years when science has proven how the world was created without the help of a god?

They've been trying for years and i don't think they ever will.

Nobody has ever proven the world was created without a god, any more than we have proven it was created by God. And they never will, until the end, when everyone will see the truth.

Good points.
That is religous belief, and ALL beliefs are not science.
Science, not beliefs, can be tested by the scientific method.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the LHC just kicked off and is already well on the way. keep up the "faith" though

They'll just show another theory, but my faith will not be shaken.

and when every step of the process is proven will you still believe in god just for fun?

The only way they could prove the entire process is by duplicating it exactly. The only way to do that is to create another universe themselves. Are you trying to say that the Earth exists as a result of a science experiment to prove that God does not exist? Wouldn't creating an entire universe do more to prove that it is possible that this one is created than to prove it is not?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ummm, they do say that Bible says the earth is only 6000yo moron. Maybe you just don't understand what the words "They have arrived at the circa 6000 years by..." mean

Where does it say that? Until you can point to the actual words in the Bible you cannot say the Bible says anything, all you can do is point to people who think the Bible says something, and claim that their belief makes it so. This makes you as foolish as they are, maybe more foolish, because you claim to have an open mind and then demonstrate that you do not.

I guess you just don't have the intellectual chops to figure out that the Bible doesn't have to say something explicitely; It leaves some things to be figured out.

For example, you don't need the Bible to say "it was wrong for Adam to eat the apple". Most people can figure that out on their own.

Another example - The Bible doesn't have to explicitly state the penalty for all crimes. Instead, it says "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"

It does not take a lot of intellect to understand the difference between "The Bible says" and "The Bible teaches." You claimed that the Bible says things that it does not, nor does it teach them. People who read the Bible jump to conclusions that are not supported by the Bible, and you attack them by trying to prove that the Bible is wrong because it says things that are wrong. I find it more effective to sit them down and point how the Bible does not actually say what they think it says.

My method shows them that what they have been taught is wrong, and engages their intellect, and mine. I have to use everything in the Bible to prove that what they have been taught is simplistic, and they end up learning and growing. My way does not always work, but your way never does. Yet I am the one lacking intellectual chops for pointing out that the Bible neither says, or teaches, anything you claim it does.

The problem is that you, like almost everyone else in the world, are intellectually lazy and prefer to repeat arguments you have heard from others rather than figure things out for yourself. As a result you end up looking foolish when someone points out the flaws of your position, and end up reacting emotionally in an attempt to defend your position.

The Bible says nothing about the age of the universe, or the Earth itself. Any attempt to claim otherwise just makes whoever is making that claim appear foolish.