The world is only 6 thousand years old ...

[bankside]

Incidentally the integrity of the scientific method is neither strengthened nor weakened by the misapplication of scientific results by inept politicians.

 

[Kulindahr]

When children reach adult hood they will make up their own mind on the subject of Creationist theory, versus Evolutionary Theory...l

No, they won't, because there's no such thing as "Creationist Theory". To say there is is to lie in a fashion one US president warned about as particularly dangerous: changing the meaning of a word in the middle of a sentence or discussion.

In "Evolutionary Theory", the word "theory" has a definition congruent with science, as something based on observation, tested by observation, and refined by observation. In the phrase "Creationist Theory", the word has a definition of "I didn't observe it, in fact no one did, and I don't want it tested by observation even if it could be, but I want people to believe it anyway".

 

[Kulindahr]

Smetimes I believe we're going backwards in thinking. I went to public school in NJ in the 1950s, & Catholic Sunday school. Both the teachers & the nuns knew that earth was way older than 6000 years old, & the Darwin was right.

Never was anything even approaching the ignorance of creationism taught , or even mentioned.

At least one of the authors of the set of books called The Fundamentals, on which much of today's "evangelical" Christianity stands, held the earth to be millions of years old, not only a few thousand. He, at least, knew that the Bible does not teach a young earth, that it has nothing at all to say about the age of the earth. Somewhere since then, someone decided that God spoke seventeenth-century English and wrote the Bible in it Himself, and that disease has proven quite virulent.

 

[Kulindahr]

Beliefs are part of the teaching curriculum....for science is continually updating its understandings...even Professor Einstein understood that his theories would be questioned....as indeed they have....and corrected....in the light of advancing knowledge.

Yes, science is. But "Creationist Theory" is not science, and to maintain it is is a lie that is dangerous to all education.

 

[Kulindahr]

If science took you that way then it belongs in a science class. Either as a current theory, or as an example of a supplanted theory now understood to be incorrect.

It belongs in a science class insofar as it should be pointed out that some conclude from the evidence that there is a Creator. But nothing beyond that should be taught, because nothing beyond that is science. To be technical, even that conclusion isn't science, it's metaphysics.

 

[bankside]

It belongs in a science class insofar as it should be pointed out that some conclude from the evidence that there is a Creator. But nothing beyond that should be taught, because nothing beyond that is science. To be technical, even that conclusion isn't science, it's metaphysics.

Okay, now speaking of words changing meaning from one context to another, are you sure "conclude" is the word you're looking for...

 

[Studdly]

"But the bible says.."

Its funny how I felt the progressiveness of my atheism over time, like a fine wine that gets better with age.

 

[Kulindahr]

View attachment 1040563

"But the bible says.."

Its funny how I felt the progressiveness of my atheism over time, like a fine wine that gets better with age.

The image is lying, because Ken Ham does not represent the Bible. He doesn't even begin to understand it, because he hasn't asked the right questions.

 

[Studdly]

The image is lying, because Ken Ham does not represent the Bible. He doesn't even begin to understand it, because he hasn't asked the right questions.

"..But the bible says.."

and his question to Bill Nye seemed to be

"Have you read this book?"

 

[kallipolis]

The image is lying, because Ken Ham does not represent the Bible. He doesn't even begin to understand it, because he hasn't asked the right questions.

Well observed......

 

[lambdaboy]

Anyone who thinks the world is 6,000 years old who has a modicum of education is an ass hole period. Did the dinosaurs walk next to the pyraminds?

 

[Studdly]

Anyone who thinks the world is 6,000 years old who has a modicum of education is an ass hole period. Did the dinosaurs walk next to the pyraminds?

Of course, god put them there. God also put a 9 thousend year old tree in america, that he grew in his god garden, then made the earth. All the dinosaurs died when god flooded the earth, and mankind was brought back to life when Noah told his daughters and sons to inbred.

The bibles teaches inbreeding, and yet christians have issues with one man sticking his cock into another man.

 

[Kulindahr]

"..But the bible says.."

and his question to Bill Nye seemed to be

"Have you read this book?"

I watched the "debate", and a large portion of the time when Ham said, "But the Bible says....", he didn't have a clue what he was talking about.

He's the sort who, if Kilmer's Trees appeared in Genesis, would swear that God tells us that arboreal creatures have literal arms that they can raise to praise God.

 

[Kulindahr]

Anyone who thinks the world is 6,000 years old who has a modicum of education is an ass hole period. Did the dinosaurs walk next to the pyraminds?

That reminds me of a cute calculation I once did at the behest of a devout Lutheran biology professor: assuming a random distribution of "kinds" across the planet, and given the known configuration of the continents five thousand years ago, how long would it have taken an eohippus from Oregon to reach Noah and the Ark?

Of course it was whimsical, since eohippus had died out before five thousand years ago, but to a literalist, if dinosaurs should have been on the Ark, so should they.

As the professor put it to us, as the Psalmist says, we are "fearfully and wondrously made" -- which includes brains, which God expects us to use. Or as a later, Roman Catholic biology/ecology professor put it in the two foundational premises for his course: (1) God does not lie; (2) We are to think His thoughts after Him. To be a literalist, one has to assume that one of those is false.

 

[Kulindahr]

Of course, god put them there. God also put a 9 thousend year old tree in america, that he grew in his god garden, then made the earth. All the dinosaurs died when god flooded the earth, and mankind was brought back to life when Noah told his daughters and sons to inbred.

The bibles teaches inbreeding, and yet christians have issues with one man sticking his cock into another man.

To be fair, the Bible teaches inbreeding in extremis: it's allowable when there's no recourse.

Oh, and God out minerals in the Himalayas which show that they've been bending/deforming for tens of thousands of years. I guess He grew those in the lab before putting them in place?

 

[Mariatenebre]

When we began imposing limits on freedom of expression we have decided that we know better, than others....that's a slippery slope heading dangerously towards totalitarian rule....no thanks....for I will make the choice....not some invisible face, deciding which films,or books I can watch/read, and which films/books I cannot watch/read....censorship leads to greater evils.....remember, until some forty years ago medical science persuaded society that homosexuality was a mental health issue....the science of that time was the accepted wisdom of the day....some science....some wisdom....

Actually the reason why Science promoted the idea that homosexuality was a mental health issue was clearly due to Christianity infecting Western culture. Just like for a long time it was promoted by Scientists of Christian and Islamic leanings that the Earth was flat because of the Bible and Quran. Once Science began to become more secularized and actually address the facts and not be jaded by religious interpretations the truth became known.

Also no in schools you do not have the right to teach whatever you want in schools. Schools are obligated to teach children the facts. If we could teach kids anything we wanted then really our education system would fall apart because there would be no separation of facts vs. lunacy. If you are going to teach creationism you might as well teach a flat Earth and geocentrism because all three are considered equally absurd by Science.

 

[Mariatenebre]

Those who pay their taxes have as much right as you, and me to insist that their children should also be taught Creationist theory, alongside Evolutionary theory despite you, and me recognising that there is no merit to Creationist theories...

The principle of freedom of speech should also extend to all whose opinions, views, ideologies, philosophy is repugnant to me....

You seem to have no knowledge of what a theory is in Science. Creationism is not a theory it is barely a hypothesis. A theory in Science is a explanation of Scientific evidence. It is one of the highest honors an idea can be given in Science. Children have the right to be taught the facts not psuedoscience. By your same logic do you think we should teach kids that geocentrism and a flat Earth are equally as valid as the heliocentric model and the round Earth?

You, and me may well argue that Creationist theory is nonsense....here, we are in total agreement...

Refining a body of knowledge, such as Evolutionary Theory is a process...still ongoing...still being refined, and expanded since Charles Darwin proposed his hypothesis...in this sense it can be argued by Creationists that Evolutionary Theory remains...for some....a belief rather than an unassailable fact of life....

This paragraph might savour your appetite to read more from an article that does nothing to change my beliefs:

http://mohamedghilan.com/2012/02/26/some-problems-with-evolution/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

According to the Scientific evidence and Scientists themselves there is no debate. Evolution has been proven and is a foundation of Biology. As such the facts should be taught to children not debunked myths. Also when it comes to so called "creationist theory." There is not just one creation myth, there are many and it would be unconstitutional to just teach the Christian account when the Hindus have their own as do Shinto people, Taoist, Hellenists etc.

 

[Studdly]

To be fair, the Bible teaches inbreeding in extremis: it's allowable when there's no recourse.

Oh, and God out minerals in the Himalayas which show that they've been bending/deforming for tens of thousands of years. I guess He grew those in the lab before putting them in place?

totally, according to Ken Ham.. because the bible says..

No, the bible says..

But the bible says..

The douche could be holding a version of the bible made from a tree thats over 8000 years old, and he'd still believe the earth is only 6000.

 

[bankside]

To be fair, the Bible teaches inbreeding in extremis: it's allowable when there's no recourse.

That makes no sense.

 

[Studdly]

That makes no sense.

I think he means the teachings of the bible are that with stories like noah, because all mankind was wiped out, inbreeding is a-ok with your daughters because theres no one else to bring mankind back.
Of cours explaining how god managed to drown the planet, and then make the waters recede doesn't seem to ever have an answer.