Creationists suffer another legal defeat

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Does that mean that anything not testable by the scientific method is not science? I hope not, because that would toss out astrophysics and geology.

 

[sangha]

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.

No, "The Bible" doesn't teach anything. People teach people and sometimes they use the Bible as part of their curriculum, but The Bible doesn't stand in front of the class and teach the students. Your pedantry is absurd. People say "The Bible says" even when they are referring to something the Bible implies.

 

[sangha]

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.

Does that mean that anything not testable by the scientific method is not science? I hope not, because that would toss out astrophysics and geology.

LOL!!

Astrophysics and geology are subject to scientific experiments. Their concepts are testable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

No, "The Bible" doesn't teach anything. People teach people and sometimes they use the Bible as part of their curriculum, but The Bible doesn't stand in front of the class and teach the students. Your pedantry is absurd. People say "The Bible says" even when they are referring to something the Bible implies.

They are wrong, which is my point. Your point seems to be that they are right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Does that mean that anything not testable by the scientific method is not science? I hope not, because that would toss out astrophysics and geology.

LOL!!

Astrophysics and geology are subject to scientific experiments. Their concepts are testable.

Please explain how we can test conditions that we cannot replicate.

 

[Father Time]

Mudwhistle, no one is saying that creationism or ID can't be taught in public schools,

Some people are. They claim it's teaching religion in public schools and shouldn't be done.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Creationism has no place in science class. If it's to be taught in public school the appropraite place would be a course in comparative religion.

 

[sangha]

Does that mean that anything not testable by the scientific method is not science? I hope not, because that would toss out astrophysics and geology.

LOL!!

Astrophysics and geology are subject to scientific experiments. Their concepts are testable.

Please explain how we can test conditions that we cannot replicate.

Your assumption is wrong. They can test their hypotheses

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which hypothesis can an astrophysicist test exactly? All they can do is observe, measure and observe again. We cannot even sustain a hydrogen helium reaction, how are we going to conduct an experiment on fusing heavier elements?

The scientific method is a wonderful thing, but it does not require experimentation.

 

[sangha]

Which hypothesis can an astrophysicist test exactly? All they can do is observe, measure and observe again. We cannot even sustain a hydrogen helium reaction, how are we going to conduct an experiment on fusing heavier elements?

The scientific method is a wonderful thing, but it does not require experimentation.

Astrophysicists have proven the existence of black holes. Geologists have proven the Theory of Plate Tectonics

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which hypothesis can an astrophysicist test exactly? All they can do is observe, measure and observe again. We cannot even sustain a hydrogen helium reaction, how are we going to conduct an experiment on fusing heavier elements?

The scientific method is a wonderful thing, but it does not require experimentation.

Astrophysicists have proven the existence of black holes. Geologists have proven the Theory of Plate Tectonics

Not by experiment, only by observation. Which is my point. Unless you can point to anywhere where I said these were not sciences I fail to see why you keep harping on the point.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I must tell you not to be over joyed one day you will learn the truth. We all will learn the truth. I hope for your sakes that you are correc t. But I will stick with the master plan.

According to Texas, your Master's is not accredited. Sorry.

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

You're a complete dumbass.

But who should decide that my belief in creation by God is wrong?

Facts and evidence should probably have some hand in swaying you. If you were intelligent and rational.

The Bible speaks of how the clouds hold vast amount of water, written before 1400BC—more than 3,000 years before their discovery by science.

So you're saying they KNEW CLOUDS HAD WATER?! Genius. This could have only happened through divine inspiration.

Does the Bible say that animals were created before Man was created, or does the Bible say that Man was created before the animals were created?

Or does it say both?

I'm so glad you asked! Please, watch this educational program:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk]YouTube - Quiz Show (Bible Contradictions)[/ame]

math & science are proven while creationism is provably false

You keep saying that and it's ridiculous.

Please prove the idea of a single creator of the universe is false.

Evolution disproves creationism, not a single universe creator. Please get a mildly better understanding of the topic before responding again.

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

False. You don't understand the concept of scientific theory. Please try again later.

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?

False again. We don't need to duplicate someone having a heart attack to prove they've had one in the past. Let me know if the concept of EVIDENCE of events eludes you.

 

[CurveLight]

Mudwhistle, no one is saying that creationism or ID can't be taught in public schools,

Some people are. They claim it's teaching religion in public schools and shouldn't be done.

Give an example of how creationism can be taught independent of religion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mudwhistle, no one is saying that creationism or ID can't be taught in public schools,

Some people are. They claim it's teaching religion in public schools and shouldn't be done.

They can be safely ignored, as long as the teaching of C and ID are kept out of the science classroom.

 

[Neubarth]

Allegory. The Bible uses it a lot and does so to show man's relationship to God and what God requires of man. The Creation story is common to several religions in the Middle East. For those who have problems with it, I always tell them, that if it is a stumbling block to you to take it literally; then, assume that it is allegory. The important thing is to know where we stand with respect to God and what He requires of us.

If we are wrong in that allegory assumption God will not be angry with us. Instead, He will accept us if we have accepted Him on His terms. Again the salvation process is very simple and need not ever be confused with human intellect that has always been full of holes. Intellect will never save you. Faith and obedience to God will.

 

[Neubarth]

Mudwhistle, no one is saying that creationism or ID can't be taught in public schools,

Some people are. They claim it's teaching religion in public schools and shouldn't be done.

Give an example of how creationism can be taught independent of religion.

There is no end of scientific evidence to support creationism. I do not feel that it is necessary, though, as the issue that is of importance is salvation, not intellect.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

There is no end to the evidence that directly contradicts creationism. Despite YOUR goal of being salvation, the goal of public schools is public education, which has nothing to do with your personal religion.

 

[sangha]

Which hypothesis can an astrophysicist test exactly? All they can do is observe, measure and observe again. We cannot even sustain a hydrogen helium reaction, how are we going to conduct an experiment on fusing heavier elements?

The scientific method is a wonderful thing, but it does not require experimentation.

Astrophysicists have proven the existence of black holes. Geologists have proven the Theory of Plate Tectonics

Not by experiment, only by observation. Which is my point. Unless you can point to anywhere where I said these were not sciences I fail to see why you keep harping on the point.

Wrong. Both geologists and astrophysicists perform experiments.

It seems there isn't anything about science that you understand

 

[Jack Fate]

Astrophysicists have proven the existence of black holes. Geologists have proven the Theory of Plate Tectonics

Not by experiment, only by observation. Which is my point. Unless you can point to anywhere where I said these were not sciences I fail to see why you keep harping on the point.

Wrong. Both geologists and astrophysicists perform experiments.

It seems there isn't anything about science that you understand

Einstein was a pretty smart scientific guy and he believed in intelligent design.

 

[sangha]

Not by experiment, only by observation. Which is my point. Unless you can point to anywhere where I said these were not sciences I fail to see why you keep harping on the point.

Wrong. Both geologists and astrophysicists perform experiments.

It seems there isn't anything about science that you understand

Einstein was a pretty smart scientific guy and he believed in intelligent design.

AFAIK, Einstein never said anything about Intelligent Design (note the capitalization)

Do you have any evidence to support your claim?