Creationism SHOULD be taught in school. ( alongside science theories! )

originally posted by: theMediator
a reply to: SuperFrog

You seem to be afraid that the knowledge of what isn't scientific would impare science...

Maybe your faith in science being the truth isn't strong enough.

Or maybe you don't need to have faith in a method of fact discovery? When something is physically and tanigbly verifiable, faith is not required. Guessing games about other people's religions or worldviews is not scientific, nor does it impair science at all. No fear or faith necessary.

originally posted by: theMediator
a reply to: SuperFrog

You seem to be afraid that the knowledge of what isn't scientific would impare science...

Maybe your faith in science being the truth isn't strong enough.

Not afraid, but just can't see much of gain in beating dead horse...

They tried to move ID/Creationism to public school, we all know how that went. Today, many years since trail, ID and creationism claims did not change much - there is no single piece of evidence... and there is no reason it will ever be in any books, even as example of not to believe or do.

This lecture covers why as well explains what happened... please watch...



Seems ID folks did not learn anything from that early failure...

a reply to: Barcs

You can see quarks and strings with your own eyes? You've seen quantum entanglement in action with your own eyes? You've seen black holes up close, and watched them be created?

Wow. Maybe I should convert to this science magic, if I can do all these magical things.

( for the record, I love science and don't use God to explain anything exclusively, I believe everything can be defined and explained scientifically, even God himself.)

a reply to: deadlyhope

You do realize it is possible to "see" something without having physically seen it with your own eyes right? After all, do you deny that oxygen exists?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You just defined "faith" as most religions explain it - it's something we believe because of our emotions, our reasoning, our experiences with others and what they believe and feel.

I believe I breathe something.. I know someone else has called it oxygen, so that's the word to be used. I don't know it as factual and real and for sure, though. All evidence based on others testimonies has me have good reason to think it is true, I breathe in oxygen, which is the same thing that is in water, attached to two hydrogen molecules..

But pure truth is only ones experiences, and what one chooses to believe, and it is true only in their world. Even on the same subject, perspective is not bound to be identical because we as humans are not identical

Anyways it's just really philosophical, but if I had to make a long story short? I'd say we put the most stock in our own experiences, the next most amount in the experiences of the majority, and the least in the minority of agreement. It doesn't make us know truth, as I don't believe anything really can, but it can put us on the right path ( ie, I do put stock in the periodic table of elements, but not as much string theory.)

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You just defined "faith" as most religions explain it - it's something we believe because of our emotions, our reasoning, our experiences with others and what they believe and feel.

I didn't even use the word "faith" in that post, let alone define it. In fact, I didn't say ANYTHING relating to the above paragraph in that post.

I believe I breathe something.. I know someone else has called it oxygen, so that's the word to be used. I don't know it as factual and real and for sure, though. All evidence based on others testimonies has me have good reason to think it is true, I breathe in oxygen, which is the same thing that is in water, attached to two hydrogen molecules..

So the fact that we can detect oxygen through non-visual means says that you doubt its total existence? Never mind that we can detect it with MANY different means without actually seeing it. At least you are consistent with your illogic...

But pure truth is only ones experiences, and what one chooses to believe, and it is true only in their world. Even on the same subject, perspective is not bound to be identical because we as humans are not identical

I don't care about "pure truth". Whatever that is. I only care about objective evidence and what it says does and doesn't exist.

Anyways it's just really philosophical, but if I had to make a long story short? I'd say we put the most stock in our own experiences, the next most amount in the experiences of the majority, and the least in the minority of agreement. It doesn't make us know truth, as I don't believe anything really can, but it can put us on the right path ( ie, I do put stock in the periodic table of elements, but not as much string theory.)

I put most of my stock in experts' opinions and objective evidence. I try NOT to put stock in people's anecdotes or listen to bandwagon appels. That just leads to trouble.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Barcs

You can see quarks and strings with your own eyes? You've seen quantum entanglement in action with your own eyes? You've seen black holes up close, and watched them be created?

Wow. Maybe I should convert to this science magic, if I can do all these magical things.

( for the record, I love science and don't use God to explain anything exclusively, I believe everything can be defined and explained scientifically, even God himself.)

An observation in science is not always directly witnessing an event. No magic necessary when we have technology that can view such things.

Krazy shot's post about oxygen nailed this point home. We don't see oxygen, but we can break down the molecules with a microscope and through science and experimentation, learn that the O2 molecule is what we need to breathe to survive. In the past, people probably just thought we could breath all air and took that on faith, but science has shown otherwise. If the air was slightly different, we'd have trouble breathing or die.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I could write some longer reply, but I won't - I've conceded that creationism should not be taught in schools.

Anyone that agrees, which is most in this thread, good for them.

Anyone that has any points of their own to contest, and say creationism should be taught in school, would be adding to the original discussion, as that was the soft conclusion of said discussion, though I'd be unlikely to switch sides again without a large amount of logic and reasoning likely unable to be provided.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Prezbo369

Well my original thought process was that no theory on the start of the universe is unanimous amognst anyone, not even scientists - so I assumed we should teach other theories that are held by a lot of people


But some people of ats came by explaining the scientific method, and while science is not perfect, it's based on observations, what we can see, what we can experiment with.


It may have taken me a day or two to process, and stop lashing out, but I can agree that within a science class, we should be teaching things that include being able to use the scientific method.

Hey good for you. I can respect open mindedness and intellectual honesty.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Thank you.

It seems some people assume a thread is about propaganda, pushing one's thoughts onto the world and hope everyone just agrees with them. I disagree with that mentality, I think it's all about collaboration, and teaching others, and not getting too worked up ( guilty) while you're at it.

a reply to: Barcs

Sorry, but this is an example of why A Students end up working for B Students.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

Yes it is. Anybody who equates 2 cats having 7 kittens to 1 + 1 = 7 is over simplifying the process to the point where the math becomes pointless because it's almost like a metaphor. It's like saying. "I can prove 1 + 1 = million" 1 cold front + 1 warm front = millions of rain drops." Maybe in the eyes of a 3rd grader that sounds logical, but anybody familiar with the process knows that there is way more complex math involved to even begin to talk about those type of things in an equation.

a reply to: Barcs

sigh. I'll dumb it down for you. I was proving that the mathematics system is based on a theory; that '1' is not the necessary answer. One could build an opposing mathematics system based on a different outcome of 1+1.

Well, maybe school needs to be the way it is, for most students...

originally posted by: LoneCloudHopper2
sigh. I'll dumb it down for you. I was proving that the mathematics system is based on a theory; that '1' is not the necessary answer. One could build an opposing mathematics system based on a different outcome of 1+1.

No need to sigh or dumb anything down. I just disagree with you. Everybody seems to always think that a disagreement automatically means the person doesn't understand. I understand, I just think it's pure straw grasping. Math isn't based on a theory. It is hard data used to quantify things.

Sure, you can always change what numbers represent which quantities, or make a different base counting system, but the math will always stay the same in function whether you call something 1 or 2. Yeah, you could obviously make a new system if you wanted to but the results would be exactly the same, just with different descriptors. 1+1 ALWAYS = 2 unless you change variables. 2 cats having kittens is not a quantifiable concept unless you get extremely complex with the equations.

Math is based on theorem, not theory.

a reply to: Barcs

My point was only that mathematics is not some perfect system which always explains everything.

It claims: 1+1=2, 1+2=3, 1+3=4

But in reality, this can happen: 1+1= 7, 7+1 = 12, 1+12 = 30 (if cats are mating, and a new one is introduced each generation.) Mathematics, as I explained, only accounts for a specific direction, within a reality of separate and single 1's, joining together (or dividing apart.) It's only one perspective; there are opposing ones.

Even in finances, money goes missing. It's not always by the mathematics system. For example, you might calculate all of your expenses, the profits you will be making (from contracts,) taxes calculated, etc. But there is almost always 'breakage' (or 'cost of doing business') which you would not have foreseen, be it a change in taxes, a rise in expenses in materials needed to run your company, minimum wage could go up (or your staff quite join a union,) etc.

Mathematics is a theoretical system which can be used to determine hypothetical results, for single 1's or fractions of 1's, and nothing more. It's useful and I'd never argue that it wasn't, but it's not really the be-all and end-all of numbers (that would be reality.) One could have difficulty in math and still grow a healthy business by building strong relationships and delivering a good product or service, just as one can be a powerful spokesman and have dyslexia which cause them to confuse wordings, just as someone can have bad social skills and perform wonderfully in theatre. Mathematics, like the English language, like many things taught in school, is very useful, but not required to make one successful in this world. I've known too many successful businessmen who were surprisingly lacking in one or more of these areas but who were exceptional at problem solving, thinking outside the box and who seem to thrive on challenge.

Ultimately, I was just saying that there is always another view, another angle for looking at things. Some students may simply wish to learn what others ahead of them have worked out, which is perfectly fine. But others among us prefer to discover things for ourselves, to be creative, inventive, question things. It's far more exciting for us and gets our minds working much more than merely tapping on a calculator or writing down figures on a page. But to each his/her own.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

1 + 1 = 2 isn't a claim. It's a fact of reality. Numbers are a way to describe that fact. If you have one object on the left and one object to the right and group them together there will now be 2 objects in that particular group. That fact will always be true. It's not about cats having kittens or combining balls of clay. It's about counting and quantifying.

This issue is when people try to force numbers to quantify what cannot be quantified. That is where it gets fuzzy, and there is interpretation involved (ie theoretical physics and your examples). Don't mix that up with the basic principles of mathematics, however. They are always accurate. Mistakes occur because of human errors in calculating, variables changing, or from incorrect measurements (mistakes or faulty equipment).

Yes, you can always look at things through a different number system, but that only changes our description, it doesn't change the facts. Cats having kittens isn't 1 + 1, just like merging 2 balls of clay is not 1 + 1. You need to use real numbers, not just the number 1 arbitrarily. It would be more like 10 oz + 10 oz = 20 oz, to describe your ball merger. You can't add 1 + 1 and then change the variables, because then it is no longer 1 + 1. It is simply 1. 2 things becoming one isn't the same as 2 things equaling 1. An equation is equal on both sides. If the 2 balls of clay were combined they can no longer be described as 1 + 1.

Hope this makes sense. I'm not saying you can't do things differently or think outside the box. I'm saying your examples are very poor and easily refuted. I get the point you are trying to make overall. You can call it creative thinking or inventiveness, but remember, just because something is different, does not mean it's necessarily useful or valid. There is nothing wrong with critical thinking, it's a great tool to help you understand things. The thing is, math isn't really about blind adherence. It is advanced counting, nothing more.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2



Why do I have a feeling you did not do well in school??

I had my 10 year old take this class, for some reason I think you might benefit as well...

www.edx.org...

originally posted by: LoneCloudHopper2
a reply to: Barcs

My point was only that mathematics is not some perfect system which always explains everything.



Ultimately, I was just saying that there is always another view, another angle for looking at things. Some students may simply wish to learn what others ahead of them have worked out, which is perfectly fine. But others among us prefer to discover things for ourselves, to be creative, inventive, question things. It's far more exciting for us and gets our minds working much more than merely tapping on a calculator or writing down figures on a page. But to each his/her own.

You're right, it's not a perfect system but it's been one that's been honed over the years and pretty much fits.

As for your last paragraph...
Yes, there will always be people who oppose what the consensus is and in some cases put forward new ways of thinking.
That's always encouraged and that's science.
But...(and it's a big "but")
The hard bit is proving that your opposing or alternative view should take the consensus' view.
And that's where you pretty much always fail.
Just saying that you like to think differently means absolutely nothing.

originally posted by: Pardon?
As for your last paragraph...
Yes, there will always be people who oppose what the consensus is and in some cases put forward new ways of thinking.
That's always encouraged and that's science.
But...(and it's a big "but")
The hard bit is proving that your opposing or alternative view should take the consensus' view.
And that's where you pretty much always fail.
Just saying that you like to think differently means absolutely nothing.

This needs repeating. Nothing is wrong with having an alternative viewpoint, but one must also be able to be critical of said viewpoint as well. Having an alternative viewpoint just for the sake of having one doesn't make it correct. If it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, you must be able to discard it.

a reply to: deadlyhope

You wrote QUOTE "Evolution, and Creationism should be taught in the same classroom as these are both the most widely accepted theories on how the world came about..." UNQUOTE

Which Creation Myths would you teach alongside Darwin if you had your druthers?

Are you one of those persons who always defaults to the Creation Myths of the Jews when discussing Evolution verses Creation?

Why would you select, for example, the creation myths of the Jews? You should know that there are at least two different myths to choose from, e.g. Genesis chapter 1:1 to 2:4a or Genesis 2:4b to 4:26 (NB the two myths of creation of the Jews DO NOT match each other in order of creation, in syntax, vocabulary, overall style of utterance and theology etc.) ? Either way, similarities with Sumerian, Akkadian, Hindu, and Canaanite creation myths and ancient Near Eastern mythologies indicate that they were the main literary sources for what we read today in the book of Genesis.

Or would you choose the more ancient Creation Myths e.g. the myths of the great cult centres of Egypt e.g. from the Pyramid Texts ? There too there are different creation myths attributed the creation to different gods: the set of eight primordial deities called the Ogdoad, the self-engendered masturbating god Atum and his seminal offspring, the contemplative deity Ptah, and the mysterious, transcendent god Amun etc.?

Or would you teach the Popul Vuh (the Creation Myth of the Maya)?

Or would you rather teach the creation myths of the ancient Canaanites e.g. "Before highest heaven had its name, before the earth below was called into being, and the primeval Arapel, the cloudy darkness; and chaos, Ba'ad, the wind which blew; they were mingling together with no limit. And Ba'ad produced Ruach, from him Ruach ('spirit/wind') emerged, and was moving over the Deep..."

If you want to teach creationism alongside Darwinism, you would have to present the creation myths of the Norse, the Greek, the many and varied Native American peoples, the Chinese, the Japanese, African, and many other mythologies deserve just as much consideration as the creation myths of the Jews, surely.

Clear as mud?