PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Teaching Creation Science

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've always been curious, what exactly would creationism look like if it was being taught in a science class?

Really, there's no experiments.
There's no research. There's no testable math. Aside from sitting around saying how God did this or God did that because the Bible said so, what exactly would Creation science look like? Or is that just it? Science class reduced to Sunday school?
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 10:15 PM on September 24, 2008 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I hate the term 'Creationist Science'
ITS NOT SCIENCE!! GRRRR!!


-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 03:38 AM on September 26, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well creationists want creationism taught in science class.

So let's see their teaching plan.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 6:18 PM on September 26, 2008 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

please inform me as to how Science disproves creation.


-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 7:36 PM on September 26, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dubie903 at 7:36 PM on September 26, 2008 :
please inform me as to how Science disproves creation.


Literal or metaphorical Creationism?
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 04:22 AM on September 27, 2008 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is the difference?


-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 10:27 AM on September 27, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dubie903 at 10:27 AM on September 27, 2008 :
What is the difference?



Literalists insist that God make the universe work on their terms, not His.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:22 PM on September 27, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dubie903 at 10:27 AM on September 27, 2008 :
What is the difference?



[color=green]

Seriously?

Literal takes a literal interpretation of Genesis, meaning no evolution, young earth, global flood. Metaphorical accepts how science explains the Earth and life.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 4:51 PM on September 27, 2008 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Obvious_child at Sat September 27, 2008 - 04:22 AM

Literal or metaphorical Creationism?


Okay so I see where you are on literal Creationism.... But what is metaphorical Creationism?


-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 8:39 PM on September 27, 2008 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 12:22 PM on September 27, 2008 :
Quote from dubie903 at 10:27 AM on September 27, 2008 :
What is the difference?



Literalists insist that God make the universe work on their terms, not His.


please explain further what this means?




-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 8:44 PM on September 27, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dubie903 at 8:39 PM on September 27, 2008 :

Okay so I see where you are on literal Creationism.... But what is metaphorical Creationism?


God is responsible for what science explains. That the flood was regional and most of genesis is a story to explain to ancient people how the world came to be, that it is only a story, it is not factual in a literal sense.



 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 10:18 PM on September 27, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dubie903 at 8:44 PM on September 27, 2008 :

please explain further what this means?



Literalists insist that the Universe must conform to their understanding of Genesis, rather than reality.

As your sig clearly explains, they are without excuse.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:53 PM on September 27, 2008 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:53 PM on September 27, 2008 :
Quote from dubie903 at 8:44 PM on September 27, 2008 :

please explain further what this means?



Literalists insist that the Universe must conform to their understanding of Genesis, rather than reality.

As your sig clearly explains, they are without excuse.





The universe will not conform to my understanding of anything.  If I never existed the universe would still hold to exactly how God made it.  If you dont take a literal view of Genesis than there is no basis for the rest of the Bible.  The Bible starts at the Begining and takes you all the way to the end.  Jesus Christ being the Beginning and the end It was through Him and by Him that all things were made.  The universe does not conform to my understanding but was made by the Power of God.  It was in the wisdom of God that the Heavens and the earth were made.  God understood just exactly what He was creating and how to acomplish what He wanted in creation.  Everything that works together to create our habitat called Earth was created by God.  Consider this from; Isaiah 45:18 "¶ For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it {and} did not create it a waste place, {but} formed it to be inhabited), 'I am the LORD, and there is none else.' "
God created the Earth to be inhabited, literaly, and literaly He did it in six days. Six morning and evening days.  Is six 24 hour long days God created the Earth.  So again I pose the question how does science disprove creation, literaly?  For the records I do not believe in a metaphorical creation because the Bible uses itself as a literal tool to help us understand later on in the plan of redemption why Jesus Christ came and the eternal plan of God.  So a literal account of Genesis is need to support the rest of the Bible.





-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 3:46 PM on October 3, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Chemical dating refutes a 6,000 year old planet.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

The fossil record shows that organisms evolved from primitive stages.

There is absolutely no evidence for a global flood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 4:26 PM on October 3, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The universe does not conform to my understanding but was made by the Power of God.

No it wasn't, that's your claim, unsupported by anything real.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:50 AM on October 5, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So a literal account of Genesis is need to support the rest of the Bible.
I agree with dubie903 in this point.

People keep trying to add metaphor to the Bible to make it valid. I say stick with it as it is, or make a new sacred book.

There's the basic metaphor. Jesus is obviously not literally a light, candle or a lamp. And nobody ever said he was.

Jesus is not literally a loaf of bread, and nobody ever said he was.

But the ancient stories of the Bible were supposed to be literal. If you do not like that about your sacred text, then why is it your sacred text?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:09 AM on October 13, 2008 | IP
0112358132134

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you are going to take the bible as absolute, literal truth, I would advise you to stop using any modern technology.  How can it be real if God didn't either a.) create it or b.)write about it 2000+ years ago in an old book


-------
“It is impossible for any number which is a power greater than the second to be written as a sum of two like powers. I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.” -Pierre de Fermat
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 4:00 PM on October 13, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, that's true... Well, He didn't have to speak about cars, but He could have mentioned bacteria, and other planets, and the Milky Way, and viruses, and atoms, and the size of the Sun, and that there is possible for us to go to the Moon... I mean, supposedly he gave us the world. Did He give us the Moon? Why not say something specific about it, rather than call it a lesser light to reign in the night (in spite of the fact that it can be seen during the day, and sometimes not at all even in the night).

And why did He only mention species that were known by the people who wrote the bible?

If He was interested in making prophecies, why not mention the internet?

Why didn't he mention the fact that He would not speak or be seen ever again by mortals?

Well, perhaps the Bible mentions it. I don't know.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:01 PM on October 13, 2008 | IP
0112358132134

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Bible is not very well thought out for someone that knows everything.  Lacking in a few areas regarding reality and so forth.


-------
“It is impossible for any number which is a power greater than the second to be written as a sum of two like powers. I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.” -Pierre de Fermat
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 5:11 PM on October 13, 2008 | IP
Hespero

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think to teach creation science would be very simple.

Geological  dating and evolution have pretty much the same problems that creation  science would have.

Id like to see creationists just come up with some data!

Theory is always open to being falsified!

There should be all sorts of data pointing to the great flood and to all living things that ever were, coexisting at one time.  

Anything from creationist theory should have data.
If there is real data that could falsify evolution, then, that pretty much makes creation the only other theory.

So that is how it could be taught.  Just bring in one good piece of data, like maybe a horse skull from the Devonian.


 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 4:58 PM on December 10, 2008 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp

The language of the old testament is primarily Hebrew and the Hebrews used metaphor extensively in poetry, narrative and in everyday speech.  Furthermore they had very little 'scientific' interest in the world. The models they used to describe the world had far more to do with their interpretation of daily events, politics and Divine purpose than with any interest in the physical properties of the universe.

Therefore to assume that their writings represent 'primarily' an attempt to describe the physical world is simply inappropriate. Their primary concern was how their relationship with God affected everyday life.

Creation is primarily about man's relationship with God and the fact that their cosmology reflects the culture of their day is hardly surprising. The Creation story is predicated on the assumption that the earth is immersed in a watery universe and that the waters of the deep (which is not the ocean by the way) are kept in place by the dome of the sky. The monsters of the 'deep' are mythic creatures of the waters beyond the sky (not sea creatures).

Obviously this is not literally true. The elements of the myth each have their purpose, however. The deep is a place of chaos in which the 'monsters' contend with God.  It is no place for man.

Man, too, may contend with God but it is a 'monstrous' thing to do.

It makes little difference that the Hebrews believed the cosmology because that really wasnt the point.

You ask us to ignore the metaphorical nature of Scripture because it is easy to refute it that way. This is the straw man argument. You may refute Creation and feel you have discredited Christianity but you have achieved  nothing in reality.  









-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 02:23 AM on December 20, 2008 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dubie

You challenged the Scientists to 'disprove' creation and this is a very good challenge EXCEPT that by its very nature creation is irrefutable which is why it is not science.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 02:27 AM on December 20, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from waterboy at 02:23 AM on December 20, 2008 :
Wisp

The language of the old testament is primarily Hebrew and the Hebrews used metaphor extensively in poetry, narrative and in everyday speech.  Furthermore they had very little 'scientific' interest in the world. The models they used to describe the world had far more to do with their interpretation of daily events, politics and Divine purpose than with any interest in the physical properties of the universe.
Et cetera...

Very interesting. But i didn't mention the Hebrews. I was NOT talking about them, or their purposes, or their language, or costumes, or interests.

I was talking about the Christian God.

True, the text has a lot of metaphor, but not every story was a metaphor. A lot of them tried to be a historic account of events.

If Noah's ark wasn't supposed to be literal, why put the dimensions in the text?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:07 AM on December 20, 2008 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp

The 'Christian God' is the same God as the "Jewish" and "Hebrew" God. The early Christians were Jewish and spoke Hebrew. There is virtually nothing new in the New Testament that cannot be found in one form or another in the Old Testament.

Jesus was Jewish and probably never envisaged any new religion founded in His name. Certainly there is nothing in His teaching that isnt core Hebrew teaching.

Jesus knew Scripture and used its symbols, metaphors and stories to teach what He understood to be the Truth contained in the Old Testament. You cannot understand Christianity without coming to terms with Hebrew thought, language and customs.

At the risk of repeating myself.. just because some people take the Flood story literally doesnt indicate that its intent is primarily historical. It is a story of death and rebirth... sound familar? It relates the cycle of birth, death and rebirth to Gods anger at Her people for their apostasy and Her propensity to 'give another chance' to Her people.

Flood stories are common in ancient legends and again the Noah story is an adaptation of stories that the Hebrews were exposed to from other cultures. The global extent of the flood is necessary to the narrative purpose which is to describe the universal scope of Gods interest and power and the totality (well... near totality) of the peoples disobedience to God. The story is intended as a lesson about obedience to God and Gods promise to repent of Her anger. No doubt many believed it to be 'true' and it made sense within the Hebrew understanding of the physical structure of the world but it's primary concern is not history or cosmology (or geography in this case). Its setting is within the world as they knew it. Keep in mind the Hebrews are moving toward monotheism and all the ancient legends are predicated on polytheistic assumptions. The Hebrews were compelled to 'interpret' events, which they probably did assume to be true, in a monotheistic framework.

Feel free if you will to quibble with fundamentalists over the details of the story but please do not brand all of us as fundamentalists.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 9:13 PM on December 20, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The 'Christian God' is the same God as the "Jewish" and "Hebrew" God.
That's your way to see things.

In mine there have never been two people with the same god.

But this is specially true about a god that has chosen a group of  favored people, as opposed to a god that loves all human kind.

You cannot understand Christianity without coming to terms with Hebrew thought, language and customs.
I never intended to have an understanding of Christianity so much better than that of the vast majority of Christians (which would be needed according to your requisites for such understanding).

At the risk of repeating myself.. just because some people take the Flood story literally doesnt indicate that its intent is primarily historical. It is a story of death and rebirth... sound familar? It relates the cycle of birth, death and rebirth to Gods anger at Her people for their apostasy and Her propensity to 'give another chance' to Her people.
Yeah... That and measuring dimensions! Dimensions are very important when talking about death and rebirth...

Man, dimensions and lineages are an attempt of appearance of truthfulness.

No doubt many believed it to be 'true' and it made sense within the Hebrew understanding of the physical structure of the world
Exactly.

but it's primary concern is not history or cosmology (or geography in this case).
I never said it was it's primary concern.

Let it be it's secondary concern, OK?

The early Christians were Jewish and spoke Hebrew.
According to your definition of "Christian" (that obviously you and i don't share).

Is this a question of semantics then?

I'd say that every "Christian" believes that there actually WAS a Christ.

Feel free to define anything as you please, but please don't assume we all share your definitions.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:41 PM on December 21, 2008 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp

Of course anyone can call themselves Christian and you can interpret the word any way you like but if you are talking about some minor sect that calls themselves Christian but regards their God as different to the God of the Hebrews then they really dont fit the common meaning of 'Christian'.  Words do have common meanings. If we cant agree on the meaning of our words then our arguments are nothing but idiosyncratic and meaningless rants.

As for dimensions and geneologies they are clearly not conciously intended to 'establish' historical veracity but to convey theological purpose. Take the geneology of Jesus for example. Jesus was supposedly conceived without Joseph involvement but the geneology establishes Jesus' royal lineage back to David through Joseph. No problem to the writers at all as they were making a ' Christological statement' rather than an historical proposition.

As for 'dimensions' there is quite a complex of symbolic significance to numbers in Jewish writing. There probably never was an ark and if there was it almost certainly did not have the said published dimensions and obviously could never have held all the animals purported to have travelled on the boat let alone all the provisions necessary for such an exercise. The story is obviously a Jewish adaptation of some ANE legend adopted and adapted for theological purposes and not with any real concern for history.

You will find that the Jewish spin on these legends develops the notion that YHWH is the only God...  ie we see in these stories a Jewish polemic against surrounding polytheistic religions. They are reinterpreted with an increasingly monotheistic 'spin'.  They are intended to persuade people against apostasy.

You can, of course, argue that such 'story-telling' has ethical issues but that would be to apply 21st century 'rules' and reasons to ancient cultures that had very different 'rules' and imperatives. Naturally we judge those past events by our rules and deem that many things that were normal in the those times are undesirable or even abhorrent today.

You are absolutely right to criticise so-called 'Christians' who fail to appreciate this process and insist on taking the Bible literally. They are, at best, wrong and, at worst, potentially dangerous. That is why it is important to challenge their claims as you do but it is equally important from my point of view to expound a 'reasonable' theological alternative to fundamentalism.





-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 02:08 AM on December 22, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but if you are talking about some minor sect that calls themselves Christian but regards their God as different to the God of the Hebrews
Nononono! They don't! I DO!

Words do have common meanings.
Indeed they do. And yet you say that the Jews are Christians...
Edit: Oh, my mistake! I thought that by "early Christians" you meant "before Jesus". The ones that were waiting for the Christ to come (like the Jews are still supposedly waiting).

As for dimensions and geneologies they are clearly not conciously intended to 'establish' historical veracity
OK then, let it be suspiciously unconscious.

As for 'dimensions' there is quite a complex of symbolic significance to numbers in Jewish writing.
That's true. But they sure made it look like they were telling a true story. And because of that modern young Earth creationists have to endure the mockery.

The story is obviously a Jewish adaptation of some ANE legend adopted and adapted for theological purposes and not with any real concern for history.
OK then, a false concern for History.

You will find that the Jewish spin on these legends develops the notion that YHWH is the only God...  ie we see in these stories a Jewish polemic against surrounding polytheistic religions. They are reinterpreted with an increasingly monotheistic 'spin'.  They are intended to persuade people against apostasy.
Yes, i know. So does the order to kill people from other religions.

You can, of course, argue that such 'story-telling' has ethical issues
I wouldn't. I only say it's seeming veracity is open to attack.

Anyway, as you've guessed, i sure don't like it.

You are absolutely right to criticise so-called 'Christians' who fail to appreciate this process and insist on taking the Bible literally. They are, at best, wrong and, at worst, potentially dangerous.
Agreed.

That is why it is important to challenge their claims as you do but it is equally important from my point of view to expound a 'reasonable' theological alternative to fundamentalism.
You're probably right on this one too, but not in the same context of a debate against YEC.

I mean, an atheist shouldn't have to offer a YEC some theological alternative.

You make it sound like YEC are like hermit crabs, that won't give up their shell unless offered a better one to crawl in and hide.

And i don't like it. I think it's very healthy for any individual to spend at least some time with no shell. Or better yet, make their own shell. Or toughen their skin. (Haha, i like fables, because they never try to be credible as real events.)

Anyway, there's no reasonable alternative to be found in any branch of Christianism.


(Edited by wisp 12/22/2008 at 8:57 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:10 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.