Campaign for veto of Bill on creationism in Tennessee

[Getragdogleg]

Explain the dinosaurs if you support creationism.

And fossils.

That is not aimed at anyone on here, it is just frustrated rambling really. I despair of the human race sometimes, we are so good at being stupid.

[Jimbeaux]

TheHeretic said:

Jimbeaux said:

I noticed the article refers to the "accepted science" of global warming. Oh really?? Allowing an alternative opinion that a "higher power" designed us should not worry everyone. Maybe that higher power is an alien crew that seeded Earth or bred hybrids until we resulted, who knows?

It's about the science, Jim. Keep the creationist bks in the religious education classroom, or even better at home or in church. To bring creationism into the science classroom, is an absolute joke.

Maybe we were seeded by aliens, etc, but that is not what creationists are fostering, and nor is that what was found during the Dover trial.

Agreed.

[TheHeretic]

Puggit said:

There isn't enough meat in the article to fully understand it, but promoting students to challenge any science is a healthy thing - so long as the correct current scientific consensus can also be included (and that means AGW cannot be!).

Do you feel the same way about mathematics? We have pi, however, it should be able to be 'challenged' using biblical stuff, and the bible says pi is 3. Perfectly acceptable isn't it?

[Jimbeaux]

bhstewie said:

Jimbeaux said:

I find it amusing that folks way over on Treasure Island get worked up over a proposed legislative bill in one of 50 states.

I think it's more that if you replace "United States" with "Somalia" or "Yemen" you'd think it utterly backwards that such a bill was even being mooted.

I would? No.

[davepoth]

Getragdogleg said:

Explain the dinosaurs if you support creationism.

And fossils.

That is not aimed at anyone on here, it is just frustrated rambling really. I despair of the human race sometimes, we are so good at being stupid.

God put them there while he was building the earth 6,000 years ago. Get with the program.

[Puggit]

TheHeretic said:

Puggit said:

There isn't enough meat in the article to fully understand it, but promoting students to challenge any science is a healthy thing - so long as the correct current scientific consensus can also be included (and that means AGW cannot be!).

Do you feel the same way about mathematics? We have pi, however, it should be able to be 'challenged' using biblical stuff, and the bible says pi is 3. Perfectly acceptable isn't it?

I'm happy to have a well reasoned discussion about why you think it's 3 and I think it's 3.141592654. We can even discuss why some people use 22/7 if you like?

[Jimbeaux]

Of the minority of Christians that do believe in creationism, you will find only around 1% of that minority believe the 6,000 year old crap. Just saying.

[TheHeretic]

Puggit said:

I'm happy to have a well reasoned discussion about why you think it's 3 and I think it's 3.141592654. We can even discuss why some people use 22/7 if you like?

What else do you want to discuss in the classroom? Is everything up for debate? They are there to learn, not to make a decision on whether pi is 3.141592654 or 3 because some bronze age book says it is. Shall we discuss astrology during astronomy? Shall we discuss the flat earth theory glueing geography?

[TheHeretic]

Jimbeaux said:

Of the minority of Christians that do believe in creationism, you will find only around 1% of that minority believe the 6,000 year old crap. Just saying.

You say this why? There have been polls that suggest the number is surprisingly high.

http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

(of course, what you consider 'high' is subjective)

[davepoth]

Jimbeaux said:

Of the minority of Christians that do believe in creationism, you will find only around 1% of that minority believe the 6,000 year old crap. Just saying.

Isn't that the "intelligent design" argument rather than the creationist argument though?

[carmonk]

Puggit said:

TheHeretic said:

Puggit said:

There isn't enough meat in the article to fully understand it, but promoting students to challenge any science is a healthy thing - so long as the correct current scientific consensus can also be included (and that means AGW cannot be!).

Do you feel the same way about mathematics? We have pi, however, it should be able to be 'challenged' using biblical stuff, and the bible says pi is 3. Perfectly acceptable isn't it?

I'm happy to have a well reasoned discussion about why you think it's 3 and I think it's 3.141592654. We can even discuss why some people use 22/7 if you like?

That wouldn't warrant any real lesson time.

"I think it's 3 because it says so in the Bible."

"I know for a fact it's 3.141 and here's the proof..."

Then again - hobgoblins, dragons, lizard men, fairies, talking statues, volcanos filled with ghosts, columns of turtles - they all add up.

[TheHeretic]

davepoth said:

Isn't that the "intelligent design" argument rather than the creationist argument though?

Young earth creationism is the specific 'it happened a few thousand years ago' thing. Intelligent design is simply creationism in a lab coat, (however, they have clown feet, a red, squeaky nose, and a little clown car to to and from the courthouse in)

[Jimbeaux]

TheHeretic said:

Jimbeaux said:

Of the minority of Christians that do believe in creationism, you will find only around 1% of that minority believe the 6,000 year old crap. Just saying.

You say this why? There have been polls that suggest the number is surprisingly high.

http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

(of course, what you consider 'high' is subjective)

Again, look at the wording (for the few polls you listed that actually mentioned it), most answered for the "man in present form" not really paying attention to the 6,000 year foolishness. Again, I submit that that particular fact is hardlt detectable.

[TheHeretic]

Jimbeaux said:

Again, look at the wording (for the few polls you listed that actually mentioned it), most answered for the "man in present form" not really paying attention to the 6,000 year foolishness. Again, I submit that that particular fact is hardlt detectable.

Did you miss the very first one, as well as several that follow?

[Jimbeaux]

davepoth said:

Jimbeaux said:

Of the minority of Christians that do believe in creationism, you will find only around 1% of that minority believe the 6,000 year old crap. Just saying.

Isn't that the "intelligent design" argument rather than the creationist argument though?

Possibly; TBH though, most confuse the two.

[Jimbeaux]

TheHeretic said:

Jimbeaux said:

Again, look at the wording (for the few polls you listed that actually mentioned it), most answered for the "man in present form" not really paying attention to the 6,000 year foolishness. Again, I submit that that particular fact is hardlt detectable.

Did you miss the very first one?

I mentioned that. Of all, only some mentioned "10,000 years" and did so in such a way that the question focused upon "God, man, present form". The 10,000 year bit is easily lost in the question which was likely over the phone and not in front of the respondent. I challenge you to go about asking who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, even in front of Chritian churches as they let out on Sunday, and find more than one person that answers "yes".

[TheHeretic]

Jimbeaux said:

I mentioned that. Of all, only one mentioned "10,000 years" and did so in such a way that the question focused upon "God, man, present form". The 10,000 year bit is easily lost in the question which was likely over the phone and not in front of the respondent.

Read more. There are several that mention 10,000 years. I count 4 polls.

[Jimbeaux]

TheHeretic said:

Jimbeaux said:

I mentioned that. Of all, only one mentioned "10,000 years" and did so in such a way that the question focused upon "God, man, present form". The 10,000 year bit is easily lost in the question which was likely over the phone and not in front of the respondent.

Read more. There are several that mention 10,000 years.

See my above edit.

[TheHeretic]

Jimbeaux said:

See my above edit.

Ah, the 'well, despite those polls saying less than 10,000 years, I still don't believe it so <raspberry>' line of argument? I met quite a few young earthers in the US college I went to. I debated them in the auditorium, on more than one occasion. They exist.

[Jimbeaux]

TheHeretic said:

Jimbeaux said:

See my above edit.

Ah, the 'well, despite those polls saying less than 10,000 years, I still don't believe it so <raspberry>' line of argument? I met quite a few young earthers in the US college I went to. I debated them in the auditorium, on more than one occasion. They exist.

You must seek their lairs on purpose because they are few. The poll said "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.", that does not mean the respondents believe the Earth is that young just that the present version of man is about that old. I personally do not agree with that but that is very far from those people believing that the planet is that age.