education secretary is 'crystal clear' that teaching creationism is , page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 12 times

reply posted on 31-3-2011 @ 04:52 PM by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Christian Voice
Thing is is that evolution can be proved no more than creationism. Why then is evolution the only acceptable theory to teach?

You should read this if you really believe evolution isn't backed up by objective evidence. Because it is a theory (and not a hypothesis), it has to be verifiable and backed up by objective evidence. The method it has to follow is called scientific method.

Anyway, creationism has ZERO objective evidence to back it up...like you've stated correctly.

Saying they're "the same" is complete and utter nonsense...

reply posted on 31-3-2011 @ 04:54 PM by MrXYZ

Originally posted by wtbengineer
reply to post by MrXYZ

I was only pointing out that his statement that there were no scientists that hold that view is incorrect. I made no remark about my belief or disbelief.

Well, the amount of scientists not believing in evolution is ridiculously small, and consists of a lot of scientists that don't have the qualifications to make any claims.

Not that it matters, this isn't a vote. The theory holds up because of objective evidence, not because scientists vote on it. But even if they did, they'd win with like 99.9%

reply posted on 31-3-2011 @ 09:30 PM by wtbengineer

reply to post by MrXYZ

Your statements are just not accurate. There are a lot of scientists who see a pattern in all of what exists that they can not attribute to random coincidence. I don't want to argue with you but you seem to be on a mission of some sort and I am not. How old are you? You seem to me to be a very agressive type person, not very evolved if I may say so (pun intended). No one can be sure of anything that is being postulated. I don't care who you are, you just can't state unequivocally that you know your worldview is correct.

To be honest, I don't give a rat's arse who is closer to being correct in this debate. I just hate when people are so closed minded. The thing that really makes me side with the creationists over the evolutionists is that the latter are just so mean spirited and violent in there attacks. Even if they are right I would hate to live in a world that was run by them.

reply posted on 31-3-2011 @ 09:37 PM by Lawgiver

reply to post by wtbengineer

so very true. the mean spiritedness is almost spiteful. these creationists are tax paying citizens in this country. they aren't breaking laws, they just believe in a different way of how things came to be. its not a crime, and they shouldn't be punished for believing what they want to believe. its america. and even though a majority of scientists are athiests, a majority of physicists actually are not.

reply posted on 31-3-2011 @ 09:42 PM by PieKeeper

Originally posted by wtbengineer
reply to post by MrXYZ

Your statements are just not accurate. There are a lot of scientists who see a pattern in all of what exists that they can not attribute to random coincidence.

I'll step in f or MrXYZ for a second and say that "a pattern in all of what exists" is not the opposite of "The Theory of Evolution." I would also ask you to provide evidence for that claim; what you mean by "a lot" could be less than 1% of scientists.

Originally posted by Lawgiver
these creationists are tax paying citizens in this country. they aren't breaking laws, they just believe in a different way of how things came to be. its not a crime, and they shouldn't be punished for believing what they want to believe. its america.

They aren't breaking any laws, but the public influences what laws are made and where money gets directed. Also, no one is proposing that they be punished at all.

Originally posted by Lawgiverand even though a majority of scientists are athiests, a majority of physicists actually are not.

I don't think that's accurate. You're also implying that physicists have a higher authority than the rest of the scientific community. On some claims, yes. On others, not at all.

edit on 31-3-2011 by PieKeeper because: condensed

reply posted on 31-3-2011 @ 09:48 PM by PieKeeper

*please delete*

edit on 31-3-2011 by PieKeeper because: condensed into one reply

reply posted on 31-3-2011 @ 10:05 PM by uva3021

reply to post by Lawgiver

Once a scientist invades the domain of the church, through an active attempt to displace the teachings of said church, however ridiculous and nonsensical they may be, then yes you may call us mean-spirited. I would say the overwhelming majority of scientists respect freedom of religion, yet as a secular contingency rather than as a public forum.

All we ask is to keep the myths and idealistic nonsense out of educational and scientific institutions.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^