Who need science when you have The Bible? - South Korea to teach creationism instead...

reply to post by thedeadtruth


Creation must be real, because it explains that some were created with, and others without understanding. Calling your opponents "religious nutters" is meaningless, an insult, and can not promote your argument in a meaningful way. You think we lack understanding, but I have the advantage of having resided in both camps, and for me, the creationism came before the religion.

Considering the place was named after the goddess Core (Kore)...and EA
I think this is a step in the wrong direction

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

science was just fine before Darwin and his ilk

Galileo Galilei: forced to recant his views, i.e. to tell the world that the truth he discovered was a lie.

Giordano Bruno: burnt at the stake for making statements similar to Galileo.

More on religion vs. science.

Can you explain to me why creationists, by and large

1. never know any history

2. never know any science

3. keep shooting their mouths off about history and science anyway?

I've always wanted to know why you folk do that. Do you just say the first thing that comes into your head, thinking that Jesus will do a miracle and make it come true?

*

On a more serious note: South Korea is a very scientifically advanced country for its size. The rapid march of science probably strikes as much fear into the hearts of intellectually-challenged, superstitious Koreans as it does into the hearts of intellectually-challenged, superstitious Americans. Creationism is just a fearful reaction to science; its existence means science is winning.

edit on 8/6/12 by Astyanax because: of a more serious note.

Galileo? Now the Vatican has observatories. You can just as easily state that it was a case of resistance to new ideas, something very evident in the evolutionist camp today.

Bruno? Yeah, I've read about him, and I don't think he was a real scientist, and IIRC, he was burned for issues other than science. Anyway, to compare those times with our current discourse is just the use of a red herring. In case you haven't noticed, the regressive mindset of those times is gone .

Would you care to back up what you say in your three points about creationists? I can't speak for all, but as to myself, I love history and science, and know a thing or two about both. Your term "shooting their mouths off" implies ignorance going off half-cocked, but such biased and unfair statements seem to come from your camp all too commonly. I suspect that our camp knows far more about your camp than yours knows about ours. Why not do your homework?

I have no problems with South Korea dong this. I don't agree, but that is their decision.

I just disagree with it being in American schools for any reason because it is a blatent violation of the separation of church and state, of which I am a die hard believer.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Galileo? Now the Vatican has observatories. You can just as easily state that it was a case of resistance to new ideas, something very evident in the evolutionist camp today.

The Vatican obviously cares about science more than the fundamentalists do. They have also come forward and accepted the theory of evolution, as well as acknowledged the possibility of aliens.

Bruno? Yeah, I've read about him, and I don't think he was a real scientist, and IIRC, he was burned for issues other than science. Anyway, to compare those times with our current discourse is just the use of a red herring. In case you haven't noticed, the regressive mindset of those times is gone .

Interesting that you say this, when your previous post was a rant about Darwin and his theory back in the 1800s. You should take your own advice and get modernized and understand what modern science is and how it makes our lives better.

Would you care to back up what you say in your three points about creationists? I can't speak for all, but as to myself, I love history and science, and know a thing or two about both. Your term "shooting their mouths off" implies ignorance going off half-cocked, but such biased and unfair statements seem to come from your camp all too commonly. I suspect that our camp knows far more about your camp than yours knows about ours. Why not do your homework?

To be fair, it's not an attack, it's an accurate statement based on posts in this section. Literalists very often come in here posted very obvious misunderstandings about science and blatant lies about evolution. We all know that creationism / ID isn't close to science. Faith should be treated like faith, and science should be treated as science. It's that simple. If you want to teach faith, do it in a religion class instead of pretending it's science.

reply to post by Lazarus Short

Would you care to back up what you say in your three points about creationists?

Hardly necessary, after you've already given us such a telling demonstration of all three!

I love history and science, and know a thing or two about both.

That's very good to hear. Keep it up and pretty soon you will cease to be a creationist.

I look forward to congratulating you on your forthcoming liberation.

Well, I can see very clearly that some members of the evolution camp on this thread are unwilling or unable to admit anything contrary to their belief that creationists are

stupid
uneducated
unscientific
loud-mouthed
opinionated
etc.

It seems no matter what I bring up, no matter how well I write, the best you can do is to be condescending enough to tell me to modernize myself and smell the roses of our progress. I suppose it means nothing to you that I am college educated and pursued a technical career for many years. Yet, I am treated as if I just fell off the turnip truck. Maybe you all should go back and read the terms & conditions of this forum. I, at least, have been respectful, and stuck to the issues. I find it very telling that nothing I brought up was discussed or even acknowledged by the evolutionist opposition. It means that worthwhile discourse is impossible is one side acts in an uncomprehending manner. It also informs me that your backs are to the wall.

I'll bite.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
but Darwin was well aware that the systematic lack of transitional forms was a major problem to his theory.

We would expect, if evolution was correct, to find transitional forms commonly, but they are rare and debatable.

Technically, every form is transitional, unless it goes extinct before diverging. Some specimens show intermediary forms better than others. The Carnegie Museum of Natural History has 3 feather-dinosaurs specimens on display, none of which are archeopteryx.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
He was particularly vexed by the disconnect between the non-flowering and the flowering plants.

I don't see a problem here. Flowering plants are thought to have developed later.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
polystrate tree trunks,

Were explained like 300 years ago. They are caused by deposition events such as landslides.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
The recent find of intact elastic tissue and red cells in a T. Rex fossil would be sufficient to tip me over to creationism. Cells and tissues intact and elastic after 65,000,000 years? Get real.

Not really intact, mummified at the very least. From what I understand they isolated proteins from the materials. Given the right conditions, I don't think we can say with certainty how long these substances can last.

reply to post by Lazarus Short


It's not ALL creationists. It's the bible literalists, which is actually a small percentage of religious people. I'm not attacking your religion. I'm defending science from irrational attacks with no substance. There's a big difference.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

It is Religious Creationism. It is based on the biblical myth. Evolution will no longer be taught! I'm surprised more people aren't concerned about how religion is ruining a very scientific country. It is really sad.

Perhaps you have forgotten your history - science was just fine before Darwin and his ilk.

And science was also "just fine" before Einstein, Schrodinger, Maxwell...etc. So what's your point?

Originally posted by SeedofAbraham

Creationism is not science, it is a fairy tale for fools

Corrected

PieKeeper sez:
Technically, every form is transitional, unless it goes extinct before diverging. Some specimens show intermediary forms better than others. The Carnegie Museum of Natural History has 3 feather-dinosaurs specimens on display, none of which are archeopteryx.

Laz replies:
Just because you say everything is transitional does not make it so. Science is facts, not semantic games. I don't have any particular problem with any number of "feather-dinosaurs" (technically, any animal with feathers is a bird, as you must know) in any number of museums, but how do we know they were transitional? Is it fact, or did some tenured professor say it was so? It lacks scientific rigor, and rigor would require a time machine so people could go back and check on species generation-by-generation.

PieKeeper sez:
I don't see a problem here. Flowering plants are thought to have developed later.

Laz replies:
I see a problem when the TOTAL lack of transitional forms between non-flowering and flowering plants is glossed over. "Thought to have..." does not cut it in real science, does it?

PieKeeper sez:
Were explained like 300 years ago. They are caused by deposition events such as landslides.

Laz replies:
"Were explained" is far, far from "Was observed." Is that not what real science is all about? If you didn't see that mythical landslide happen, it didn't happen. This explanation is only a half-notch above swamp gas.

PieKeeper sez:
Not really intact, mummified at the very least. From what I understand they isolated proteins from the materials. Given the right conditions, I don't think we can say with certainty how long these substances can last.

Laz replies:
No, the report I read said "fossil," so I assume it was so on the outside. You may be correct, but I worked in the blood bank industry for years, and I know just how delicate red cells are. Again, intact red cells after 65,000,000 years - very doubtful, but at least, it's a straw to grasp at.

Originally posted by Barcs
I'm defending science from irrational attacks with no substance.

Goodness! I thought I was doing the same!!

Originally posted by Firepac

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

It is Religious Creationism. It is based on the biblical myth. Evolution will no longer be taught! I'm surprised more people aren't concerned about how religion is ruining a very scientific country. It is really sad.

Perhaps you have forgotten your history - science was just fine before Darwin and his ilk.

And science was also "just fine" before Einstein, Schrodinger, Maxwell...etc. So what's your point?

My point is that modern science was established by men who were mostly of a creationist bent. The evolutionist interlopers take credit for it all, and post themselves as the guardians of Real Science.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Just because you say everything is transitional does not make it so.

Every species, unless the last of it's lineage, must be transitional by the very definition. Even small changes are transitional changes. Evolution from a land mammal to a whale does not happen in a single specimen. It happens with many changes over many generations. Your argument here is based on a misconception of how evolution works.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Science is facts, not semantic games. I don't have any particular problem with any number of "feather-dinosaurs" (technically, any animal with feathers is a bird, as you must know)

There is a lot of evidence that many dinosaur species had feathers, and even that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs. Which would make birds dinosaurs, but not necessarily make all dinosaurs birds.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I see a problem when the TOTAL lack of transitional forms between non-flowering and flowering plants is glossed over. "Thought to have..." does not cut it in real science, does it?

Transitional fossil forms aren't the only evidence we have. We can also use genetics to determine relatedness of plant species, and extrapolate back to time periods of divergence.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
"Were explained" is far, far from "Was observed." Is that not what real science is all about? If you didn't see that mythical landslide happen, it didn't happen. This explanation is only a half-notch above swamp gas.

Not all observations are direct. You cannot observe the fossilization of an object because it takes too much time. We can observe the aftermath and apply information to understand what happened. For example, with the tree trunks, we can look at the deposition layers and compare them to surrounding geology. What we find is that these deposition events match the profile of landslides and other local-scale events.

I wonder what they teach about mitochondria in S. Korea. First this magic being made a man from dirt. Then it made a woman from a rib. Then it took some alphaproteobacteria and put them inside all plants, fungi, animals, protists, and other eukaryotes, and made it seem as if they originated from a single endosymbiotic event, and then went their way to evolve to their current day forms, and still continue to reflect the same phylogeny which is derived from nuclear DNA encoded genes, just so that people who understand genetics are tricked into thinking that humans evolved so that they end up in hell.

p.s. I don't believe this news about S. Korea being true.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
My point is that modern science was established by men who were mostly of a creationist bent. The evolutionist interlopers take credit for it all, and post themselves as the guardians of Real Science.

And that means what exactly? Anybody can become a scientist, whether creationist or atheist. There are plenty of Christian scientists out there. at evolutionist interlopers. Those terrible biologists always studying stuff to improve our technology and our medicine using evolutionary science to predict future virus evolution. Like I said, the only reason science heads on here are so adamant about their position is because it's constantly under attack by creationists who generally know nothing about it.

Also I'm so tired of the transitional fossil argument. We know Darwin talked about lack of fossils, 150 years ago, but we have found a crapload since then.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

The BIG one. Creationists have been falling back on this argument for years upon years. "OMG there's no missing link", despite the DOZENS of hominid ancestors that we have have found. Here is one that's pretty much right in the middle. I just wonder what argument they will use next.

reply to post by rhinoceros

I don't believe this news about S. Korea being true.

Sadly, Nature is the original news source, so it probably is true:

South Korea surrenders to creationist demands

Originally posted by arpgme

Originally posted by Threegirls

I have children, if there is not a definitive answer to a question, why teach a theory as truth?

Gravity is just a theory and so is electro-magnetics. A theory is NOT just an idea, it is an idea that is supported by evidence. What you are calling a "theory" is really a "hypothesis". A lot of people seem to confuse these terms.

Using gravity is a bit disengenuous. Gravity was a law at one point. Gravity as a phenomenon is a fact. It would be more analogous to compare gravity and life, rather than gravity and evolution.

We know gravity exists, we just dont understand it and all of its' innerworkings. We know life exists, we just don't understand it and all its' innerworkings. We do not know that people came from Chimps. Stop being disengenuous please.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


i don't think anyone is saying we evolved from chimps.
what they're saying is that humankind and chimpkind share a common ancestor.
i know you like to slash that big ol' razor around
but often what seems like the simplest explanation is not.

if creationism is da reelz
can someone explain to me why our loving god thought it would be a good idea to force our children headfirst through our genitalia?
also that business with our wind/food pipes crossing?
it just seems like really bad design sense, you know?
i suppose i could behind Unintelligent Design, as a theory, if the bible wasn't clearly in and of itself nothing more than a morality tale.
perhaps God was too busy burying fake aged fossils to ensnare those gullible paleontologists to play any attention to that trivial design stuff.

another thing; a point was made on the first page of the difference between Religious Creationism and Scientific, but nobody has elucidated further on any differences between the two. i am curious of just such, does anybody know?

reply to post by decepticonLaura


Well that was a punishment for having disobeyed God. My wind/food pipes work just fine, I'm not sure why you have a problem with a wonderful design.

My use of chimps was making a point, I can't say what we actually evolved from since they don't know, chimps is as close as we get. They thought it was chimps until the science didn't pan out, so they say common ancestor we haven't located.

Anyway the point of my post was to illustrate the disengenuous use of the theory of gravity and equating it to the theory of evolution.