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

reply to post by Lazarus Short

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... etc.

That's what you see.

Here's what we see:

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Science was just fine before Darwin and his ilk

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Technically, any animal with feathers is a bird.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Gravity was a law at one point.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
(Being made so that we have to force our children headfirst through our genitalia) is a punishment for having disobeyed God.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
My wind/food pipes work just fine

What do you expect us to think, Lazarus Short, when we read statements like these? That creationists are intelligent, educated and scientific?

Good grief.

Originally posted by arpgme

A creationist group has successfully petitioned South Korean publishers to remove several references to evolution from high school textbooks, Nature reports. The group—set up by the US Institute for Creation Research in the '80s as Christianity spread across South Korea—says it wants the "error" of evolution removed from textbooks to "correct" students' view of the world.

Link

They want to get rid of the "error" of evolution and start teaching creationism instead. I find it very sad that such a scientific and advanced nation such as South Korea, will be taking a step back into the Dark Ages, meanwhile, even the nations that are full of Christians are starting to accept evolution more and more, even The Pope! And not The South Koreans are actually going backwards... how sad...

edit on 7-6-2012 by arpgme because: bad title

I don't know about you, but I didn't just crawl out of the muck. My mother and father created my body, and I entered it.

Originally posted by decepticonLaura


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?

That's easy to answer - Religious Creationism is a matter of doctrine based mostly on Genesis 1 and 2, without input from science (fairly simple). Scientific Creationism is a scientific model which involves data indicating that the earth and the universe were created, without input form any religious texts (fairly complex). Scientific Creationism looks at the geologic column, fossils, entropy, thermodynamics, and even astronomy, but without positing a specific divine Entity.

NWO is all about, trying to hide the science and progression and any gains from keeping religon and state separate. ITS ABOUT SERFDOM. IT CAN TAKE A FREAKING HIKE IN A ROLLING DOUGHNUT BACK TO THE ROCK IT SLITHERED OUT OF.

South Korea is not exactly a Christian stronghold, I would suggest other religions, that are far more humanist.

Yes the CIA/Black Ops in overdrive.

reply to post by Astyanax


I note that under your forum name is "Mind Firmly Closed" - nice, very nice.

Way to go, quoting only small parts of larger statements, to make them appear ridiculous. If I stripped away the context of some of your posts, I suppose I could do the same, but I don't operate that way. As usual, you have taken the low road of poking fun at the other side, instead of dealing with the issues brought up. Did you come here for a meaningful argument, or for recreation? If the latter, maybe you should go back to your Atari.

Now I may have been wrong about the feathers, and to many the discovery of dinosaurs with feathers may seem to blur the line between them and birds, BUT the transitional nature of such animals is still unproven if we keep science rigorous. The fossil record can just as easily be interpreted according to the Creationist model, and I think, even more easily, but in the end, it's all supposition, as we can not go back and observe directly.

reply to post by Lazarus Short

I note that under your forum name is "Mind Firmly Closed"

At least you can't say you weren't warned.

(You are) quoting only small parts of larger statements, to make them appear ridiculous.

Okay. Let's try it again, this time quoting the whole statement.

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

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?

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.

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.

Frankly, quoting them in context makes them appear even more ridiculous.

If I stripped away the context of some of your posts, I suppose I could do the same, but I don't operate that way.

I urge you to give it a try. I don't think you would get much joy out of my posts in this thread, but you could always cast your net a little wider. You have – let me see – 6,489 other posts to choose from. I'm sure you'll be able to find at least one quotably ridiculous statement among them. Happy hunting!

Did you come here for a meaningful argument, or for recreation?

I come here for entertainment. Meaningful argument is sometimes a part of that, but it's years and years since I saw a creationist argument that hasn't already been thoroughly debunked. Of course, creationists keep trotting them out all over again, but I find I can rely on my fellow evolutionists to deal with that. No need for me to bother.

The transitional nature of such animals is still unproven if we keep science rigorous.

There you go again. 'Scientific rigour', forsooth!

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Now I may have been wrong about the feathers, and to many the discovery of dinosaurs with feathers may seem to blur the line between them and birds, BUT the transitional nature of such animals is still unproven if we keep science rigorous. The fossil record can just as easily be interpreted according to the Creationist model, and I think, even more easily, but in the end, it's all supposition, as we can not go back and observe directly.

No. Scientific facts are not up for interpretation. The fossil record cannot be interpreted as the creationist model, as they can be dated scientifically and clearly show slow change over time. There is not a single piece of evidence to suggest creation. The fossil record shows slow change over time.

Scientific Creationism is a scientific model which involves data indicating that the earth and the universe were created, without input form any religious texts (fairly complex). Scientific Creationism looks at the geologic column, fossils, entropy, thermodynamics, and even astronomy, but without positing a specific divine Entity.

No. It is not a scientific model. Do you understand that science is based on objective reality? There is no objective evidence of a creator, therefor it is NOT scientific. It is a pure guess based on your personal opinion. IE, DNA is complex, therefor it had to be created by intelligence. Not scientific. You can't say that things were created without evidence of a creator. It's that simple. I don't know why people are so afraid to admit their faith is faith. With science you need evidence and experiments, and as far as god / creator goes, there is none.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Now I may have been wrong about the feathers, and to many the discovery of dinosaurs with feathers may seem to blur the line between them and birds, BUT the transitional nature of such animals is still unproven if we keep science rigorous. The fossil record can just as easily be interpreted according to the Creationist model, and I think, even more easily, but in the end, it's all supposition, as we can not go back and observe directly.

No. Scientific facts are not up for interpretation. The fossil record cannot be interpreted as the creationist model, as they can be dated scientifically and clearly show slow change over time. There is not a single piece of evidence to suggest creation. The fossil record shows slow change over time.

Scientific Creationism is a scientific model which involves data indicating that the earth and the universe were created, without input form any religious texts (fairly complex). Scientific Creationism looks at the geologic column, fossils, entropy, thermodynamics, and even astronomy, but without positing a specific divine Entity.

No. It is not a scientific model. Do you understand that science is based on objective reality? There is no objective evidence of a creator, therefor it is NOT scientific. It is a pure guess based on your personal opinion. IE, DNA is complex, therefor it had to be created by intelligence. Not scientific. You can't say that things were created without evidence of a creator. It's that simple. I don't know why people are so afraid to admit their faith is faith. With science you need evidence and experiments, and as far as god / creator goes, there is none.

edit on 15-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

OK, fossil record, very simple, very easy. Fossils are mostly contained in what is known as the geologic column, and you see that as sediments laid down over eons of time, in which organisms occasionally got caught, and there you are. "Simple" fossils at the bottom, "complex" fossils toward the top, so you think it means simple led to complex. Plausible, I must admit (if you don't look too close). Now, here is how I view the fossils: the sediments were laid down rapidly, during the Great Flood, and the fossils at the bottom are mostly bottom-dwellers which got buried early on, and the fossils toward the top represent organisms which lasted a little longer before drowning and getting buried. The very condition of many of the fossils, especially dinos, even indicate death by drowning. Further, we have fossils in the wrong place in the column, too early or too late (according to conventional interpretation), and that data, found over and over, flatly disproves the evolutionist interpretation. Sorry, dude!

Note that I proposed a model of scientific creation without positing a God, and you insert it right back in! You just can not separate concepts can you? There is objective evidence for a creator God, but I don't think you'd be open to it.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
OK, fossil record, very simple, very easy. Fossils are mostly contained in what is known as the geologic column, and you see that as sediments laid down over eons of time, in which organisms occasionally got caught, and there you are. "Simple" fossils at the bottom, "complex" fossils toward the top, so you think it means simple led to complex. Plausible, I must admit (if you don't look too close). Now, here is how I view the fossils: the sediments were laid down rapidly, during the Great Flood, and the fossils at the bottom are mostly bottom-dwellers which got buried early on, and the fossils toward the top represent organisms which lasted a little longer before drowning and getting buried. The very condition of many of the fossils, especially dinos, even indicate death by drowning. Further, we have fossils in the wrong place in the column, too early or too late (according to conventional interpretation), and that data, found over and over, flatly disproves the evolutionist interpretation. Sorry, dude!

There's no scientific evidence that a great flood ever happened and again you ignore the various dating methods of fossils. This isn't anything you can't look up on google for yourself. They don't just say, "Oh fiddle dee dee, look at these fossils from bottom to top. They must be in exact order." The columns can be DATED. Please provide your scientific evidence of fossils that were found in the wrong layers. What is "conventional interpretation?" Your entire post had nothing to do with reality and you didn't provide any evidence. Smells like Hovind! Sorry, dude!

Note that I proposed a model of scientific creation without positing a God, and you insert it right back in! You just can not separate concepts can you? There is objective evidence for a creator God, but I don't think you'd be open to it.

You can't propose creation without a creator! Stop hiding behind that silly argument. You referenced the biblical great flood, and now you're suggesting that it ISN'T about god. Okay, sure thing.

There is NO objective evidence for a creator. Please provide it if so. Where are the science experiments that prove god? Objective means observable and tangible evidence, not pseudo science, guesswork and god of the gaps.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Now, here is how I view the fossils: the sediments were laid down rapidly, during the Great Flood, and the fossils at the bottom are mostly bottom-dwellers which got buried early on, and the fossils toward the top represent organisms which lasted a little longer before drowning and getting buried.

What about the fossils that represent aquatic and flying species? Where did the water for this great flood come from? Why are there no signs of a global flood? Why are the "bottom fossils" dated much older than the top ones? Why is it that basically all fossils appear transitional (see e.g. the whale fossil record and the slow movement of the blowhole and reduction of hind limbs or the human fossil record)? Where are the fossils of the drowned contemporary animals? The fossil record is 100% incompatible with the Bible, but at the same time 100% compatible with modern synthesis.

Barcs sez:
There's no scientific evidence that a great flood ever happened and again you ignore the various dating methods of fossils.

Laz replies:
Pardon me, but there is substantial evidence for a great flood, and why do you deny it? Are you simply unaware of it? It is easily researched. As to dating, it rests on certain assumptions which I do not necessarily accept. Tell me, what do assumptions and guesswork have to do with science?? Sadly, our worldviews are so divergent that we don't seem to have common ground for discussion, and I'm guessing that any specific evidence I bring up, you will simply dismiss without even due consideration. BTW, when I say "conventional explanation," I am referring to yours. Also, who or what is "Hovind"? I will leave you with this - study the heptadic structure of the Bible - it is, as you say, easily Googled. You will dismiss that too, I am sure, but at least I tried.

Originally posted by rhinocerosWhat about the fossils that represent aquatic and flying species? Where did the water for this great flood come from? Why are there no signs of a global flood? Why are the "bottom fossils" dated much older than the top ones? Why is it that basically all fossils appear transitional (see e.g. the whale fossil record and the slow movement of the blowhole and reduction of hind limbs or the human fossil record)? Where are the fossils of the drowned contemporary animals? The fossil record is 100% incompatible with the Bible, but at the same time 100% compatible with modern synthesis.

edit on 15-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

Aquatic species died too, as the flood waters must have been such that they could not live. Flying species ran out of energy, and hit the water, thus they ended farther up in the fossil record - birds, for example. There are a lot of theories as to where the water came from, and we just don't know - I have a theory myself. Signs of a global flood are everywhere, and we call it the geological column. Dating of bottom fossils vs top fossils? Assumptions, again. I was not there to observe, and neither were you, so the dating is outside science. The transitional nature of fossils is a guess and an assumption, as I have said before. There is no objective evidence that one species arose from another - it's just a matter of "looks like, therefore it must be true." Fossils of drowned contemporary animals? The great flood was a unique event, but fossils do happen still from time to time. The fossil record is 100% compatible with the Bible, how not so?

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Pardon me, but there is substantial evidence for a great flood, and why do you deny it? Are you simply unaware of it? It is easily researched. As to dating, it rests on certain assumptions which I do not necessarily accept. Tell me, what do assumptions and guesswork have to do with science?? Sadly, our worldviews are so divergent that we don't seem to have common ground for discussion, and I'm guessing that any specific evidence I bring up, you will simply dismiss without even due consideration. BTW, when I say "conventional explanation," I am referring to yours. Also, who or what is "Hovind"? I will leave you with this - study the heptadic structure of the Bible - it is, as you say, easily Googled. You will dismiss that too, I am sure, but at least I tried.

No. Provide the scientific evidence or you have nothing. Simple. Repeating your original argument doesn't make it true. Ancient stories are not scientific evidence. We know there were lots of localized floods around the end of the last ice age as expected, but not a single solitary shred of evidence suggests the entire world was ever underwater. That crap is easily debunked and the fact that you refuse to even post your evidence speaks volumes. Don't talk about assumptions, when you are the one who has done nothing but assume. Googling the term you suggested pulled up nothing but lying creationist sites. Where is the actual science that you referred to? If you make a claim you need to provide the evidence, otherwise my claim that I have proven the boogie man to be real and live in my closet holds just as much weight.

Originally posted by BarcsNo. Provide the scientific evidence or you have nothing. Simple. Repeating your original argument doesn't make it true. Ancient stories are not scientific evidence. We know there were lots of localized floods around the end of the last ice age as expected, but not a single solitary shred of evidence suggests the entire world was ever underwater. That crap is easily debunked and the fact that you refuse to even post your evidence speaks volumes. Don't talk about assumptions, when you are the one who has done nothing but assume. Googling the term you suggested pulled up nothing but lying creationist sites. Where is the actual science that you referred to? If you make a claim you need to provide the evidence, otherwise my claim that I have proven the boogie man to be real and live in my closet holds just as much weight.

edit on 15-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

I don't think I will bother providing anything to you in the way of proof, as you just throw it back at me with contempt. For that matter, I have not seen you provide any scientific evidence either. We can not even come to a mutual understanding as to what real science is. We will never make a dent in each others' belief systems. More discussion is pointless, especially when you use biased phrases like "lying creationist sites." I am wasting my time here, leaving, and removing this thread from "My ATS" list. May your evolutionist chains rest lightly upon you.

reply to post by Lazarus Short


Haha. Good luck to you. I've never seen someone take it that personally after being disagreed with on the internet. All I asked for was evidence, but as usual the creationist can not provide it and goes running away when his claims are exposed as nonsense and speculation. I will provide evidence of anything I have said in the thread. Pick my point and I'll show the science behind it, as long as you show me the same courtesy and back up your claims. Evidence is kind of important when you are trying to debate science, and yes, creationist websites lie, and this can be cited easily. I don't just take their word for something, because they clearly have an agenda to push and reason to lie. The problem is, they never talk legitimate science, they created strawmans and try to debunk them.

reply to post by Barcs

The hunting is almost too easy nowadays, isn't it?

Seriously, though, the stuffing seems to have gone right out of the creationist movement. This forum barely pays its way any more.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Barcs

 

The hunting is almost too easy nowadays, isn't it?

Seriously, though, the stuffing seems to have gone right out of the creationist movement. This forum barely pays its way any more.

I couldn't agree more. I feel like I could do this in my sleep. Back in the Hovind days it was a little more entertaining, although it's nice to know most people have moved past the whole young earth thing, even most fundies. At least they are learning a little bit, which is progress. Personally, I give it 2 more generations at most before "religious extremist" is a thing of the past and ID / literal creationism will be completely dead, although it's on life support now and dying slow. Even the pope has accepted evolution, birth control and possibility of aliens. It's time for them to move on.

ANYONE who can STILL THINK.

reply to post by Lazarus Short


" I am college educated and pursued a technical career for many years"

This does not mean you can think for yourself. It just means you can memorize and repeat things.

Oh wait. That's most religions right ?.

See the pattern .......