Inside a Bible Belt Classroom

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Charles

If Adam had kept Eve barefoot and pregnant she wouldn't have had time to listen to the serpent.

Chas

Except for the fact that they were supposed to have been so innocent that they had no concept of sex and she was already barefoot, stark nekkid as a matter of fact.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by finnbow

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science,

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."

I'm aware of what a theory is

I love how the evolutionists use gravity as an example, 'gravity exists, so evolution does too!', even though anyone can clearly see for themselves that some sort of gravitational force exists, whether we have the explanation right or not.

Originally Posted by finnbow

The National Academy of Science says:

"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time."

There is all sorts of evidentiary support for the theory of evolution, and AFAIK no contrary evidence that can withstand scientific scrutiny.

OTOH, there is not one whit of peer-reviewed and broadly accepted evidence to support creationism (which BTW is not a scientific "theory"). Creationism has the same scientific standing as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.

Of course creationism can be a legitimate theory.

Lack of contrary evidence does not prove a theory. The ability to predict based on the theory does. So far, not ONE SINGLE species has been shown to turn into another. And the modus operandi of evolution is that it is going on all the time.

Not enough time? How many centuries do you need for one little thing out of all these species?

I would consider teaching the kids NOT to question a theory dumbing down, as scientific method is the basis of hard science.

Pete

PS - "Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them." How's final entropy going for ya?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Of course creationism can be a legitimate theory.

How? Where, beyond the written word, is there any evidence to support it? Can you give me tested and verified evidence?

Lack of contrary evidence does not prove a theory.

Who's saying it does (other than Creationists who claim that their "theory" is valid because it hasn't been disproved).

The ability to predict based on the theory does. So far, not ONE SINGLE species has been shown to turn into another.

Species don't "turn into" another species. They give rise to new species through the process of mutation. The time that this takes means that no living person can observe the process from beginning to end - except, that is, with respect to viruses and bacteria. We've seen that happen tons of times with the rise of new species of drug resistant strains.

If you want to study longer term evolution, check out the Galapagos Islands, paying particular attention to finches, turtles and iguanas.

And the modus operandi of evolution is that it is going on all the time.

Yup! It is.

Not enough time? How many centuries do you need for one little thing out of all these species?

For more complex life forms like us it takes eons.

I would consider teaching the kids NOT to question a theory dumbing down, as scientific method is the basis of hard science.

Scientists are constantly questioning and testing theories in the light of new evidence but to do so on the basis of the thousands of years old folk legends of a semi-nomadic desert tribe is pretty much the dumbest thing I can imagine.

John

[finnbow]

Of course creationism can be a legitimate theory.

Yep, once it has a "body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Thus far, there have been no such facts and accordingly, creationism isn't a theory within the scientific meaning of the word.

In the meantime, I think the most appropriate word to correctly describe creationism is myth.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by Boreas

How? Where, beyond the written word, is there any evidence to support it? Can you give me tested and verified evidence?

No, no evidence, but then neither can the evolutionists...

But good show. Both 'theories' have more to do with logical deduction than scientific method. Neither can be positively disproven at this point.

Of course, for a theory to be valid it used be have to be proveable. That is no longer the case with our agenda-driven 'science'.

Originally Posted by Boreas

Who's saying it does (other than Creationists who claim that their "theory" is valid because it hasn't been disproved).

Originally Posted by Boreas

Species don't "turn into" another species. They give rise to new species through the process of mutation. The time that this takes means that no living person can observe the process from beginning to end - except, that is, with respect to viruses and bacteria. We've seen that happen tons of times with the rise of new species of drug resistant strains.

If you want to study longer term evolution, check out the Galapagos Islands, paying particular attention to finches, turtles and iguanas.

Yes, according to evolution they 'turn into' a new species through mutation. Natural selection is not proof of evolution.

Originally Posted by Boreas

For more complex life forms like us it takes eons.

How many centuries have we been seriously intentionally breeding dogs? Why nothing new, even with the speeded up process?

I'll tell you what though, let's go simple. Jellyfish? Simpler. Worms?

Originally Posted by Boreas

Scientists are constantly questioning and testing theories in the light of new evidence but to do so on the basis of the thousands of years old folk legends of a semi-nomadic desert tribe is pretty much the dumbest thing I can imagine.

John

Much much better to go by a racist old man in a wooden boat?

Besides, there is no way to test evolution.

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yep, once it has a "body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Thus far, there have been no such facts and accordingly, creationism isn't a theory within the scientific meaning of the word.

In the meantime, I think the most appropriate word to correctly describe creationism is myth.

What experiments? The argument the evolutionists use for their lack of proof through prediction is that it takes too long. See above comment on logical deduction, which is what we're really both talking about.

Which would put evolution at parity with your last statement

Pete

[noonereal]

creationism = magic

evolution = reasoning

[piece-itpete]

Reason? If it is wrong, is it still right?

Reason, applied to evolution, leads to the inescapable conclusion that we'd better use eugenics to smarten ourselves up before another breed arises stronger and smarter than we are. It says that yes indeed some races are better than others.

The difference between myself and many evolutionists is, I don't claim to know how we came about (in my case, how God made us). And, with the information available, anyone that does is as faith based as I am.

Pete

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas View Post
Who's saying it does (other than Creationists who claim that their "theory" is valid because it hasn't been disproved).


Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
The National Academy of Science says: .......
There is all sorts of evidentiary support for the theory of evolution, and AFAIK no contrary evidence that can withstand scientific scrutiny.

Pete

Pete, you know the difference between the first statement and the second. A collection of evidence, with no contrary evidence, is considerably different than no evidence one way or the other.

As I mentioned earlier, there is much more to evolution theory than the origin of the species. Do you reject all evolution theory or only the creation part of it? Do you believe that any evidence (other than the Flintstones) supports the co-existence of man and dinosaur? Do you not believe in carbon dating? Do you think the Grand Canyon was formed in thirty days?

If you think that verifiable evidence supports creation theory, what is it? Do you think there is any way that you can fit more questions into a post than I can?

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

Should I try? lol.

The evidence could go either way you know. There is no provable evidence that we weren't just plopped down, heck it fits about as well as evolution is explaining the known facts.

Carbon dating isn't proven either, unless someone went either backwards or forwards in time.

The almost unquestioning belief we have in science is a bit un-nerving. Many bad things have happened as a result.

And consider - some mock the 'Church' belief at the time of the flat earth theory, the 'proper' belief. However just about everyone believed it. Now, the 'proper' belief is evolution.

It is becoming known that huge things can happen in nature very quickly, I've seen one on PBS about a ice dam breaking in Canada and washing out a good portion of the Northwest - repeatedly over time.

I am skeptical regarding absolute scientific claims. History proves it to be a wise position

Are you comfortable with the racism inherent in evolution? Worse yet, what if it is true? Tolerance right out the window, as logically it should, for our very survival.

Pete

[d-ray657]

I don't think scientists consider evolution an absolute truth. I'm sure that scientists, almost unanimously, consider evolution to be the best explanation of the available evidence, which includes a discernible pattern of changes within species according to the environment in which they live. Similarly, observable chemical changes in carbon provide the basis for the scientific procedure of carbon testing.

I don't think evolution is inherently racist. Survival of a species by adaptation is not a dismissal of any race, but an observation of changes.

Pete, you didn't let us know how far along the creationist line you go.

Do You believe dinosaurs and humans co-existed?

Do you believe that the Grand Canyon was formed in thirty days.

Can you identify any recorded, peer-reviewed, verifiable observations that support a creationist theory?

Regards,

D-Ray