Teaching Creationism not Good for Children (Page 2): You will probably have difficultly finding proof, Robert. Science does not deal in proof. Observations are either confirmed or not.

ngc1514 Loc: Atlanta, Ga., Lancaster, Oh. and Stuart, Fl.

You will probably have difficultly finding proof, Robert. Science does not deal in proof. Observations are either confirmed or not. Theories either explain the observations in a parsimonious way or they don't. Theories make predictions that are confirmed or they don't.

No scientific theory is ever proved correct, only falsified.

steve40 Loc: Asheville/Canton, NC, USA

Quote:

The 'scientific proven fact' that Donrent mentioned will do. He said 'proven' which means there must be proof. I would like to know what it is.

It doesn't exist, except in the mind of Godless degenerates. Talking about not teaching children about God, will effect the outcome of the nation. I'll ask you what outcome! it's just about all over, Oh you don't believe that. That's ok, it will happen anyway.

RTR Loc: West Central Alabama

ngc1514 wrote:

You will probably have difficultly finding proof, Robert. Science does not deal in proof. Observations are either confirmed or not. Theories either explain the observations in a parsimonious way or they don't. Theories make predictions that are confirmed or they don't.

No scientific theory is ever proved correct, only falsified.

Well... we may be getting somewhere then. Since no scientific theory is ever proved correct, only falsified, has either theory of creationism or evolution been falsified? If so then I would call this 'negative proof' and therefore in my mind it would be proof.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

ngc1514 wrote:

RTR wrote:

donrent wrote:

To teach Bibical Thoughts as factual happenings is absolutly assinine... A scientific proven fact overules ANY belief thought that there is......

What is the proof man evolved from another organism?

What proof would you consider sufficient to show man has, in fact, evolved?

There is no proof, until this day evolution is still scientific theory, though most people, even religious people are accepting of it..

RTR Loc: West Central Alabama

Blurryeyed wrote:

ngc1514 wrote:

RTR wrote:

donrent wrote:

To teach Bibical Thoughts as factual happenings is absolutly assinine... A scientific proven fact overules ANY belief thought that there is......

What is the proof man evolved from another organism?

What proof would you consider sufficient to show man has, in fact, evolved?

There is no proof, until this day evolution is still scientific theory, though most people, even religious people are accepting of it..

So if there is no proof, or 'negative proof', how can anyone say to anyone else "you must teach your children what I believe, not what you believe"?

ngc1514 Loc: Atlanta, Ga., Lancaster, Oh. and Stuart, Fl.

RTR wrote:

quote=ngc1514 You will probably have difficultly ... (show quote)

The theory of evolution? No. It has withstood every attempt at falsification and provided many predictions that have been shown accurate.

Creationism is not a scientific theory because it proposes no tests that would falsify the theory. The proponents of a theory must propose the means of falsification. The latest example of this is the detection of what appears to be the Higgs Boson in the Large Hadron Collider. The theory of particle physics is more commonly known as the Standard Model. In 1964, Peter Higgs predicted that mass required a field and a mediator particle, the eponymous Higgs boson.

If the boson is not found, the Standard Model would be shown, at the best, incomplete and, at the worst, flat out wrong.

You will never get a creationist to offer an experimental test that would disprove creationism. Because of that, by definition, creationism is not a scientific theory.

RTR Loc: West Central Alabama

ngc1514 wrote:

quote=RTR quote=ngc1514 You will probably have d... (show quote)

Sorry, but particle physics is above my pay grade.

Creationism is a theory, though maybe not a 'scientific' theory. Maybe theory is the wrong word, I don't know. But that opens up a whole new can of worms then because trying to prove, or disprove, something not scientific using science does not make sense to me.

I don't think science holds all the answers. I have seen things that have happened that defied any scientific explanation.

I guess I am no better, or worse, off than I was before I read this thread.

Enjoyed the discussion :)

ngc1514 Loc: Atlanta, Ga., Lancaster, Oh. and Stuart, Fl.

Creationism isn't a theory, it's a belief. Creationists pretend it's a theory the way evolution is a theory, but it isn't. It has no business in science classes and that position has been supported many times by many different courts for the reason it's not science, but religion.

The same goes for the recent reincarnation of creationism into intelligent design and irreducible complexity. Not science, but creationism tarted up in an attempt to look like science. Again, not a theory because Michael Behe has never proposed a means of falsification.

You will have to ask the creationists why they are "trying to prove, or disprove, something not scientific using science..."

ngc1514 Loc: Atlanta, Ga., Lancaster, Oh. and Stuart, Fl.

Blurryeyed wrote:

There is no proof, until this day evolution is still scientific theory, though most people, even religious people are accepting of it..

It might be useful if you learned a bit about the philosophical underpinnings of science. Saying "evolution is still scientific theory" shows a lack of appreciation for what a scientific theory is.

All scientific theories are problematic, incomplete and tentative. As Einstein said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Even though literally millions of experiments have been done to test Relativity and every one has confirmed the predictions, Relativity remains a theory because, tomorrow, that one experiment that shows it wrong might be performed.

It's a far more honest way of looking at the universe than creationism.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

ngc1514 wrote:

quote=Blurryeyed There is no proof, until this da... (show quote)

Hello??? I did say that most people even religious people are accepting of it... I would include myself in that grouping.. There is a difference between scientific fact and scientific theory.

Nice quotes from Wiki BTW.

ngc1514 Loc: Atlanta, Ga., Lancaster, Oh. and Stuart, Fl.

You seemed to be disparaging of the idea evolution is a theory.

Creationists are always on about how it's "only a theory." They do not realize a scientific theory marks the highest level of certitude and is not a couple of drunk rednecks saying, "Hey! I have a theory abou beer farts."

If this is not the case, my apologies.

And you'll have to trust me on this... If I use Wiki or some other source, I ALWAYS document that.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

ngc1514 wrote:

You seemed to be disparaging of the idea evolution is a theory.

Creationists are always on about how it's "only a theory." They do not realize a scientific theory marks the highest level of certitude and is not a couple of drunk rednecks saying, "Hey! I have a theory abou beer farts."

If this is not the case, my apologies.

And you'll have to trust me on this... If I use Wiki or some other source, I ALWAYS document that.

Then maybe it is I who should apologize to you for the Wiki quip, but even so, no I am not a creationist, I am agnostic, and I certainly accept the theory of evolution, but even so, science can not explain the occurrence of life, for all the knowledge scientists have they do not know how it all started, They cannot explain a beginning nor do they have any understanding of an end... I for one will not affirm the god of the bible, but nor will I deny a higher being...

SteveR Loc: Michigan

One of the problems with Creationists is that Genesis 1 was given to a practically pre-literate culture over 3000 years ago. The story of creation should be understood in that context. While totally true, it was meant to explain creation rather simply. It does not go into any detail as to how God actually created what He created. The problem with evolutionists is that they accept only what they can piece together through scientific theory through observation. Since God is revealed and not observed, the sum of totality is not available to the scientist, and his version of fact may not contain all the relevant factors and be totally accurate.

When we eventually come before God, I am certain that all things will be made clear and that Scripture and science will both be understood as God's truths.

Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

greymule wrote:

emrob62 wrote:

So are you advocating this point of view also, or just pointing it out?

I'm just pointing it out, although it seems to make sense teaching scientific facts, in lieu of religious myths.

Adults can believe what ever they want; children need to educated using scientific facts and truth to develop fully their logic and reasoning skills that are so necessary in today's world. IMHO.

What you really mean is: Lets teach the childern to be socialist. What I would like to know is, what model of Socialism will be taught? Also, what scientific facts and truths do you have in mind to develop fully their logic and reasoning skills?

tschmath Loc: Los Angeles

Bangee5 wrote:

What you really mean is: Lets teach the childern to be socialist. What I would like to know is, what model of Socialism will be taught? Also, what scientific facts and truths do you have in mind to develop fully their logic and reasoning skills?

What in hell does socialism have to do with evolution? A prime example of a false equivalency. That's like saying "I believe in cats, so that proves that I am tall." To paraphrase Forrest Gump, "stupid is as stupid believes", I guess.