Creationism does NOT belong in science.

Well, language is a bitch. Has it ever crossed your mind that creationism and evolution might mean the same thing in the past? The universe might very well be the christian God. Couldn't the system be 'sentient enough?

Christianity was taken to be a form of philosophy back then until the Romans were involved, it wasn't really a commercialised religion back then. We should go back to the beginning if we are to understand it.

Besides, in Buddism, nirvana is gained through a leap in understanding. Most people fail to attain true nirvana throughout their entire lives. Attaining nirvana is seen as the same as entering heaven. Losing nirvana is to been seen as descending into hell(the current world). So the christian model isn't exactly wrong. eg. most christians will not enter the kingdom of heaven

I'm not too sure, but shouldn't a model like Godel's theorm present a case where it's possible for scientific truths (expressions) being not fully able to comprehend the entire system?

I'm a forum virgin, so please be gentle.:)
one of the most idiotic arguments against the "theory" of evolution is people claiming it is only a "theory". i learned scientific theory as meaning something totally different from theory as entered in the dictionary; consistently supported by tons upon tons of research and never disproven. in other words: truth. in undergrad, they told us that "theory" confused lay people so we now call it a "model" instead.
Mesa - Quite agree.

Swedish fish - Don't believe everything they tell you about 'lay' people in 'undergrad'. Evolutionary theory is an incomplete model, one that models biological entities as mindless machines, an assumption which contradicts all the non-scientific evidence. Obviously there is a lot of truth in it, but it begs as many questions as it answers.
non-scientific evidence? hahahahaha. i'll give you my 3 magic beans for all your non-scientific evidence.
evolution is suuuuch a simple concept that it blows my mind when people 1. cannot understand it, 2. disagree with it. it's common sense kids. people use examples that are completely unrelated to evolution in any way in an attempt to refute it.
Originally posted by SwedishFish
evolution is suuuuch a simple concept that it blows my mind when people 1. cannot understand it, 2. disagree with it. it's common sense kids. people use examples that are completely unrelated to evolution in any way in an attempt to refute it.
Whoah there. Who are you talking about exactly. I didn't say I didn't understand it. I said that evolutionary theory does not take into account the non-scientific evidence. In other words it ignores the possible impact of consciousness on behaviour.

When science manges to prove that it doesn't have one then fine. But until they do, and while consciousness is still a complete mystery to science and scientific philosphers, then current mainstream evolutionary theory may turn out to be only half the story.

Unfortunately for as long as science does not accept the subjective as being scientific evidence then, as I say, it can do little but hope that it doesn't.

You comment that you'll "give you my 3 magic beans for all your non-scientific evidence." I would say that your concepts of magic beans ARE the non-scientific evidence.
no i wasn't talking about you. "non-believers" of evolution in general.

consciousness of behavior is covered in psychology, sparky. i hear rumor that it is a science.

science is more subjective than you think. it is limited by the researchers themselves. somebody in another forum (spuriousmonkey maybe?) said: "Maybe you should go and read a bible or something, because if you want definite answers you shouldn't ask science."

scientific evidence is subjective enough. your non-scientific evidence just goes beyond worthless.
Originally posted by SwedishFish
no i wasn't talking about you. "non-believers" of evolution in general.

consciousness of behavior is covered in psychology, sparky. i hear rumor that it is a science.

science is more subjective than you think. it is limited by the researchers themselves. somebody in another forum (spuriousmonkey maybe?) said: "Maybe you should go and read a bible or something, because if you want definite answers you shouldn't ask science."

scientific evidence is subjective enough. your non-scientific evidence just goes beyond worthless.
It really depresses me when people form their beliefs in the absence of logic or evidence, and then get evangelical about them. I recommend a good dose of metaphysics.
Originally posted by harrykarry
should creationism be taught in the science class?


here's one reason. truth.

maybe creationism isn't truth to you but with over 3/4ths of americans claiming some form of christianity it becomes truth to a lot of little children in sunday school. remember memorizing what god created on day one and two....

when schools stick their head in the sand and ignore 3/4 of american's truth then they are ignoring a truth that is out there in many people's minds.

here's another reason. tradition.

you know, the same reason there are christmas trees in school lobbies at christmas time...

no, not scientific, but yes, tradition.

personally i believe that creationism and evolution could be one in the same but there are so many people that want everything clear-cut and catagorized. the creationist want to do battle, the evolutionists want to do battle. what if god's day is different than our day? who knows? are you god? maybe 7 days to god is how long it took everything to evolve.

It's shit like this that make me laugh. So are you a "religous scientist"?
Originally posted by Damonmordre
I love this I have never posted here before but I figure I will give food for thought in the realm of creationism and push you to think farther than man's natural tendency to known what we don't. Ok first in regards to a "religion" (disgusting word) you have two here that are disputed. If religion shouldn't be exposed in school than science needs to only teach that it should prove theory and nothing else. Creationism and evolution both should be taken from the classroom or both included because they both are part of a religion. I being human have been taught that I must have faith in a big bang theory that offsets natures natural tendency to decay and believe that it will improve. Take humans for example disease gets worse our bodies fall apart as we get older and the only thing that appears to improve is our knowledge. I would have an easier time believeing in a creation that is slowly imploding because of nature's natural tendency toward decay, than to believe that our universe is improving itself by stars collapsing and and colliding with other stars.

if that's what you think, well........gooooooood.

See if you want to see religion there is two religions one in creation the other in science there are followers of each separately and followers who attune to both.

If science is religion, it would be called science. but if you must think that way well.........gooooooooood.

It is funny because take creationism and fold it into God creating a race of humans that used 100% of their brain and they decided they didn't want to serve God because they could be Gods themselves. So being intelligent as God appears he decided to limit humans to 10% of their brain so that we could be insecure and be forced to prove our own intelligence or rely on God. Seeing there that God gave us a choice.

actually some of us use far less, apparently.........

If you look at the world and see the differences in our landscapes and other unexplainable issues. One large such unexplainable land formation would be all of South America. It looks like and even scientific evidence suggest that that continent at one time boasted a some 50 million people. Yet in all our knowledge something major and aside from the meteor killing the dinosaurs caused a whole civilization from disappearing. There being no physical evidence it could leave the theory I proposed first as that explanation and God cleared them out.

humans weren't around during that meteor collision. stop acting like you know science.

If you read the beginning of the bible you will notice it took God six days to create earth and man and woman. Then it says that God on the fifth day created Adam and Eve. My last food of thought for you: why create man and woman and then state that you created Adam and Eve.


Yes I am a christian I don't question Gods plans but enjoy entertaining interesting thoughts of what he did and will do. I have experienced his spirit and witnessed unbelievable things. I also enjoy what science does in this life because it explains his simple plan and idea. Solar system is a large model of and Atom

the solar system sure seems like a large model of an atom huh? lol. I have never seen this much misinformation. Is it lack of education? is it lack of intelligence? is it lack of that full 10% of the brain?

P.S. the theory is that we use 3-5%. not 10% lolz

Enjoy and butcher if you like. :D
Originally posted by Damonmordre
I personally don't care for the word religion because religion is man's word for putting God in set of rules and guidelines for a creator that first thought us up. That is why I don't like it.

Yes that would be the best term scientology and yes if they want a separation of church and state then science's belief in evolution should be removed from curriculum until it is proven as the absolute truth for how things have come to exist in fairness to those who don't support it. I do like the teaching of how certain things operate. Thank you Fadingcaptain for pointing things out so I could clarify myself. Science isn't a religion but the belief in some of the theories is. That better :)

Define what a scientific theory is please.

Well here is a small answer to the other thing about proof for the 10%. I don't have physical proof but with examples that I have weighed I feel that the human mind has been limited in because we were again made exactly after the image of God and he can see the past, present, and future. He also is not lacking on the learning level we are because he is able to do all math, all variables, and develope the best strategies for correct his misjudgements or his own flaws. We as humans lack in one area but are better in some and I feel that we should be good in all areas such as God. The only thing is our mind is limited because our memory can't be completely used. That is the best I can do because even science is still trying to understand the mind and to give a scientific answer for this when even science hasn't come up with one is just a tad bit difficult :p

I can't give a scientific answer because you don't understand science's core.

With in regards to the last issue you picked out Fading I ment there is no evidence such as a meteor or graves or anything proving why the 50 million dissappeared. That would be like a 5 Houston cities dissappearing with no bodies or buildings being there anymore.

where did you learn about this suppose 50 million? church?

Well I hope I gave a better explanation for my theories.
I always invite criticism because it helps refine my thinking
Thank you Fading
Originally posted by Warren
Here's a little scenario for everyone to ponder. A scientist suspects that non-intelligent processes may be insufficient to produce biological complexity. He wishes to follow-up his suspicion with an investigation using the scientific method. Two questions: Is he a creationist? Can what he is doing be called science?

That's a silly question. Really, if you don't know what science is, go look it up.
Originally posted by harrykarry
And these religious folk say that evolutionist theory is a religion because its belief that energy is eternal (it can't be created or destroyed, yet its here, right?).

evolutionist theory is based on data right? (wether theorized or proven) the worship of data (with or without physical proof) is a religion. endorsing a belief that the physical; the rocks, the stars, the trees, even man are above god... somehow smarter.... somehow omnipotent in and of themselves, self-created and then mutated over time until intelligence as we know it (jerry springer) slowly emerges.
yes. evolution is a religion. the fact that evolutionists hide behind data and worship it as their a religion... it's even very narrow minded as religions often are...

i believe that "religious folk" aren't niave enough to believe the world is only 6,000 years old. those "religious folk" are saying data is not god. god is god. god created the energy.

the speaker you are talking about is probably a wacko. giving creationist a bad name.... mix a scientist with a religious zelot and you'll probably get a wacko...throw in the need for attention and a few degrees and he becomes a self-appointed mouthpiece for the extreme... and heaven forbid that a christian speak out against our self-appointed creationist guru....

kindof like any liberal program that wants to emphasize how rediculous christianity is.... show an evangelist with a bad hairdoo...

ok at this point i have to ask, is it that hard for you to reason without putting statements into other ppl's throats? is it that hard for you not to put words into other ppl's mouths? where is the credit in saying that scientist worship data? science is tool, man is a tool maker. some ppl like to worship instead of making tools, fine.

Your arguements and accusations are as lousy as me saying that you worship your computer because you're using it to accomplish certain things.
Originally posted by Xevious
Is it better for humans to forget everything about religion or science?"

Religion and Science have similarities and differences which give each of them differnt roles in society. Religion works on building human community and laying down ethical foundations. These are things which science is quite candidly not qualified to handle, no matter how you argue it. Science works logically through the methods True and True is True, or True and False is False. Many things in human morals and ethics are simply not designed simply in black and white terms. It's ironic, that if one tries to apply logic to moral arguments, one finds that logic can support ANY argument as long as one has the facts to back it up. This fallability ot Logic is one lost to many people. In theory, one can justify genocide through the premice of the world being overpopulated. You and I both know that the thought of Genocide is highly questionable to most people, but scientifically, IF one can prove an overpopulation burdon, one can justify the genocide as a logical solution.

What you have their is an example of scientific intellectualism spinning out of control without moral guidence. Adolph Hitler is a wonderful example. Hitler was in every way, in intellectual man. He painted artworks, and his art is still considered to be of good quality by many artisans. He collected ancient artifacts and had a very high interest in archaeology and ancient civilizations. He played a musical insturment. He founded Germany's Autobaun and he came up with the 1st prototype design for the Volkswagon Beetle. No matter how you slice it, Hitler was a VERY intelligent intellectual. He was a billiant tactician in World War II - he took out France, which at the time had the worlds best Army. He nearly captured Moscow, deep in Russian territory. With Italy at his side, Europe fell in a very short amount of time. But, his morals were highly questionable. His thinking spun out of control, and he wiped out almost 1/5 of the worlds Jewish population to say nothing of the hundreds in France, Russia, Poland, and many other countries.

What scares me is that if one reads his autobiography, he was able to find logical justifications for much of his beliefs. You might laugh at me, but it's true.

In the end, when civalizations collapse and people rebuild, Religion always comes out on top because Science is not qualified to build human community. If it was, the Greeks would have rebuilt on a scientifice foundation - and they were probably the only civalization his history in which science ran so far through their core. If they couldn't do it, NO ONE could do it.

I am not taking an opinion which is "better" because both are very important in society. I am just saying that Science cannot and will not ever take Religion's function in society over.

You could have just said, "sorry but if I answer your question, then I will have to contradict myself"
Originally posted by Xevious
This is all kind of funny. The last time that this debate was going on was over the big bang, since that theorys originator was a Catholic priest. The scientific community outright rejected "The Big Bang" to begin with as an attempt to place the book of Genesis in science. Isn't it funny how creationism thought, as it was once considered, is currently the backbone of cosmology?

"The Big Bang" theory's originator was a catholic priest????Did somebody lie to you?
Originally posted by Xevious
Hmmm, so evolution should get equal time in religion's forum, but religion should not get equal time in science's forum. At least you can now admit that science is religion. Do you want to abadon the concensus that Religion and Science are in seperate realms, or are you ready to declare Jihad?

If science is a religion as you propose then you better hope we don't declare jihad. Obviously someone wouldn't certainly lose in 6 days.

you know what? that's a great idea actually. or i say, we should just completely have seperate nations. a scientific nation and a religious nation. we'll see then how things progress.
Re: Dating the earth

Originally posted by ALLTHEORIES
Arent all speculations on dating animals humans ect based on evolution. If evolution is wrong the earth could very likely be 6000 years old. Also there is a constitutional right to teach any form of the science of the earth's begining as long as it brings insite to the learning of the children and allows them to grasp scientific understanding. Maybe 1987 court case in state maybe, then 7 years earlier federally. Dates may be wrong but cases did happen. So until there is a law I can teach students creation and the ACLU has nada.

Does anyone else find the first 2 sentences especially hilarious?
ok, I am going to make statements that have absolutly no pith once so ever(I think), I just want to see the statements against them(oh, and I am a little rusty on evolution so, if you could identify a site that explains exactly what is meant(such as are mutations counted even though it is an immediate change(not entirely what I am trying to ask, but I lack the vocabulary in which to communicate the question effectively), and what is the genetic variation percantage that defines a new species?). I am also intereseted in a good creationism defination(most of the evolution and creationism theories(they/it could be so called) that I know are (at least I believe they are) out are out of date.

1. Why can't creationism and evolutionism simotaniously co-exist?(I believe people have stated that they believe it can, but others reject one or the other, I would like to see the views of the latter.)

2. Ok, now for the statements which may be completely incorrect and others that may lack pith:

some primary assumtions to start with:
1. there is no god(not that I believe this but for the sake of and lack of scientific evidence this must be assumed)(do not know how this is used in my statements but it should be assumed any way right?)

ok, for the meat:
Since there is no emperical data that shows that evolution exists, then it is based on belief, although it may be test, thus making it scientific, so why can not the side argued by creationist also be tested?(although not feasible at the moment, or maybe never would not the only way to test either is time travel?)

Now, I have been told(forgive me for not being able to verify this) that evolution has been see on the mirco-scale. Could this just be mutation(just observed in one generation, not produced by generations of change) due to the size of the subjects used?(being smaller making the subjects need less to mutate).

Now, creationism, at least as I understand it, has two ways to prove it, thus being just as sketchy as evolution, since both for the most part can only be proved by going back in time and checking it. Although, creationism has the extra of us being told by some advanced civiliztion, I don't see this happining anytime soon(if ever).

The reason that, even if the the on the micro-scale, evolution exists there is still no proof that it exists on the macro-scale. One would have to assume this, unless it is seen(similiar to humans during the 15 century assuming that the earth was flat, no one had gone around, thus no one could say for sure, even though the math said it was, emperical data is needed to convice everyone and even then the most close-minded people still won't believe(although they may admit they are wrong)).

I am not really debating to either creationism or evolutionism, but I do believe that the statement of "creationism does not belong in science" invalid, although it may be true.

I would now again like to state that I am no expert, I just want to see if the ideas I have posted hold up to your standards(and I would like to educate myself in both creationistic and evolutionistic theories, and to de-bias myself, using the information provided). Thank you for your time.