Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

John, I did not propose the pink unicorn.

yeah, that was me, sorry about that, a bit ridiculous, but I was trying to prove a point.
Invisible Pink Unicorn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and yet, no one wants the Invisible Pink Unicorn taught in science class, hm?

Well, for the first part, right after you show me some proof there was no creation. All of the experiments so far seeking to create life in a laboratory have so far failed. Creating an amino acid is not the same thing as creating life. Right now, the "no creation" side presents a single compound created in a test tube (but no life) and claims it as evidence, but it really doesn't do so any more than adding water to flour to make dough proves there is no baker.
Secondly, I have no issues with the atheistic point of view. The problem is when it is given preference in such a way as to proclaim theories based on it somehow have more validity. Ultimately, an unproven hypothesis (abiogenesis included) has no more validity than another. Especially when two opposing viewpoints can point to the same evidence, and indeed lack thereof, as supportive.
By all means teach abiogenesis if you must as a hypothetical answer to a question, but not at the expense of banning the creation hypothesis at the same time. This shows favoritism to one particular viewpoint that so far has zero proof or even evidence that cannot be equally applied as supporting creation.
Teach both, or teach neither-because one nor the other is any more "scientific" "exalted" "realistic" (choose your word) than the other.

John P.

edit: this was for jockeys;
Russel, sorry, thought it was you.
Otherwise, your great grand political organization presents only the consensus of what its supporters believe; the great grand consensus is seldom always right.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Well, for the first part, right after you show me some proof there was no creation.


Secondly, I have no issues with the atheistic point of view. The problem is when it is given preference in such a way as to proclaim theories based on it somehow have more validity.

Teach both, or teach neither-because one nor the other is any more "scientific" "exalted" "realistic" (choose your word) than the other.
John P.

Huh? Don't you mean The Christian God's Creation?

Of course Christian's have a problem with Atheists. Even more so because the vast majority of scientists are Atheists teaching their "exalted" science instead of a creation myth.

Originally Posted by mischievous

...the vast majority of scientists are Atheists...

How intriguing. The vast majority of Creationists are Christians


PS what data suggest that the vast majority of scienctists are atheists?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

How intriguing. The vast majority of Creationists are Christians


PS what data suggest that the vast majority of scienctists are atheists?

Haven't you heard of Christian scientists?

And don't forget the Scientologists...

Oh, wait a second...

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Haven't you heard of Christian scientists?

And don't forget the Scientologists...

Oh, wait a second...

Oh, now you went and did it!

Xenu or Xeno or whoever will not be happy!

Originally Posted by mischievous

Of course Christian's have a problem with Atheists. Even more so because the vast majority of scientists are Atheists teaching their "exalted" science instead of a creation myth.

And you know that the vast majority of scientist are atheists from where?? It certainly isn't my experience.

Originally Posted by ScottS

And you know that the vast majority of scientist are atheists from where?? It certainly isn't my experience.

I injected a little light sarcasm, sorry for the misunderstanding. Maybe a would have helped.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Well, for the first part, right after you show me some proof there was no creation. All of the experiments so far seeking to create life in a laboratory have so far failed. Creating an amino acid is not the same thing as creating life.

Well, John, that is just not how science works.

A theory must be supported by experimentation for it to be given credence. "Supported" does not mean proven. The self replicating polymers support the idea that organic matter (and possibly life) can occur naturally, they don't prove the theory of abiogenesis, but they show that it can't be ruled out.

If you claim the abiogenesis crowd has shown no proof for their theory, why not reciprocate the thought for the creation fellas. They haven't even shown "supporting" experiments in an empirical manner.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Russel, sorry, thought it was you.
Otherwise, your great grand political organization presents only the consensus of what its supporters believe; the great grand consensus is seldom always right.

If it doesn't satisfy you to see theologians, creationists, philosophers, chemists, biologists mathematicians, etc. agreeing on the point that intelligent design/creationism is not a science, then I doubt anything will, you are apparently in favor of Creation on a worldview basis, not a scientific basis. Check out the books by the members of the ISSR, Books by ISSR Members many of them are extremely supportive of creation, but still on a scientific basis they realize it's shortcomings.

The grand consensus is seldom always right?

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan "

What I mean is that, yes, majority opinion is wrong sometimes but the majority having an opinion does not make it wrong all the time. You can twist the "majority is not always correct" stance to match your position, but it will not make it anymore correct until some supporting experiments are shown.

Originally Posted by jockeys

yeah, that was me, sorry about that, a bit ridiculous, but I was trying to prove a point.
Invisible Pink Unicorn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and yet, no one wants the Invisible Pink Unicorn taught in science class, hm?

Enough with the damn unicorn already. An invisible pink unicorn is a paradox in itself anyway. If it's invisible...then how can it have colour?