If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
It's really good of you to break this news on a small internet forum. Thanks for sharing. Oddly, I googled 'Creationism' and 'Evolution' for news items and couldn't find anything final about either side 'winning or losing the battle'. A thesite.org exclusive!!!
Now provide some evidence to support your assertion :wave:
What's your point? Do you believe the world is 6000 years old?
Or do you actually mean the battle to prove which side is right?
Do tell
Glad to help...
You can't disprove a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that there is the slightest bit of evidence to support them, nor does it make them the slightest bit likely. But that's not the sort of claim made by creationist museums in America. Evolution doesn't prove that the universe wasn't created by something intelligent, but it certainly does disprove the type of crap that creationist museums spout. And the bible has been thoroughly discredited as having any sort of scientific insight into natural history, and yet these museums still make poor scientific claims backed up by quote from the bible, rather than any facts. Liberty "University" in America apparently had a dinosaur fossil labelled as being around 5000 years old. There's no debate about a claim like that, it's just wrong.
It's impossible to disprove anything entirely. That doesn't justify teaching nonsense to kids.
No, telling them it's not a proven fact would be lying to them. It's as proven as gravity or the fact that the earth rotates around the sun, and that's as proven as a fact is ever going to get.
One of the beauties of science is that it does not pretend to know everything. On the contrary. Scientific theories are that- theories. They are checked, rechecked, studied, challenged, updated and changed based on the best knowledge and evidence available at any one time. Unlike religious education I should add, which pretends to be the holder of the full and undisputed truth about everything, and the only 'evidence' it ever needs to (or can) present is that "it says so in the Bible/Torah/Koran".
Creationism has absolutely nothing to do with science and everything with beliefs based on faith. Therefore they do not belong in science lessons. That is the short of it, and so it should remain. Children who attend religious education lessons (which is the immense majority of them) are already taught Creationism anyway.
But it's called a theory because it's not verifiable. To see if the theory you combine hydrogen and oxygen you make water is correct you can mix them and see what happens. You can't go back billions of year and watch evolution happen, so it's not verifiable.
But it's not a theory such as that there are wormholes in space to allow you to travel to another side of the Galaxy. Evolution is based on lots of data, work and evidence which can never be verified, but to most people makes absolute sense (including 99% of the scientists who deal with).
Yes, it might be wrong and we could get evidence tomorrow it is. But the evidence so far supports it, and whilst bits of it turn out to be wrong (I've been reliably informed that most of Darwin's Origin's isn't actually true), there has been no reliable evidence that the general scope isn't correct.
Well of course it's difficult to verify the theory that dinosaurs evolved, but alternatively, a large part of medical science is based on the ability of scientists to observe certain viruses evolving and make the correct immunisation. So in situations where the scale is small enough for evolution to be observed, it is an indisputable scientific fact. But equally, in the same way as a scientific field such as quantum theory or maths, it can be proved correct by the predictions it makes as well as the observable evidence. Evolution scientists can tell you exactly where a certain fossil fits in the evolutionary history of a particular animal, and then can test this using several methods of carbon dating to prove that they are correct. And so far, not a single fossil in history has not fit in exactly where it should, despite the creationist claims of large gaps (which is only to be expected considering how fragile fossils are). Similar tests can be done on the DNA sequences. This is similar to the periodic table, which was written long before every element was discovered.
I look forward to a detailed exposition from yourself as to why is it 'rubbish masquerading as science'.
The ultimate arrogance, in my opinion, is arguably that anybody should claim that either evolution or creationism are in and of themselves rubbish. The very fact that there is still an intellectual debate to be had in 2008 says something.
I generally find that most people on *both* sides of the divide have pretty much no idea how to cogently defend their point of view. Least of all some (and please note that is only 'some') of the frustrated, hormonal keyboard warriors frequenting these forums.
I don't see any scientific debate happening, and nor would that be proof of anything if it was. And that's the only issue here. Is it science? And if not, it obviously has no place calling itself a museum imo, and certainly has no place in the science classroom.
Sorry, suprising though it is I'm agreeing with you.
I was just trying to expand on your answer over why though it's a thoery it's not the same as a theory such as there's space wormholes.
"hormonal"
Clearly you don't realise the ages of the people you are applying that too.
Seriously, you want to defend creationsim then please offer some evidence to back it up...
Yes it does doesn?t it? But about human nature mostly, rather than about the validity of one of those schools of thought.
What are you talking about?
There is plenty of irrefutable evidence and proof that the Earth is several billion years old. Even if it was created at the beginning, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the Earth is hundreds of thousands of times older than the 6,000 years of age the traditional branch of Creationism claims.
If you really think that the fundamentalists? claims that God put those dinosaur fossils under ground to test our faith and that carbon dating and other such methods are a lie conceived by a godless scientist alliance have any validity and should be given consideration, I guess there is no point in me wasting any further bandwidth discussing this with you.
As for the new branch of Creationism that admits the Earth is a lot older than 6,000 years but claims the world and all its creatures were created by God, it is still a highly implausible scenario for most of us. It might be worth debating, but certainly it should not be taught in science, biology or any other lessons apart from religious education, because it remains an unlikely, improbable belief based entirely on faith.
You are free to believe whatever you want. But please keep what does not belong in science lessons out of them.
I have nothing much else to say on this matter, except this park will probably be shut down or bought out within 3 years imo.