Makes me sick... Topic

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Posted by edsortails on 2/6/2013 3:15:00 PM (view original):
'I don't follow the crowd' has become the mantra of the What If boards
I thought the new mantra was "I have strong opinions, with plenty of proof to back them up, and people can't handle that."

Or was that last week?
2/6/2013 3:17 PM
that's old school....
2/6/2013 3:19 PM
Do you have proof of this "old school" theory?
2/6/2013 3:22 PM
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 2:00:00 PM (view original):
"When you are teaching science, teach science. Evolution is science. When you are teaching religion, teach religion. Creationism is religion."

Horsesh*t. Evolution is a belief system that relies on science for support. Evolution does not = science. Science supports elements of religion as much as it supports other concepts.
Science does not support creationism nearly as much as it supports evolution.  There's very, very little about creationism that is supported by science.  (I didn't say religion, I said creationism) Which is why I don't think creationism should be taught when teaching science.  

Again, if you want to mention that this is a concept many people believe when you are teaching evolution in science class, then ok.  But it shouldn't be discussed as if it has the same validity.

Here Mike, I'll help:

2/6/2013 3:27 PM
well, sure I do....but its really just regurgitation of something somebody else said, so I guess maybe I don't.......but my opinion on this matter is so strong, you are going to have a hard time accepting that
2/6/2013 3:28 PM
And I know I'm coming across as an *** screaming "YOURE WRONG!!!!" I don't mean to.  But in the same way science can't determine how Jesus turns water into wine, we shouldn't try to use science to explain creationism, unless something comes up that helps us to do so.  I'm not saying the scenario is impossible, but it's not appropriate for science class until we have better scientific evidence.
2/6/2013 3:31 PM
I already said I wasn't interested in determining the curriculum for schools.   But screaming "SCIENCE!!!!" doesn't prove your point or invalidate a faith-based point.   I have no problem in saying "THAT'S WRONG!!!!" because it is. 
2/6/2013 3:33 PM
Mike, it was more directed at jtpsops.  

And scientific theories, like the Earth rotating around the sun, and being round, are generally well accepted.  I group evolution in with those theories, and the vast majority of people who have attempted to study and analyze the history of the Earth do as well.  I believe in carbon dating.  Will I invalidate his view by arguing this? No, and I understand that.
2/6/2013 3:40 PM
So the faith based argument that the world is 10,000 years old is...???
2/6/2013 3:42 PM
The sun and earth exist in this moment, no? It's far easier to validate the earths shape and orbit than it is to decisively determine the earths age.
2/6/2013 3:43 PM
what if your faith is in science?

can you ever be truly happy?
2/6/2013 3:47 PM
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 2:35:00 PM (view original):
Tec - I put my faith in God, you put your faith in science. Either way, it's faith.

As the Bible says, "Faith is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see."

That applies equally to evolutionists as it does to creationists.
Except that most science (other than theoritical science) is backed by tangible, real evidence that consistently supports a well formulated theory or hypothesis.

Faith is not.  It's a wish.
2/6/2013 3:47 PM
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 3:45:00 PM (view original):
The sun and earth exist in this moment, no? It's far easier to validate the earths shape and orbit than it is to decisively determine the earths age.
I believe in carbon dating and evolution.  I understand the concepts, and they make sense to me.  If you asked an "expert" if evolution or the earth's rotation was a better theory, he/she might say the earth's rotation, but he'd probably also tell you that evolution has become an almost infallible theory.

2/6/2013 3:51 PM
Put it this way - what is mans reference point for a 30 million year old rock or fossil? Carbon dating is a man made procedure. Since no man was around 30 million years ago, what do they have to base their findings against? Maybe what they think is a 30 million year old rock is actually a 10,000 year old rock. They'd never know the difference. Everything needs a reference point. Man looks at a rock and using science makes his BEST GUESS as to how old it is. Why? Because he doesn't have a 30 million year old rock in his back pocket to whip out and compare it to
2/6/2013 3:54 PM
◂ Prev 1...19|20|21|22|23...60 Next ▸
Makes me sick... Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2018, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.