Should creationism be taught as the foundation of science?

[gnostic]

With creationism facts only can be taught in science class.

You haven't learn a single thing in this thread of yours.

There is no such thing as creationism "fact".

Facts required evidences, not personal belief or personal opinion. And believing in creationism required faith. Faith is the opposite to fact or empirical evidences.

It doesn't require evidences to believe in creationism. If it doesn't require evidences, then it is not science and shouldn't be taught in science class. If you haven't learn this by now, I doubt that you ever will. You have taken willful ignorance to whole you level.

Creationism is part of religion and theology. If there is a class for theology, in school or university, then this is the place where creationism can be taught.

If you bother to look at the number of posters' "religious status" who had posted here, in this thread, they have also disagreed with you, not just atheists and agnostics.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

A logical conclusion to be true requires it to be sound and valid. A valid form is that premises lead to the conclusion. A sound form is the premises are in fact true which guarantees that the conclusion is also true. If a premise can not be proven true then the argument does not guarantee the conclusion is true. If one invokes God as part of a premise than this is an assertion or axiom which people are free to reject within reason.

Modern creationism is built upon the "irrational theories" of modern cosmology. Both use the same physics, timeline to a point, regress models, etc. All creationism does is tack God on to the end of supposed irrational theories. So which is worse? The "irrational theory" or the "irrational theory" with tacked on assumptions. God leaves more questions than the concept answers. Unexplained answers are assumptions, nothing more.

No, creationism uses a slightly different sort of physics. In physics now freedom is not considered real, but according to creationism freedom is real. One has to consider that objects consist of the laws of nature, instead of considering that objects behave according to the laws of nature. When objects consist of the laws of nature, then they can exhibit free behaviour.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You haven't learn a single thing in this thread of yours.

There is no such thing as creationism "fact".

Facts required evidences, not personal belief or personal opinion. And believing in creationism required faith. Faith is the opposite to fact or empirical evidences..

It states clearly in post 1, creationism validates both fact and opinion. It means in creationism you can recognize a fact like gravity, but you can also form an opinion that the world is beautiful.

You cannot form an opinion using materialism, physicalism, naturalism, etc. these philosophies provide no accommodation for forming an opinion.

 

[dawny0826]

As a Christian/Disciple of Yeshua I say: No. Science should be what's taught in a science class.

Agreed.

 

[Valjean]

Creationism is logical. It provides the most logical explanation besides a negative assertion. Negative assertions are only good for people who don't know the subject.

In a nutshell, creationism is an assertion of magic.

 

[gnostic]

Take for instance an object like a gun. One might see it as an expression of justice, or one might see it as an expression of murder. It is a matter of opinion.

What a load of craps!

A gun is indeed an "object", and it is something that you can touch or use. Creationism, on the other hand, is not something tangible, and you can't touch or use it like the gun. And creationism required a creator or a god, another thing that you can't see, touch or use. That because neither God nor creation are based on reality, guns are based on reality..

This expressions, you are talking about, is nothing more than your opinions of what you wish to symbolize, but what it symbolize doesn't mean anything.

You sure write a lot of craps in this thread. Most of it are based on a boatload of logical fallacies, and on your bias and ignorance.

 

[Shad]

No, creationism uses a slightly different sort of physics. In physics now freedom is not considered real, but according to creationism freedom is real. One has to consider that objects consist of the laws of nature, instead of considering that objects behave according to the laws of nature. When objects consist of the laws of nature, then they can exhibit free behaviour.

No it uses the same physics up to a point which is where the standard models end. "Freedom" physic is just meta-physics used to get out of the corner creationism has placed itself in. Laws of nature are descriptive not prescriptive. Your form of physics relies on assumption which I am free to reject as it is unproven.

As I said, religion is openly and explicitly focused on faith, which is a form of opinion. That is the standard view and not only my view. If God would be considered a matter of fact issue, then religion would be focused on measuring, not faith.

You are still ruling out all opinion altogether about what is good, loving and beautiful. You need to explain how a statement of beauty is arrived at. I have already explained it, it is arrived at by choosing about what it is that chooses.

What is good, loving and beautiful is a matter of opinion, just like the existence of God is a matter of opinion.

Now you are even arguing towards freedom not being real. That is what atheists always do, they confuse sorting with choosing. With sorting the result is forced by the sortingcriteria, it is not the same thing as choosing.

We are not talking about faith, we are talking about a logical argument. Such an argument is either true, false or unproven. Talking about faith undermines such an argument since it is subjective. Taking the position that God is only opinion than you are admitting your view is subjective and I need not address such an argument as it is unsound.

I never argued freedom was not real, strawman.

Atheists do not do this due to the fact of being atheists. It is how science and philosophy works... We, again, are talking about a logical valid and sound view which subjective opinion has no merit in. Such opinions must be proven but you have failed to do so. I am free to reject unproven subjective views on the basis of it's definition.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No it uses the same physics up to a point which is where the standard models end. "Freedom" physic is just meta-physics used to get out of the corner creationism has placed itself in. Laws of nature are descriptive not prescriptive. Your form of physics relies on assumption which I am free to reject as it is unproven.



We are not talking about faith, we are talking about a logical argument. Such an argument is either true, false or unproven. Talking about faith undermines such an argument since it is subjective. Taking the position that God is only opinion than you are admitting your view is subjective and I need not address such an argument as it is unsound.

I never argued freedom was not real, strawman.

Atheists do not do this due to the fact of being atheists. It is how science and philosophy works... We, again, are talking about a logical valid and sound view which subjective opinion has no merit in. Such opinions must be proven but you have failed to do so. I am free to reject unproven subjective views on the basis of it's definition.

You argued towards decisions being forced by all sorts of factors. But ofcourse in decisions there are several possible results, and it is chosen, the result is not forced.

It is simply not true that opinions about what is good, loving and beautiful must be proven. So too the existence of God and the soul does not have to be proven, these all belong to the category of matters of opinion.

Only creationism provides room for opinion as well as fact. Opinion applies to the creator, and fact applies to the creation. So it means with creationism you can acknowledge the fact that the earth exists, and also form the opinion that the earth is beautiful. No other philosophy can do this to deal both with fact and opinion as well.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What a load of craps!

A gun is indeed an "object", and it is something that you can touch or use. Creationism, on the other hand, is not something tangible, and you can't touch or use it like the gun. And creationism required a creator or a god, another thing that you can't see, touch or use. That because neither God nor creation are based on reality, guns are based on reality..

This expressions, you are talking about, is nothing more than your opinions of what you wish to symbolize, but what it symbolize doesn't mean anything.

You sure write a lot of craps in this thread. Most of it are based on a boatload of logical fallacies, and on your bias and ignorance.

You simply have not grasped the point about how an opinion is formed.

An opinion, like saying the painting is beautiful, is formed by choosing about what it is that chooses. The word beautiful is chosen from the available alternatives ugly and beautiful. Beauty is a love of the way something looks. So the love chooses the word beauty, and the existence of this love is a matter of opinion.

So it means there is a spiritual domain, the existence of which is a matter of opinion, and there is material domain, the existence of which is a matter of fact. The spiritual domain chooses over the spiritual domain.

To actually make an argument to the subject at issue, you need to address how forming an opinion like saying the painting is beautiful works. All your arguments thusfar have been totally besides the points raised.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So it means there is a spiritual domain, the existence of which is a matter of opinion, and there is material domain, the existence of which is a matter of fact.

Evolution is based on fact, creationism is based on spiritual belief.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Evolution is based on fact, creationism is based on spiritual belief.

As I have explained many times already, creationism validates both fact and opinion. Fact in relation to the creation, and opinion in relation to the creator.

Postmodernism for example, basically only validates opinion. Materialism basically only validates fact. It is only creationism which validates both fact and opinion, distinguishes them. And this provide for better facts, and better opinions.

Creationism is also the only big idea in science which regards freedom as real and relevant in the universe. Science has a big problem with acknowledging any freedom is a reality, including freedom of people.

Freedom is a very complicated subject which requires fundamental changes in scientific theories to be able to acknowledge the reality of freedom. It requires that objects are interpreted as to consist of the laws of nature, instead of that objects behave according to the laws of nature. By interpreting this way, then as laws unto themselves objects, such a people's body's, can exhibit freedom.

 

[Shad]

You simply have not grasped the point about how an opinion is formed.

An opinion, like saying the painting is beautiful, is formed by choosing about what it is that chooses. The word beautiful is chosen from the available alternatives ugly and beautiful. Beauty is a love of the way something looks. So the love chooses the word beauty, and the existence of this love is a matter of opinion.

So it means there is a spiritual domain, the existence of which is a matter of opinion, and there is material domain, the existence of which is a matter of fact. The spiritual domain chooses over the spiritual domain.

To actually make an argument to the subject at issue, you need to address how forming an opinion like saying the painting is beautiful works. All your arguments thusfar have been totally besides the points raised.

I understand how opinions are formed, how hypothesis' are formed. I also know about subjective views, burden of proof and bias. Opinions can use facts but it can also be formed by misinformation, lies, distortions and fallacious thinking. In order for you to prove to me why I should take your opinion as correct you are required to prove it. You have not done so. You tap dance around opinion as it if it were on the same scale as fact itself when it is not while dodging your burden of proof. You rely on opinion since you can not, or will not, provide any argument but that of subjective opinion for your views. I still remain unconvinced.

I could likewise ask you to address my points which you refuse to do so. So far I have done far more addressing your red herrings than what I actually first posted.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I understand how opinions are formed, how hypothesis' are formed. I also know about subjective views, burden of proof and bias. Opinions can use facts but it can also be formed by misinformation, lies, distortions and fallacious thinking. In order for you to prove to me why I should take your opinion as correct you are required to prove it. You have no done so. You tap dance around opinion as it if fact itself when it is not while dodging your burden of proof. I still remain unconvinced.

I could likewise ask you to address my points which you refuse to do so.

You have not stated how an opinion about what is good, loving and beautiful is formed. You are not even on the map as making any argument relevant to the issue. You have said it is subjective. Ok, but then what is subjective? How does subjectivity work? Creationism explains how subjectivity works, as well as how objectivity works. You are simply repeating fact, fact, fact, fact, fact, fact and leave no room for any opinion on what is good, loving and beautiful.

 

[Shad]

You have not stated how an opinion about what is good, loving and beautiful is formed. You are not even on the map as making any argument relevant to the issue. You have said it is subjective. Ok, but then what is subjective? How does subjectivity work? Creationism explains how subjectivity works, as well as how objectivity works. You are simply repeating fact, fact, fact, fact, fact, fact and leave no room for any opinion on what is good, loving and beautiful.

I already addressed how an opinion and choice form in previous comments. Both in the comment about influences upon our choices and that of the failures opinions are open to. Opinions can be right or wrong. Subjective is based on opinion among other factors. So by default your opinion is not objective but subjective. I can reject any opinion which remains unsupported as your comments have done. I do not care about love nor beauty as both are irrelevant to creationism no more than what my favorite ice cream is irrelevant to creationism. Such value assessments are a distraction to avoid your burden of proof.

Likewise all you can say is opinion ad nauseam. Unfortunately opinions do not trump facts. No more than the opinion that the Sun raises in the west trumps the fact it raises in the east. Hence why I have repeatedly asked you to meet your burden of proof.

 

[outhouse]

As I have explained many times already, creationism validates both fact and opinion.

Yet you have not substantiated any factual claim made.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I do not care about love nor beauty as both are irrelevant to creationism no more than what my favorite ice cream is irrelevant to creationism. Such value assessments are a distraction to avoid your burden of proof.

Love and beauty are relevant to what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. And creationism describes how the universe is chosen to be the way it is. Creationism relies upon the fact that freedom is a reality, but then it regards it as a matter of opinion what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does.

So:
- you have not dealt with the fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe
- you have not provided room for forming opinion on what is good, loving and beautiful

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yet you have not substantiated any factual claim made.

It's true that I have done little to substantiate the fact that freedom is a reality. I know some ways it has been evidenced scientifically, but I would sooner accept freedom is real as an obvious fact of common sense that you can directly see yourself, rather then let the acceptance of this fact depend on science.

If you want to argue that freedom is not real, or not relevant in the universe, I am not really interested to hear it. The lack of evidence in science that freedom is a reality, is a weakness of science, it is not a weakness of creationism to acknowledge this fact.

 

[Sapiens]

It's true that I have done little to substantiate the fact that freedom is a reality. I know some ways it has been evidenced scientifically, but I would sooner accept freedom is real as an obvious fact of common sense that you can directly see yourself, rather then let the acceptance of this fact depend on science.

If you want to argue that freedom is not real, or not relevant in the universe, I am not really interested to hear it. The lack of evidence in science that freedom is a reality, is a weakness of science, it is not a weakness of creationism to acknowledge this fact.

So science is wrong because it finds otherwise than your preconceived notions require? That is so obviously wrong, in so many ways, that you should be embarrassed to even make the suggestion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So science is wrong because it finds otherwise than your preconceived notions require? That is so obviously wrong, in so many ways, that you should be embarrassed to even make the suggestion.

I am not embarassed at all. It is required for democracy, having a family, living your life, to accept the fact that freedom is real. Science is not so much wrong as it is weak. Some areas science has covered, some areas science has yet to cover. Freedom is one such thing that science has not covered.

I am quite sure I know much better than you the most modern theory where freedom is accepted as a reality. But this science is very marginal still, and many issues have not been worked out. I fully support this science, it is making good progress.

What happens when scientists don't acknowledge the fact that freedom is a reality, then when they study human beings, they end up stating as fact who is loving and who is hateful. The science becomes indistinguishable from a political or religious ideology about what is good, loving and beautiful. Only by acknowledging freedom is real can love and hate be considered as a matter of opinion, not fact.

 

[outhouse]

It's true that I have done little to substantiate the fact that freedom is a reality.

This is called a red herring. It has nothing to do with the claim you made as factual, you cannot back up.