A Question for Creationists

[Polymath257]

So you say, which doesn't mount to much

it amounts to a great deal to those who care to look for evidence and demonstrate their ideas are actually true. We require a certain level of confidence before we teach things in our schools.

 

[Faithofchristian]

it amounts to a great deal to those who care to look for evidence and demonstrate their ideas are actually true. We require a certain level of confidence before we teach things in our schools.

So by who's definition, yours.
If you don't like certain things that maybe taught in the schools, my advice would be, don't sign up for those classes.

But as it is, people only want to have something to complain about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's only because you can't make sense of the whole chapter. If read all the chapter
Then all the Verse's will make sense.

But as it is, you can't even make sense of one verse let alone the whole chapter.

What your doing, is taking one verse and cancel out all the other Verse's

Wrong again, the rest of the chapter does nothing to change the meaning of that verse. Worse yet you would have to lie about others to justify your unjustified ignoring of that verse. This has already been shown to you in a wider context. I am so sorry that you do not understand your own book of myths.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No but you don't mind, pushing your ideas into schools and politics. So what goes around comes around.

He has evidence for his beliefs, something that you lack.

 

[Polymath257]

So by who's definition, yours.
If you don't like certain things that maybe taught in the schools, my advice would be, don't sign up for those classes.

But as it is, people only want to have something to complain about.

How about the definitions of those professionals who are specialists in the area of study? That would work for me.

As for not taking the classes, most schools are financially strapped already. There is no good reason for them to be required to teach 'controversies' where none actually exist in those areas of study.

Having a class teaching about the Loch Ness monster is a waste of resources. The same goes for creationism.

 

[Tiberius]

No it goes both ways, if you say, there is no God, then the burden of proof is on you also.
Alot of people seem to think it's a one way street and it's not. So It goes both ways.

So if I believe there is God, What's that to you.
I have nothing to prove to anyone, except to myself.

By this logic, you must prove that I do not have a live elephant in my bedroom. Either that, or believe me when I say I have one.

 

[Faithofchristian]

By this logic, you must prove that I do not have a live elephant in my bedroom. Either that, or believe me when I say I have one.

I don't have prove anything, if you believe that you got a live elephant in your bedroom.
So what's that to me.

Your sure not making any sense.

What makes you think I should care what you got in your bedroom. Unto which I could careless.

 

[Altfish]

No it goes both ways, if you say, there is no God, then the burden of proof is on you also.
Alot of people seem to think it's a one way street and it's not. So It goes both ways.

So if I believe there is God, What's that to you.
I have nothing to prove to anyone, except to myself.

It is not possible to prove there is no god.
Have you heard of Russell's Teapot, is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. Wiki explains it...
Russell's teapot - Wikipedia

So you cannot shift the burden of proof, you are making the extravagant claim, "There is a god"; you then make claims about it being invisible, etc.
That's why #Tiberius said about the elephant in his bedroom. I don't believe he has one and want it proving before I'll believe it. It is the same with all claims of supernatural, the burden of proof is clearly with the claimant.

 

[Faithofchristian]

It is not possible to prove there is no god.
Have you heard of Russell's Teapot, is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. Wiki explains it...
Russell's teapot - Wikipedia

So you cannot shift the burden of proof, you are making the extravagant claim, "There is a god"; you then make claims about it being invisible, etc.
That's why #Tiberius said about the elephant in his bedroom. I don't believe he has one and want it proving before I'll believe it. It is the same with all claims of supernatural, the burden of proof is clearly with the claimant.

So what if I say there is God, what is that to you.
What you think, that I'm suppose to prove that.
That's me and what I believe.
But for some reason, people think people are to prove themselves.
Unto which I don't have prove anything to anyone. But myself.

 

[Altfish]

So what if I say there is God, what is that to you.
What you think, that I'm suppose to prove that.
That's me and what I believe.
But for some reason, people think people are to prove themselves.
Unto which I don't have prove anything to anyone. But myself.

It is nothing to me.
BUT if you then insist that your god be taught in schools as fact; your god has tax exempt status; your god cannot be offended...that's when I become concerned.

 

[Faithofchristian]

It is nothing to me.
BUT if you then insist that your god be taught in schools as fact; your god has tax exempt status; your god cannot be offended...that's when I become concerned.

I didn't insist nothing, are you paying attention or is that too hard for you.

I said if people want to be taught in school about the bible, No one's forcing anyone to take up that class.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean everyone else has to.

 

[Altfish]

I didn't insist nothing, are you paying attention or is that too hard for you.

I said if people want to be taught in school about the bible, No one's forcing anyone to take up that class.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean everyone else has to.

I know I've won an argument when the personal insults begin.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I know I've won an argument when the personal insults begin.

There's no personal insults, just facts

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't insist nothing, are you paying attention or is that too hard for you.

I said if people want to be taught in school about the bible, No one's forcing anyone to take up that class.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean everyone else has to.

You do realize that if they teach about the Bible in schools, which they can do legally, that it has to be done properly. That means that it could not be taught as if it was an authoritative book at all. It could only be taught as a religion and it would have to be compared to other religions that are just as valid as it is. So one would have to include the Koran, the Vidas, teachings on Buddhism etc.. The flaws of the Bible would probably have to be taught too. Its many self contradictions, its failures in the sciences. Would you want the myths of the Bible made obvious in schools?

 

[Faithofchristian]

You do realize that if they teach about the Bible in schools, which they can do legally, that it has to be done properly. That means that it could not be taught as if it was an authoritative book at all. It could only be taught as a religion and it would have to be compared to other religions that are just as valid as it is. So one would have to include the Koran, the Vidas, teachings on Buddhism etc.. The flaws of the Bible would probably have to be taught too. Its many self contradictions, its failures in the sciences. Would you want the myths of the Bible made obvious in schools?

So you say. You claim contradictions and myths, which proves nothing, only that you have no understanding what your talking about.

 

[Altfish]

There's no personal insults, just facts

As you wish, typical Christian

 

[sayak83]

So you say. You claim contradictions and myths, which proves nothing, only that you have no understanding what your talking about.

You will have no problem if Quran is taught in schools to right?

 

[Altfish]

I said if people want to be taught in school about the bible, No one's forcing anyone to take up that class.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean everyone else has to.

But young kids don't have a choice, they are indoctrinated with 'faith', unproven fables. Also, just try opting out of lessons, there is no alternative lesson or spare teacher; you are told to sit at the back and get on with 'something'.
I notice that you ignore my references to tax and god being offended.

 

[Faithofchristian]

You will have no problem if Quran is taught in schools to right?

That's why Liberal democrates are called Snow Flakes. Go Figure

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you say. You claim contradictions and myths, which proves nothing, only that you have no understanding what your talking about.

Wrong again. So you have never studied the Bible. The contradictions in the Bible are numerous, the list is amazingly long. It is a bit of a joke. In fact here is a video that has fun with the many amazing contradictions in the Bible, all of them used are cited by verse:

As to the myths in the Bible that tells me you have either not read it or have no education in the sciences. How can you make such a statement when you have no ability to defend it?