Creationism surfaces again

[delanvital]

One in ten?

[lionheart]

Any sane, intelligent, logical person knows the tooth fairy did it.

[T-Bag]

If raised by a pupil it should be tackled. Sorry I mean they should be tackled, forcefully to the ground. There are several logical debates behind creationism, but none amount to enough to warrant being taught to children. Whenever new evidence surfaces it strengthens the case for evolution, if someone finds a way to cast genuine doubt on the theory then alternatives must be looked at...until then it should be left to the parents to try and brainwash their kids, not schools.

[delanvital]

If raised by a pupil it should be tackled. Sorry I mean they should be tackled, forcefully to the ground. There are several logical debates behind creationism, but none amount to enough to warrant being taught to children. Whenever new evidence surfaces it strengthens the case for evolution, if someone finds a way to cast genuine doubt on the theory then alternatives must be looked at...until then it should be left to the parents to try and brainwash their kids, not schools.

What annoys me is that creationists tend to claim a right to have it taught alongside Darwin etc. Thing is, many creationists claim that for example global warming is not an issue in their world view and refer to the bible texts.

Whether you believe in science or creationism that is naturally up to anyone and can maybe be placed in religion classes. But biology class is based on science and creationism has no place there.

[DaRkLiGhTeR]

i know a creationist... i like to annoy her by talking about dinosaurs.... but thats another matter:)

i think its a good idea if the children ask about it to say thats its not the scientific view and that you dont have to believe it either way youre just being taught theories

[delanvital]

i know a creationist... i like to annoy her by talking about dinosaurs.... but thats another matter:)

i think its a good idea if the children ask about it to say thats its not the scientific view and that you dont have to believe it either way youre just being taught theories

You are free to believe whatever you want. However, belief is a part of religious classes and not something that belongs in science classes, hence the word science.

Biology and chemistry classes are based on a completely different, sceptical world view. Science is scepticism. You can never actually prove anything for real. The best way to get close to proving something, is by continuing to test a theory, and if it keeps holding up, never being wrong, well, there is a better chance it might be true. That is science for you -  we don't really know anything for real, but we think we are quite close. We think we know some stuff about energy, mass and speed from Einstein and so far it has turned out to be really good. We can then put those theories into new uses and so far they put out the answers we expected. In these classes you are taught, besides what the most valid theories in science are today, this idea of scepticism and never-ending search for truth. All classes that are related to science build on this.

Creationists believe they already have the answer to everything in the bible. The earth is 6000 years old. Nevermind it does not look like that, the bible says so. but, how do we know the bible is the truth? Well, because the bible is the word of god... you then get stuck in circular reasoning:



Mixing something that says it has the truth, with science which is based on scepticism and thus a never-ending search for truth, is just not possible.

If you believe the earth is 6000 years old, fine by me. Just don't say it is two different "theories". Creationism has no theories. It says it has all the answers already, so no need to think, check, analyse. And that is basically all you DO in science. So, place creationism in religious classes and keep it out of science, since science is initially all about testing and finding out what is wrong in the search for what could then possibly be true, and not just sitting back and believing that one has the answer.

[OldBloke]

In case people missed it first time around.

http://www.deadmen.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=16291

[delanvital]

In case people missed it first time around.

http://www.deadmen.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=16291

Aye, a good clip. Lately, I was told of this film and saw it. I rarely get touched that much, but seeing kids being brain washed like that (the lady in charge admits to that is what she is doing to them) made me so sad on behalf of those young ones.

[Luminance]

I know this thread is a bit cold atm, but I dindn't want to create a new one, and I did wanted to share it with you guys.

So, the story goes:
I was arguing (again) with someone about creation vs evolution, and he showed me something like this article (but then in Dutch, so I found you guys similar in English)

Ultrasonic cavitation of water speeds up  thorium decay

                                It is a common belief that radioactive decay rates are unchanged by  external conditions, despite many examples of small shifts (particularly  involving external pressure and K-capture decays) being well documented  and understood. However, Fabio Cardone of the Institute per lo Studio  dei Materiali Nanostrutturati in Rome and colleagues have shown a  dramatic increase ââ,¬â€œ by a factor of 10,000 ââ,¬â€œ in the decay rate of  thorium-228 in water as a result of ultrasonic cavitation. Exactly what  the physics is and whether or not this sort of effect can be scaled up  into a technology for nuclear waste treatment remain open issues.

This would mean he says, that the earth isn't 6.500.000.000 years old, but waaaaaay faster.  Which got me silent for a few secs. What if ... its true. Ok the earth wouldn't be 6000 years old but 650.000, but that would still mean, a higher chance of dinosaurs, walking hand in hand with humans.

However, if he can google, so can I, so then I found this:

Measurement of the thorium-228 activity in
solutions cavitated by ultrasonic sound

We show that cavitation of a solution of thorium-228 in water does not induce its transformation at a faster rate than the natural radioactive decay. We measured the activity of a thorium-228 solution in water before, and after, it was subjected to a cavitation at 44 kHz and 250W for 90 minutes in order to observe any change in the thorium half-life. The results were compared to the original activity of the sample and we observed no change. Our results and conclusions conflict with those in a recent paper by F. Cardone et. al.

So, again, I'll still believe the earth is still way older then 6.000 (or 600.000) years, and he failed to convince me once again. BUT for a moment, I was truly intrigued, because, unlike some, I do like to be proven wrong, because that means I learn, and I like learning

[T-Bag]

I love learning. It's one of the main reasons I'm doing a Phd. Everyday I learn something new. I talk to my colleges about their projects and physics in general. We've even talk about what would happen in the event of an apocalypse (IE bird flu killing 90% of the worlds population etc) just to better understand how the country as a whole tends to work.

I'm open to new ideas, there are two things that bug me though.

• Cyclic arguments
• People saying "It's not physically possible" when could be possible

Religion is full of cyclic arguments. I was stopped on my way into town the other day by some Mormons. They asked "Do you believe in God?", I answered, "No thanks, I'm a physicist" and they answered "We're scientists too"...this lead to a 30min debate getting them to admit:

• Evolution
• The Big Bang
• That life can form without a need for god in certain circumstances
• Life probably exists in other solar systems
• Other life is likely very different to ourselves so cannot be in gods image
• Other animals know right and wrong

After all this I was feeling pretty good about myself, and he turns around and says. "I know god exists because he answers my prayers and fills me with a feeling love when I pray to him". and if you have faith in him and pray to him the same will happen to you. So if you already believe in him he will show himself though a psychological response - cyclic anyone?.

He didn't like it when I said "Hypothetically if I was a huge animal lover, of dog in particular, and every time I petted a dog I had an overwhelming sense of being loved does that mean dogs are my god?"

Even if I knew for a fact god existed, I wouldn't join a religion. There are vast numbers, each run by people claiming their version of go is correct and all other will anger god. You're far more likely to pick the wrong one anyway.

[Benny]

I'll see your old post Oldie and raise you.....one of my better threads

http://www.deadmen.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=6741&highlight=creationist

[Tutonic]

Eek. A serious, rational debate on an internet forum.. I must be hallucinating.

Creationism is, in my humble opinion, not only completely bonkers but incredibly dangerous.

Organised Religion will surely end us all one day, the sooner we get rid of it the better.

[Blunt]

Disorganised Religion FTW:D

I'ma not disrepecting your religion, but Beyonce's is the best:boxing:

[Toxteth]

[Tutonic]

Tox wins.