Great vid exposing the shocking (and wilfull) ignorance of creationists and how it is completely irrresponsible to teach it to children

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYphna9UTCk...feature=related

the beginning video is a lie.

Care to expand on that ?

there is no imperial evidence to an alternative to creatinism.

I do not reject evolution.


Evolution does not explain how life started.

Nor does it claim to. Where in the theory of evolution does it say that evolution is here to explain how life STARTED? NOWHERE! The theory of evolution has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how life started. Nothing. Nada. Zip. In saying evolution doesn't explain how life started, you've just proven how little you know about evolution. It is not to be used as a means to explain how life came to be. It doesn't claim that whatsoever. The theory of evolution explains how organisms evolved to form the variety of life we have now, not how it started.

That video stated that creationism can't be taught because evolution is an imperil alternative to it.

not my words the words of the idiot who made the video.

What a shame that Christians cant merely accept evolution. Evolution does not exclude God. It only does with a literal interpretation of the bible. The bible can still be a rich source of spirituality with evolution. Even though I am no scientist, evolution to me seems so naturally true. Why cant Christians embrace evolution and perhaps see that 'natural selection' is maybe not an unconscious natural driving force but perhaps an intelligent guidance that evolved not merely creatures that wish to survive and breed but also creatures that can comprehend abstract philosophies, arts, religions, science etc?

What? It most certainly did not. It said creationism shouldn't be taught in schools because 99.98% of scientists say it can't and didn't happen. Gee, argue with 99;98% of scientists on the credibility of a far-fetched idea? I don't think so. Please, creationism is why people go to church, not school.

You must not have read any of my posts or threads on the subject. I accept both.

you had better listen to it again. It was comparing creationism to evolution with the world being round instead of flat.

Yeah, except there's a bunch who can't except both and are contributing to the quickening decline of our nation's intelligence. Honestly what shocked me is there are still people who think the Earth is flat. I mean.... come on.... do we need to take you to the moon to get you to believe us?

The poster was trying to make a point, and a very good one at that.

You mean like changing the spelling of 200 words because they are too hard for kids today to learn.

By the way the dumbing down of america started in the 60's when they stopped teaching creationism, and stopped holding kids back who didn't know the subject matter.

I myself believe in eternity and therefore dont believe in creationism because to me the universe wasnt created but has always been here without ever a beginning.
However I think that because scientists dont know where or how (how in the sense it came from nothing) the big bang occured but only that it it did occur and that we are within its expansion now doesnt exclude God, because a religious person can say that the big bang was a means from which God worked his magic. Likewise with evolution. A religious person can always say that God created man via evolution. True Science doesnt get rid of a 'God' concept if people need such a concept it just expands on it. And if people actually do experience a spiritual presence in their lives which goes beyond the senses then such an experience can lead to the valid logical conclusion that something spiritual transcendent of and meshed within the universe exists and worthy of attention. Such a conclusion is based not on blind faith because it is grounded in first hand experience or experience from someone else truth worthy enough to believe their experience.

Hahahaha had to add the word 'not' otherwise my whole post would have made no real sense.

I am too if and until science can come up with a valid alternative to intelligent design. Nobody should go around saying it isn't a valid method of how life got started.


Intelligent design can and should include evolution to make up for changing environments.

Maybe if we didn't change the spelling the kids would be smarter.

And I absolutely love the cum hoc ergo propter hoc you threw in there, which is a huge red-flag fallacy, by the way. Just because two events happen simultaneously doesn't mean that one causes the other to happen. Leave that stuff to the statisticians. Or provide me with some sort of proof for this claim. If someone can prove with less than a 4% margin of doubt (which is what statisticians use) that the stopping of Creationism teachings brought about the decline in American intelligence I might be able to debate with you here, Daniel. But until then, you're wasting your breath with fallacious claims that hold no water whatsoever.

-Natural Selection
-Decent with modification

We don't need a higher intelligence to explain why we have the life that we have today.

Sorry your the one who throw it in there. Just because some people still want creationism still taught in school it must be their fault that the teachers are no longer doing their jobs.

It's quite interesting because at school my kids are taught evolution in science and biology but creationism in scripture (religious studies) class......

They seem to take both for granted, I don't believe it confuses kids unless they're getting bored in scripture class and nodding off.....

There seems to be an understanding that science is 'how things really happened' and that God rules in scripture but they're still young and so haven't figured out the contradictions in the two belief systems.....Although my daughter who is quite intelligent (she's be 11 in July) questions the validity of the '6-day creation theory' and so on.......

We've spoken about God and she knows He's not some old man with white beard residing in the sky, I've been honest about it and have projected my own agnostic views on to her, to the horror of my own mother......So sue me....

no but we need it to explain the life that we have all together. Ie how it started.


You see if life started how and when science said it did the conditions would have killed it 1 second later.

I most certainly did not say that the decline in the teaching of Creationism is bringing about the decline of American intelligence. YOU said that. Not me.

I think in that last sentence you completely twisted everything I said. I did not say that it's the Creationists' fault that students don't want to learn. I'm saying that they need to keep their concepts to their religious institutions where they belong, because I really don't want a doctor operating on me who thinks I'm sick because of demonic possession, plzkthx.

Oh the tragedy of fallacy(even unwittingly so).

I don't think so. What makes you say this exactly? Because I see that as a terribly big assumption considering all the experiments done in that field say the exact opposite. They even say so on Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Daniel Lost
Thanks for your reply but I don't agree with anything you have said thus far.
I've heard that Liberty 'University' in California teaches students that the earth is 5000 years old,do they also teach that in Wacko,Texas?
I think it's completely irresponsible and delusional as,no matter how much you may want this to be true,it is not.

I think the man on the video is a very clever chap and should be saluted for stating the very ,very obvious.

Cool.

wrong there was no 02 no co2, there was toxic gases.

And ID can be taught in churches and private religious colleges as they see fit. I don’t care. Knock yourself out. I don’t care if a private college teaches the Navajo creation story or any other such creationist explanation for the universe...there are plenty to choose from. If you start out with your answer and look for your question, then weed everything out that doesn’t fit the answer you choose, then you are no longer in the realm of science, and that is what ID is, and why it wont be accepted anytime soon anywhere but in a private religious school.

In publicly funded schools however, it has no basis in reality, and should not be taught in the science classroom. Evolution covers what it covers very well; with a good deal of data to back it up. If you wish to study religion, there is a different class for that altogether...

You have your religious opinion of how the world came about. That’s fine. Great. Study it until your heart is content. At home, At church, At private schools. Don’t try to force your religious beliefs on others(as that is what ID is- it isn’t science) in a public school, in this country that sets apart church and state for a very good reason.

Sadly the obvious is sometimes the hardest thing to grasp.

don't know never went to school here. by the way the youngest the earth could be is 13000 years old.

Gee that's funny, because in freshman biology in high school I was taught that the first bacteria didn't even need EITHER of those two substances to survive. There were, or maybe still are, bacteria that DO NOT need oxygen to survive. Just because gasses are toxic to us doesn't mean they're toxic to everything.

P.S., yes there was oxygen eventually, because comets containing ice, H2O, struck the early Earth frequently and would have left deposits of water, and oxygen, on the surface and atmosphere of Earth.

I agree. However what you must realize is that people driven by a blind faith or dogmas dont want their universe shattered by facts. Anything that disturbs their mental frame (regardless of the contradictions) of how the world must be scares them. The vast beyond is often more scary intellectually or philosophically than it is physically.

Teach creationism...or evolution.

Creationism is belief. Correct.
Evolution is a belief. Correct.


Okay then, moving on.

Creationism has some or a a large amount of proof. Incorrect.
Evolution has some or a large amount of proof. Correct.

Now logically..what would you choose? Something that is a belief with no plausible evidence to support it other than paper. Or something that is a belief with not every fact down, but still has a large amount of evidence shown in the galaxy, through history, and through the world and fossils and skeletons?

Often, the creationist mindset if where if there is one missing part of the puzzle..the rest of it crumbles down it is automatically false. That is not how science works. They then try to get creationism to be taught in a science class. It is not a science, and due to the belief system, it can never be a science. The church and the state are separated. They need to get over that. There are Christian colleges you can go to if you are that inclined to believe religion to be literal. Learning something that isn't factual isn't real learning, it is learning to believe.

Well put my friend.

So let me get this right because of of ONE idiot on Youtube it should not be taught?? Thats not a very good excuse.

Not just one idiot, the entire scientific community. Or at least a vast majority of it.

Once again because said amount of people do not agree with you on how life started it should not be taught. Thats what this debate is coming down to.

BTW Huckabee is ok with ANY form of Creationism as long as it's Christianty.

Norwood it is like this.


Because the religous people cannot accept creatitionism and evolition as possiblities then america is being dumbed down.


However the non religous don't have to accept both. Just look at those that have committed on here.


Evolution does not state how life began. Creatitionism does. But since that would include God we can't have that.

perhaps but the last time I checked nothing lives in sulfuric acid. Which is what you get when you mix water and magma

Daniel, just think of the vast number of creationism stories a teacher would have to teach in order to be fair to every religion and abide by the "freedom of religion" and "separation of church and state" parts of our own very constitution. Christianity isn't the only religion with a creation via deities story, you know. We might as well teach the Aborigines' Dreamtime legend as well.

So does a 100 other stories that can be pulled out of the library; it doesnt make it science.

There is a good reason why the scientific process is used to determine how valid ideas are and narrow down what is fact from what is fiction. Because you believe it to be true does not make it fall into the "fact" catagory without a lot of work first, and that has not happened.

They do not agree because there is evidence. There is proof to support evolution. The debate should be based on what is right, and what would benefit the children. Teaching them an origin due to a omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent monotheistic deity is not fact, it is not a plausible belief. School is about learning. If you learn something that isn't proven, you are simply gaining insight on a misguiding subject. If it would be creationism, that would mean it would be Christian. If children learn creationism, then they learn Christianity. Which demands a drastic change in lifestyle thanks to the virtues set about. Which takes away the freedom to not be influenced by an unproven thing.

Children are influenced by adults, and look up to adults, as the guy said. Teaching creationism would be ignorant. I am not an adult, but I know the difference. I don't want to be taught creationism.

It is believed by most people on the planet that life was started by an Intellegent Exterrestrial.


That doesn't look too hard to me.

It is a bit unlikely, but it would be more reasonable than a god.

We are proof that life exists..which would support that there is intelligent life elsewhere.

So your upset because they don't mention God? And? LIke it or EVERYONE has a right to be heard & just because you & some others do not agree, does mean they have less of a right to tell thier side of the story.


BTW I do not think religion OR creatism should be taught in school.

Water? H2O? When you mix water and magma you get a load of steam which has oxygen in it too, and the process is never so simple as you would put it...but I think the original point was that there were ANaerobic things before aerobic things; stuff that did not need oxygen to survive.

you also get sulfuric acid. don't believe me look at venus.

some where in it's recent past all or most of it's surface became magma turning the water on the surface into sulfuric acid, steam, co2. causing a runaway greenhouse.

No I am upset by being called closed minded by closed minded people. You don't seem to be one of those.

Hi everyone, this is my first post here but I've been a long time reader on the forum.



Hydrothermal vents spew out a ton of water that, in part, is released by magma. Surrounding the vents are a huge abundance of life, in which many people believe the first signs of life appeared. Please correct me if this is wrong but this seems to completely disprove the statement above. Here is the link of what I read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent

I do see where he is coming from if your going to let people who believe in creation, then you should let other have thier turn as well. Correct?

There's a lot more on Venus than water and magma, I can tell you that. Water+magma does not equal sulfuric acid.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid )

"Occurrence

Pure undiluted sulfuric acid is not encountered on Earth, due to sulfuric acid's great affinity for water. Apart from that, sulfuric acid is a constituent of acid rain, which is formed by atmospheric oxidation of sulfur dioxide in the presence of water, i.e., oxidation of sulfurous acid. Sulfur dioxide is the main byproduct produced when sulfur-containing fuels such as coal or oil are burnt.
Sulfuric acid is formed naturally by the oxidation of sulfide minerals, such as iron sulfide. The resulting water can be highly acidic and is called Acid Mine Drainage (AMD). This acidic water is capable of dissolving metals present in sulfide ores, which results in brightly-coloured, toxic streams. The oxidation of iron sulfide pyrite (FeS2) by molecular oxygen produces iron(II), or Fe2+:
2 FeS2 + 7 O2 + 2 H2O → 2 Fe2+ + 4 SO42− + 4 H+
The Fe2+ can be further oxidized to Fe3+, according to:
4 Fe2+ + O2 + 4 H+ → 4 Fe3+ + 2 H2O
and the Fe3+ produced can be precipitated as the hydroxide or hydrous oxide. The equation for the formation of the hydroxide is
Fe3+ + 3 H2O → Fe(OH)3 + 3 H+
The iron(III) ion ("ferric iron", in casual nomenclature) can also oxidize pyrite. When iron(III) oxidation of pyrite occurs, the process can become rapid. pH values below zero have been measured in AMD produced by this process.
AMD can also produce sulfuric acid at a slower rate, so that the acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) of the aquifer can neutralise the produced acid. In such cases, the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of the water can be increased form the dissolution of minerals from the acid-neutralisation reaction with the minerals."

Gee, nothing about magma.