Graeme has lately become rather convinced that the creation myth is just that - a myth - and not necessary for a full understanding of the Bible. Recent conversation with his friend in the car:

D: "Evolution is against God!"
Graeme: "So, evolution means that God can't love you."
D: "Yes!"
Graeme: "I thought God could always love us."
D ". . ."

I've been distracted by Liz and Amy's visit I will get back to this mid march when they are back home!

Sounds like you guys are having waaaaaay too much fun to spend time on this - it's no big. The teacher and I had a conversation and, well, I think think there'll be any big changes any time soon.

First, let me apologize for reviving/posting to such an old thread. I had the same question, ".. how to talk to a creationist"??? and I stumbled upon your thread, and reading it, I got really sucked in. Also, I'm s000 procrastinating.

Second, to answer the question with answers I found on, or thought up while reading this thread:
- It’s useless to debate an (aggressive!) creationist, almost as useless as debating a Kool-aid drinking Republican’t, who STILL believes in the trickle down theory, and the invisible hand. So below remarks are here for the sane, not for the less-than-sane creationists. Please do realize that creationists say stuff so egregiously absurd, that’s it’s very hard to resist debating them. I failed at that several times. You probably will too, fail.
- When talking to creationists, it helps to point out the obvious:
Ask them if they realize that trying to actually PROVE the existence of god is extremely blasphemous beyond believe (pun intended). And attempting to prove the the existence of god, is what ID/Creationism is trying to do. To the really religious people, god just IS, it needs no prove whatsoever. To seek it, or demand is blasphemy. It also points out a huge insecurity.

• The lie that is creationism, cannot replace science in the classroom. The Pennsylvania case proves that in a legal sense.
• Science is a corroborated asymptotic truth and religion is just an opinion.
• When creationist say "evolution" is "just" a theory, they are referring to the popular meaning of the word theory, which is speculation. The scientific meaning of theory is a body of work, that has been tested and proved by thousands, or tens of thousands scientists and scholars. And it's really no business of school children to try to disprove something that has been confirmed by thousands of people who have studied the subject for many years. School children should try to understand the subject first, before they attack it, especially with non-science and irrelevant opininion.


From

quote:

"Lastly, although Comfort claimed in advance that "not one jot or tittle" of the text of "The Origin of Species" would be missing from his edition, four entire chapters were omitted."

which 4 chapters were those?


• All so-called religious people are severe atheists in the eyes of all other religions. Atheists just believe in one god less than them.
• Creationists would not believe in gravity, if they didn’t keep tripping over their own hypocrisy. And even then, some don’t really believe in gravity.
• Proving god exists, is like proving Santa Claus exists. There is the same lack of evidence.

Stuff on this thread worth repeating:
• The thing is that science has to be held to meticulous standards, and creationism is this: this Magic man went poof and there was stuff.
• You people are all awfully tolerant. I couldn't be. I rank creationists right up there with holocaust deniers.
• "Fossils were put there by God to test your Faith" Which I always put in context with, "Faith in what, exactly? That the hymn at the beginning of the Bible can only be interepreted literally?
• Fundamentalism is, at it's heart, about comfort. It's easier to not think, not do, not strive for oneself at all, to "give everything over to God." All the good that happens is God's work because he loves you, all the bad that happens is because of Satan and is no fault of your own. It's soothing.
• I've seen geologists state that the mitochondrial record supports evolution without having studied it and biologists stating that astronomy supports an ancient Earth without having studied it and, at its crudest, it look like an argument from faith. Thing is, the geologist knows from her science that the earth is ancient, and the biologist knows the same, and not as a matter of possibility but unequivocally know that the earth is ancient, so they make the assumption that other branches of science support the same without an intimate understanding. Assumption doesn't equal faith.

I admit I didn't get past page 9.

I hope I approach the civility in tone of this site.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: TheSteelGeneral,

quote:

Originally posted by Indrid Cold:
1. when you discuss "YEC or Creationism or teaching/discussing/acknowledging this or that in school" with some people, they take it to mean you're discussing God (or you're "attacking" God so they must "defend" God, etc) That's an UNWARRANTED presumption, and an UNNECESSARY complication.

It's an entirely reasonable assumption and actually it goes even further, they feel you are attacking THEM personally, their right to exist. When you say: "Creationism is BullManure", they hear: "you are a worthless piece of sh--- who doesn't deserve to live"

quote:

2. POLITICS shouldn't even figure into the discussion. YOUR ASSUMPTIONS about "what kind of people" (sneering or praisingly) believe in Creationism (or Religion) shouldn't figure into the discussion.

This is offensive to me and a little naive on your part. Religion IS TOO politics, since religionists have all sorts of priviliges that atheists don't have. THAT is a political decision. There have been votes on these things in Congress, for example, should we exempt churches from taxes, and there are at least seven US states where atheist CAN NOT even hold public office if they are declared atheists.

quote:

3. We can certainly QUESTION and CHALLENGE anyone who puts forth a statement of fact that they themselves cannot EXPLAIN.

Very good one!

quote:

4. So, I would offer this: When discussing Creationism, tell them you're happy to hear their position, but immediately demand (in a friendly, supportive, curious approach) "What part of Scripture supports that position? Let's explore and understand the unimagined depths of Meaning in your Scripture, together". That's not you "attacking" them, it's you pressing and holding them to a firmer grasp of Scripture (and SEPARATING Scripture from mere conjecture and assumption) (...)

Also very good, but i would be too lazy to read the bible to see if they aren't lying to me. Also, "together" ??? Shudder.

quote:

5. Do not feel threatened or angry if they do the same to you, concerning the claims of Science.

Ouch! that actually hurt, but ....

quote:

6. But consider carefully how some here MIGHT be claiming "facts" that they themselves cannot explain about how Science supports their claims (and assumptions) "Oh, I don't know the answer, but by faith I know Science must know the answer" ... is faith.

....with this one you went overboard. Assumption is not faith. You actually set up the logical fallacy known as the Straw Man. No scientist claims that "by faith I know Science must know the answer" or some such. You don't have to believe in science, it does NOT require faith.

quote:

7. Where does Scripture specifically state that the Earth is 6000 years old? (...)

It's a consequence of the "xxx begets yyy " etc. If we assume 25 years between generations, adding it all up will get you 6000 years.

YECers and IDer and Creationists simply have difficulties grasping really big numbers, like ... 100,000 years.

Carl Sagan timeline is really helpful: He said that if we take the time from the Big Bang to now as a calender year, the dinosaurs appeared somewhere in October and disspeared mid November and Mankind's civilisation are the last 5 SECONDS of the year.

Sorry if I was sharp anywhere.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: TheSteelGeneral,

ive said it once, i'll say it a thousand times more if i have to

what someone believes is their right...no matter what it is

Not if they wanna teach my kids lies which will make them make crappy decisions which can be possibly be life threatening.

Teaching obvious and demonstrable lies to kids is not free speech, that's child abuse.

I'm not challenging what they BELIEVE, I am mad about their attempt to corrupt children via the classroom and MY taxdollars, so....

It's certainly their right, but if that belief is directly and immediately harmful to others, it must be discouraged, at the very least. YEC is directly related to dominionism and the belief that this world is temporarily on loan from God and we're not capable of ruining it to the point where we die out. TurboJesus will come down from on high to kill us/save us before God would let that happen.

So, yes, people certainly have the right to be young earth creationists. There is a difference between them having that right and respecting the belief.

Welcome to be boards, BTW, Steel General. And, yes, we are a very polite bunch around here. Don't be scared to throw punches, just keep them above the belt, as you have so far, and you'll do just fine. We always appreciate a new perspective.

And do check out Neil Gaiman when you get a chance, particularly the Sandman series.

i didnt even know what YEC was until you said young earth creationists (im going to assume thats what YEC is)

i'm not 100% sure of what is going on with these people and schools and stuff...but if you're worried about your kids being taught something that you dont want them to be taught at a certain school...couldnt you just send them to a school that teaches whatever you want them to know?

religion isnt taught in schools here in ontario unless the kid goes to a school for a specific religion...its the parent and kids choice if they go to the schools that teach religious stuff...they are never forced to go to those schools (unless of course its their parents that force them)

quote:

Originally posted by TheSteelGeneral:
Not if they wanna teach my kids lies which will make them make crappy decisions which can be possibly be life threatening.

Teaching obvious and demonstrable lies to kids is not free speech, that's child abuse.

I'm not challenging what they BELIEVE, I am mad about their attempt to corrupt children via the classroom and MY taxdollars, so....

and you sort of are challenging what they believe the second you say that what they believe are obvious lies

just as they are challenging what you believe if they say what you believe is an obvious lie

@dweller
Thanks!

@scott
what dweller said, and also: science doesn't require me to believe. That's why it's science.

if you're in Ontario, you don't know how lucky you have it, you're like that NZ guy.

I really resent framing this issue as something which is between equal entities.

the Summary of Judge Jones’ ruling in the Pennsylvania case, where a schoolboard was sued when they wanted to insert Creationism into their schools curriculum:
* ID is not Science
* ID is the progeny of creationism
* Evolutionary theory is not antithetical to religion
* The disclaimer Dover wanted read to students is flawed
* The goal of the ID movement is to foment a revolution
* It is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution

to which i add:
Teaching Creationism to kids is as flawed as teaching them the Easter Bunny is real.

I have debated taking Graeme out of his school but, honestly, the class size keeps drawing me back. He's a very active kid - would probably be ADD in any other classroom - and exceptionally bright. He's one in a class of nine. One teacher, and a teaching assistant. He's in grade two, about to finish grade two math. There's definitely a weighing of the scales, though.

And there is nothing wrong with calling something an obvious lie if it really is one.

Here's the thing: YECers (and you were spot on in figuring out what it is) will tell you that evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics. You can prove with a very simple conversation and a fast-food napkin diagram that if evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, then it is physically impossible for children to clean their rooms. It's just that dumb an argument. You can do that. I have done that. And then, the following Sunday, heard that same person say to a new believer that evolution denies the second law of thermodynamics. That isn't just an obvious lie, it's an obvious deception, and a very common tactic in that camp.

quote:

Originally posted by TheSteelGeneral:
@scott
what dweller said, and also: science doesn't require me to believe. That's why it's science.

if you're in Ontario, you don't know how lucky you have it, you're like that NZ guy.

i just think that if someone says that someone can only believe something if its not harmful to someone else they arent saying that people can believe what they want...they're saying that you can believe what you want as long as i agree with you...doesnt make sense to me...but hey, believe what you want, im not here to judge

i go out of my way to not say what stance i take on the issue of religion...i like to be neutral in these arguments...but i do find it odd that people will always cut apart religious people because they say that god cant be proven...i agree god(s) cant be proven...but nothing in science has been able to prove that there is no such thing as god(s)...the science people want facts from the religious people...and thats ok...but if a religious person asks for proof that god(s) dont exist it causes an uproar from the science side

it cant be proven (right now) either way...no one knows for sure until they die what is real and what isnt when it comes to deities

but yeah, people on both sides need to think about that when they get into this debate with each other


also...which NZ guy do you mean?

nice quote about orcs and Shrugged, btw, i didn't know that one ...
Being a teacher, I can surely advise AGAINST big classes.

can you expand on the napkin and the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

quote:

Originally posted by Dweller in Darkness:
I have debated taking Graeme out of his school but, honestly, the class size keeps drawing me back. He's a very active kid - would probably be ADD in any other classroom - and exceptionally bright. He's one in a class of nine. One teacher, and a teaching assistant. He's in grade two, about to finish grade two math. There's definitely a weighing of the scales, though.

And there is nothing wrong with calling something an obvious lie if it really is one.

Here's the thing: YECers (and you were spot on in figuring out what it is) will tell you that evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics. You can prove with a very simple conversation and a fast-food napkin diagram that if evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, then it is physically impossible for children to clean their rooms. It's just that dumb an argument. You can do that. I have done that. And then, the following Sunday, heard that same person say to a new believer that evolution denies the second law of thermodynamics. That isn't just an obvious lie, it's an obvious deception, and a very common tactic in that camp.

those are some confusing theories...im honestly not sure what to say (more than likely because my knowledge of thermodynamics is limited...like i dont know what the first law is let alone the second)

quote:

Originally posted by TheSteelGeneral:
nice quote about orcs and Shrugged, btw, i didn't know that one ...

Thanks!

quote:

can you expand on the napkin and the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Sure.

The second law states that over time all systems will move towards absolute equilibrium. You draw a graph, time on the x axis, entropy on the y. Draw a line going up the middle at an angle.

Entropy is the state of equilibrium. The natural tendency of a child's room is one of equilibrium, will all possessions scattered more or less equally across all surfaces.

Draw another graph. On the x axis, time, on the y, messiness. Draw your line.

Based on this graph, evolution is as impossible as a child cleaning their room. The person you're talking to will then say, "Ah, but you forgot that the child is an outside actor," to which you respond, "Substitute child with 'mutation and natural selection,," and you're talking about evolution.

I've yet to meet anyone who can argue out of that in a meaningful way.

i sure can't .... am gonna go sleep, chow, and thanks again.

dweller...can you dumb that down about 10 pegs for me please...lol...im still lost...i even did the graphs...but i still cant figure it out...sorry, i like to think that i understand somethings...but a lot of those things i need different wording to figure out