Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

While it is true that 'creationism' in and of itself covers a wide range of fields, when it comes down to facing evolution, your degree in another field qualifies you just as much as me with my high school education in Biology. As was said earlier, they could be Mathematical geniuses, but when it comes to evolution, that grasp is worthless in most senses. While I have to agree with Kilkrazy on kudos for doing a great research job and digging out various scientists who support creationism, we're going to have to move past that to actual debate.

Assuming we're debating YEC, I would like to direct you here. A long refutation of a letter which seems to cover most of the tenets of YEC. The biggest argument against YEC in my opinion is that all the evidence is against it. The erosion of natural features simply can't have occurred in a shorter period of time. Moreover, we know that the universe itself MUST be billions of years old thanks to astronomy. The primary way to get heavier elements is for them to be formed through fusion in a star. For the Earth to exist in the way it does now, entire generations of stars must have lived and died before the formation of our solar system.

Also, by adopting YEC and assuming the Bible is 100% accurate we run into even MORE problems when we look at flood geology. Flood geology quite simply doesn't work. If there really was a massive flood that killed all life except for a few individuals that were saved on the Ark then: a) The fossils from the fossil record should be arranged in order of how fast they sink in water, not via a chronological posession. b) Traces of human civilization (and animal life for that matter) should start in one point on Earth and spread out from there, instead we see human civilization spreading out from many different points throughout history.

All this, of course, ignored the fact that 6000 years ago, when the Bible claims Earth was created, there were already civilizations with primitive writing. You might think these people would have noted down that the universe was created, wouldn't you?

What is the form of Creationism/Intelligent Design that Christine O'Donnell wishes to be taught in schools?

It strikes me that if it covers the origin of the universe, the Earth and the entire ecosystem, it goes a lot beyond basic O level/A level science.

I have found a very interesting web site about Creationism, Intelligent Design and the proposals to teach it in schools.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1454

Browsing her website, I can't find anything where she says exactly what she wants taught in ID. However, from my experience (especially spending my freshmen year of high school in a very Evangelical Christian environment) I'd wager that the primary thing when it comes to ID in schools is teaching that evolution is not the only acceptable theory out there for the origins of life, and that intelligent design is a valid opposing view.

As to my long retort...I was more attacking YEC in general instead of discussing whether or not it should be taught in schools. I'll drop that path of argument if that's not where this debate is going.

On a topic much more related to the OP, here's a quote from her website.

Christine O'Donnel Website wrote: Naturally, the liberal media are misrepresenting the [see forum posting rules]-O'Donnell debate at Widener Law School earlier today. Christine O'Donnell asked Chris [see forum posting rules], "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?"

The liberal media are apparently both too dumb and too biased to understand that was not a reference request, but a challenge to a presumption.

Source: Christine O'Donnel Website

Edit: ...And apparently the dakka word filter is not letting me refer to the last name of O'Donnell's opponent as it is potentially a racial slur for those of African descent.....Is it possible to let that slide here?

The filter is automatic, and would require reprogramming.

If Intelligent Design is to be a credible alternative to evolution it ought to be susceptible of a reasonable proof.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It seems to me that at the moment it is a circular argument, more properly, it suffers from the fallacy of false cause.

Frazzled wrote:

Tyyr wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is shouting going to help?

The issue of creationism and religion is the core point in the whole thread, since the argument over the First Amendment is whether it applies to religion in schools and whether creationism is religion.

1) Schools are run by the government so DUH yes it applies.
2) Unless you intend to teach the creation story of every single religion in existence then yes, teaching only judeo-chrisitian literal 6 days 8,000 years ago creationism is a violation of the amendment.

How is this actually a question?

Again...teach evolution. Teach in the same dull manner I was taught. No one will care or even pay attention. Just bring an alarm clock to wake people up.

Are you saying that creationism/ID should be taught alongside evolution because it's more exciting? Not sure what exactly it is that you're getting at. . .

Guys...I wasn't trying to "prove" this or that. I was merely answering killkrazies concern about wanting me to back my statement about scientists that are creationists. You see there is this myth that atheists push, that you can't be a "legitimate" scientist unless you believe in macro evolution or subscribe to the party line of a 4.something billion year old earth. You know they believe that people that are creationists are nothing more than guys that live in trailer parks and watch the bug zapper all day.

The FACT is.... that not all scientists agree. Even creation scientists differ on certain aspects of this field of study. It's a relatively young field, and yes there have been some real bad eggs doing BAD science. That doesn't mean that you throw the baby out with the bath water.

I was particularly surprised that some heavy hitters in the field are from Australia. I bet that makes Sebby angry. :-)

And to go back to gorgon..there were some major guys in the biochemistry field in those lists I posted.

The reason why creationism encompasses more than just biochemistry and biology is that if you can show that the earth really isn't 4.something billion years old(for example say... 6 thousand years that a YEC would subscribe to) than the theory of macro evolution falls apart even more.

Time is a very important aspect of the argument and a biology guy can't help you very much when your looking at the complicated aspects of physics. That's why there are scientists from many aspects in the field of study.

GG

rubiksnoob wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Tyyr wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is shouting going to help?

The issue of creationism and religion is the core point in the whole thread, since the argument over the First Amendment is whether it applies to religion in schools and whether creationism is religion.

1) Schools are run by the government so DUH yes it applies.
2) Unless you intend to teach the creation story of every single religion in existence then yes, teaching only judeo-chrisitian literal 6 days 8,000 years ago creationism is a violation of the amendment.

How is this actually a question?

Again...teach evolution. Teach in the same dull manner I was taught. No one will care or even pay attention. Just bring an alarm clock to wake people up.

Are you saying that creationism/ID should be taught alongside evolution because it's more exciting? Not sure what exactly it is that you're getting at. . .

Not at all. Teach the scientific theory of evolution in science class. But they have to suffer just like I did with the craptacularly boring presentation starting with the monk and his stupid plant experiments, which lead to both the concepts of evolution and dominant/recessive genes. It needs to be as spectacularly lame as the lobotomy class I had to sit through. Chemistry was way more interesting.

Frazzled wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Tyyr wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is shouting going to help?

The issue of creationism and religion is the core point in the whole thread, since the argument over the First Amendment is whether it applies to religion in schools and whether creationism is religion.

1) Schools are run by the government so DUH yes it applies.
2) Unless you intend to teach the creation story of every single religion in existence then yes, teaching only judeo-chrisitian literal 6 days 8,000 years ago creationism is a violation of the amendment.

How is this actually a question?

Again...teach evolution. Teach in the same dull manner I was taught. No one will care or even pay attention. Just bring an alarm clock to wake people up.

Are you saying that creationism/ID should be taught alongside evolution because it's more exciting? Not sure what exactly it is that you're getting at. . .

Not at all. Teach the scientific theory of evolution in science class. But they have to suffer just like I did with the craptacularly boring presentation starting with the monk and his stupid plant experiments, which lead to both the concepts of evolution and dominant/recessive genes. It needs to be as spectacularly lame as the lobotomy class I had to sit through. Chemistry was way more interesting.

Ah. Gotcha. I thought it was interesting, but that's just me. I don't have a legion of wiener dog warriors at my beck and call though, so my opinion is probably nowhere near as valuable as yours

rubiksnoob wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Tyyr wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is shouting going to help?

The issue of creationism and religion is the core point in the whole thread, since the argument over the First Amendment is whether it applies to religion in schools and whether creationism is religion.

1) Schools are run by the government so DUH yes it applies.
2) Unless you intend to teach the creation story of every single religion in existence then yes, teaching only judeo-chrisitian literal 6 days 8,000 years ago creationism is a violation of the amendment.

How is this actually a question?

Again...teach evolution. Teach in the same dull manner I was taught. No one will care or even pay attention. Just bring an alarm clock to wake people up.

Are you saying that creationism/ID should be taught alongside evolution because it's more exciting? Not sure what exactly it is that you're getting at. . .

Not at all. Teach the scientific theory of evolution in science class. But they have to suffer just like I did with the craptacularly boring presentation starting with the monk and his stupid plant experiments, which lead to both the concepts of evolution and dominant/recessive genes. It needs to be as spectacularly lame as the lobotomy class I had to sit through. Chemistry was way more interesting.

Ah. Gotcha. I thought it was interesting, but that's just me. I don't have a legion of wiener dog warriors at my beck and call though, so my opinion is probably nowhere near as valuable as yours

Nah, that particular class was just mind numbing.

generalgrog wrote:
The FACT is.... that not all scientists agree. Even creation scientists differ on certain aspects of this field of study. It's a relatively young field, and yes there have been some real bad eggs doing BAD science. That doesn't mean that you throw the baby out with the bath water.

Actually, according to the paradigmatic approach to the scientific method, it almost always does.

That said, at least to the extent that any attempt at offering scientific proof of God is confined to wasting the time of the scientist in question, "creation science" (in quotes because the idea that there is creation science and regular science is nonsense, its either science or it isn't) isn't really harmful. The issue comes when we want to teach it high school classrooms as though it were widely accepted, or logically valid when compared to evolutionary theory.

generalgrog wrote:
The reason why creationism encompasses more than just biochemistry and biology is that if you can show that the earth really isn't 4.something billion years old(for example say... 6 thousand years that a YEC would subscribe to) than the theory of macro evolution falls apart even more.

However, as I've said dozens of times now, the fact that one theory is wrong does not mean that another theory is correct. In order for a creationist to develop scientific proof for his position he would have to develop a testable hypothesis regarding not only the age of the Earth (ie. the Earth can be shown to be X number of years old, not just that the Earth can be shown to not be 4 billion years old) , but also develop a testable hypothesis which, if proven, would indicate that God created the world.

Mark this day down...because it was today that dogma and I agreed.

A day that shall live in infamy!

GG

generalgrog wrote:
He is a scientist no matter how much you would like to smear him.

Whether or not someone is a scientist isn't relevant. One person can be a scientist, perfectly adhering to the scientific method in one aspect of his inquiry, and then abandon all of this scientific rigor in another aspect of his inquiry. Such a person would still be a scientist, but simply being a scientist does not mean that everything someone does is scientific.

generalgrog wrote:
Now.. go back and look at all those other guys I posted and pick them apart as well. You may be able to pick a few but you won't be able to smear all of them.

Well, there's actually a pretty clear way of doing it. One would go look at the body of work created by each person, and then critically examine it for scientific rigor; particularly focusing on the extent to which their findings confirm their espoused creationist position, as opposed to merely pointing out weaknesses in established research and theory. That's a lot of work for a message board, but to say that there is no way to "smear" (in quotes because what I'm actually describing is just the academic process) these people is just wrong.

You're saying that these people do good science which helps to prove a sort creationist hypothesis, and that anyone who says that they don't is smearing them. We're saying that they don't do good science, and that saying something like that about a particular scientist is part of science.

If you want something to be regarded as science, then you need to be willing to let it stand scientific scrutiny, not talk about how people are being 'smeared' when their results are attacked.

Also, for its worth, Wise is a good scientist. He believes in a literalist creationism, but he also openly acknowledges that the work he does has no scientific value with respect to proving that sort of thing.

And back to disagreeing.....I never said that all of them do good science. How can I say that, without researching everything they do. I merely pointed out that these are scientists that back creationism in one way or another.

GG

Well Dogma seems to have covered everything I could have said. Is there anything else? Apart from the 'he quoted Dawkins therefore he's just a zealot' non answer.

How is 'creation science' a new field? All the answers are in one book that's thousands of years old. The only new part is the change of title from theology to 'creation science'.

Just out of interest are there any non Christian 'creation scientists', like Hindu ones or something? Now those would be some interesting results to compare. How old do Hindus think the earth and the universe is?

I found biology fascinating, because I was learning how bits of me work.

In chemistry you can blow stuff up, of course, and I enjoyed that too.

I'm still not getting why Christine O'Donnell wants Creationism to be taught in schools, because it is unconstitutional that it isn't, when the leading Intelligent Design Science foundation in the country does not want Intelligent Design taught in schools, because it would be unconstitutional.

generalgrog wrote:And back to disagreeing.....I never said that all of them do good science. How can I say that, without researching everything they do. I merely pointed out that these are scientists that back creationism in one way or another.

GG

Sure, and I never said that all the science scientists do has to be good. I assumed that you're offering these people up as examples of individuals that do good science, because otherwise the fact that they have PhDs and have worked at major research universities isn't relevant.

I'm just saying that being a scientist doesn't indicate that everything someone does is scientific, so offering up the fact that some scientists are Young Earth Creationists doesn't support the idea that the Creationist theory is valid, testable, or supported by empirical, freely accessible evidence.

Remember, you can be a scientist and a nut job in the same way you can be a country yokel watching bugs die flying into a zapper, and a genius.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:
Just out of interest are there any non Christian 'creation scientists', like Hindu ones or something? Now those would be some interesting results to compare. How old do Hindus think the earth and the universe is?

I think you'd most likely find them in Judaism or Islam, as Hinduism and Buddhism don't have the same sort of problems caused by a temporally defined creation story that the Abrahamic faiths do.

dogma wrote:Sure, and I never said that all the science scientists do has to be good. I assumed that you're offering these people up as examples of individuals that do good science, because otherwise the fact that they have PhDs and have worked at major research universities isn't relevant.

Again(for the third time?).... I was asked to provide examples of scientists that back creationism(including those from Ivy League schools)...that is all I was doing. There are only a few people on those list's that I have done any reading or study on. Gentry,Ross,Behe,Wise to name some.

And to be honest there are many many many more scientists that back creation out there, but the dozen or so I posted were the major ones I could quickly get references about where they work and their education credentials.

GG

Wait, why exactly can't both creationism AND evolution both be right. Obviously the earth being 6000 years makes little sense, but I didn't think the bible actually gave an exact date on when the earth was created.

Mike Noble wrote:Wait, why exactly can't both creationism AND evolution both be right. Obviously the earth being 6000 years makes little sense, but I didn't think the bible actually gave an exact date on when the earth was created.

It makes little sense when you have presupposed attitudes and follow uniformitarianism. Also I think what you describe as "creationism AND evolution both being right" would be something a theistic evolutionist believes. I.E. they believe in macro evolution but believe that God started the process.

GG

Mike Noble wrote:Wait, why exactly can't both creationism AND evolution both be right. Obviously the earth being 6000 years makes little sense, but I didn't think the bible actually gave an exact date on when the earth was created.

Actually, it does in a round-about sort of way. Leviticus gives a genealogy of David from Adam, including how long each person lived. If you add them up, the oldest the earth can be is about 6000 years.

Mike Noble wrote:Wait, why exactly can't both creationism AND evolution both be right. Obviously the earth being 6000 years makes little sense, but I didn't think the bible actually gave an exact date on when the earth was created.

The Bible itself does not give a specific date, however it does give the life spans of a lot of people starting from Adam, and going up to Jesus(?) or at least someone who we have a historical record of. From that, we're able to guess when the Bible said God created the universe. The date of creation at approximately 4000 B.C. comes from one James Ussher , an Irish Archbishopn in the English Civil War era.

For you non-Americans, it might be useful to understand that the political debate on teaching creationism/intelligent design in public schools is part of a longer story concerning the separation of church and state. The older and now mostly defunct issue was prayer in public schools, an argument which proponents of prayer in public schools so unequivocally lost that it can no longer muster the vote-generating political controversy that it once did. Conservative politicians have therefore replaced it with the teaching creationism/intelligent design issue. This is not to say that there aren't folks out there who are really concerned about teaching this stuff in public schools--it's just that the politicians that they vote into office to do it are almost never actually on board after winning (wisely so). It's kind of a sideshow issue, really, given the utter failure of its predecessor. The real religio-political rainmaker is of course anti-abortion. And the story there is exactly the same, except its inception came from a major loss, Roe v. Wade, whereas the prayer in school issue died in the Supreme Court. Anti-abortion politicians have at several times in thirty years since Roe been in control of all three branches of the American federal government and still accomplished no significant reversal of that regime. And this i much more the case with the "little cousin" issue of teaching creationism/intelligent design in public schools. In this country, creationism/intelligent design is not much debated as science. It is almost only a part of the national public life as a political issue. In those cases, its proponents--like Christine O'Donnell in this particular instance--explicitly rule out talking about it on its own merits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also:



/b/ face?



Has 4chan picked up on this yet? I haven't been there for ages and ages.

Oh, I understand perfectly. I'm only listed as British thanks to my Uni....I was born and raised in California, and I am a registered Republican.

I have to agree with you completely, Manchu. The issue religious right politicians have always had is not whether or not Creationism/ID/whatever they're calling it today, is good science, and more an attempt to want to install their religious/moral viewpoints upon the populace. This is why I think the gaffe by Ms. O'Donnell is particularly bad. She does not even realize that the Constitution she allegedly espoused prohibits the barrier between Church and State, and the fact that she is running as a Consitutionalist yet does not even understand the basic tenets of the document she wants to uphold is enough for me to want to NOT vote for her. I like the idealistic view of libertarianism, but in order for it to have the slightest chance at all of working the politicians need to understand the document, instead of just using it as a shield for their own political/religous/moral viewpoints.

I say religious right because as far as my experience stretches, not all conservatives or Republicans count themselves as SOCIAL conservatives which is the issue at hand. I personally feel that the social conservative side of the Republican party is part of why we have a bit of a bad rap, especially amongst liberals. As I recall, when I was supporting McCain in '08, most of the questions directed at me were about the social issues, and how I could support opposition to gay marriage and abortion. (Which I don't, just fyi.) Fiscal conservatism is honestly still what I view as the central tenet of the GOP, and I really really wish the party leadership would focus more on that strength instead of wasting their energy and resources on socially conservative issues that, as Manchu said, have been proven time and time again to be a lost cause.


Edit: I'm not sure if they have....I'm too scared to go and look.

Kilkrazy wrote:I found biology fascinating, because I was learning how bits of me work.

I bet I know which bits you were focused on.

Wait, why exactly can't both creationism AND evolution both be right. Obviously the earth being 6000 years makes little sense, but I didn't think the bible actually gave an exact date on when the earth was created.

That's how I always felt about it. I'm an athiest, but from a consistency standpoint, I never understood why people assume that God will use magical effects to do things. I mean, he created everything. The world we see around us is how he likes to do things. For example, if he wants a tree, he makes it out of an acorn, some dirt, water, and sunlight.

So, why would he make humans with magic handwave?

He'd make them the way everything gets made.

Regardless, teaching creationism in schools can and should be done in an intelligent way. A lot of people believe in it. Even some scientists. So you teach it like "another major belief, held my about x% of Americans, is creationism, which...."

I realize that some people think it's SO stupid that it shouldn't even be shown to children, but I would make two points in retort to that:

1) If you're going to go around forcing people to be educated as you see fit, you're a couple strange election cycles, or a couple SCOTUS appointments away from ONLY creationism being taught. So don't be a dick.

2) The same people who think creationism is foolish nonsense are so often the same people who think that eastern religions are fascinating. If the way that people explain their world in theological terms is interesting and important to know, it doesn't matter if it's a familliar variation, it's still important to know.

LASTLY, since nobody is really touching on it, I think it's annoying that they're labelling this a "gaffe." She didn't misspeak, she made a "preaching to the choir" point that all conservatives are aware of, because it's part of their dialog.

The secular left likes to suggest that one can't use one's faith in making political decisions because "separation of church and state is in the Constitution."

This is flawed in two ways:

1) As she says, the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, it's actually in the personal writings of one of the FFs (Jefferson I think). The 1st Amendment is closely related to this, but all it REALLY says is that there will be no State Religion.

2) Even if the church and state are kept separate, and are not integrated entities, people are still allowed to use their faith to make decisions. They can explain why they reach the conclusion they do, and then people can vote for that idea/person, or not. If you disagree with abortion because flying spaghetti monster hates it, and you say so, and everyone agrees and votes for you, THAT'S FINE. Just don't try to make FSM the state religion when you're elected.

It's endlessly annoying to me how little awareness the left has of the conservative dialog. Because the left's dialog dominates the media, Hollywood, etc. everyone is aware how the left sees things, how they iinterpret history, how it all fits together for a liberal.

For the right, there's a dialog, and it's going on every day with the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. but when any part of it comes into the headlines and is divergant from the left's version of reality, the left is horribly confused, and thinks it's all a big mistake, or "gaffe."

It's not a gaffe. It's what half the country is talking about, while the other half is patting itself on the back for being so moral and open minded, and also totally ignoring the opinions of the other half.

Or, I guess I should say, it IS a gaffe, insofar as a conservative candidate has to understand what the liberal dominated media will allow them to say. There is a whole section of debate that's not allowed, and if you let any of it out in front of liberals, they're going to freak out and screech about it like you're a crazy person. Doesn't matter if ALL your friends talk that way, liberals don't, and they are totally intolerant of dissent that they haven't adopted as one of their "pet classes."

Oh, and lastly, yes, Christine O'Donnell is a complete idiot. She's a tactless mouthpiece for conservative ideology that she only dimly understands. But, whatever. She's still being (deliberately) misrepresented.

The same distortion, oversimplification, and just plain ignorance of the other side's views happens on both major sides of the political divide. Fox News is not a better or more honest source of journalism than MSNBC just because you agree with them. And vice versa. It's terribly ironic for you to portray the Liberal perspective as monolithic, when you consider the contradictory mass of opinions making it up, which are sufficiently disparate to prevent the Democratic party from getting serious changes made even when they've got clear majories in both houses of Congress, and hold the White House.

Plenty of liberals are religious as well, or respectful of religious people's natural inclination to include their religious values in their decision-making process. That being said, there is a legimate concern that laws should be make on the basis of secular reasoning for the common good, as binding another citizen by the principles of your religion is contrary to the principles of freedom central to the Constitution and its amendments.

Separation of church and state is the design and intention of the 1st amendment. The idea being that keeping the ink out of the drinking water is better for both, even if you agree that both are useful and good things within their own spheres.

The phrase "wall of separation" between church and state specifically originates from Thomas Jefferson's famous Letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he politely explains to them why he would not declare a national day of prayer.

Phryxis wrote:
Regardless, teaching creationism in schools can and should be done in an intelligent way. A lot of people believe in it. Even some scientists. So you teach it like "another major belief, held my about x% of Americans, is creationism, which...."

I realize that some people think it's SO stupid that it shouldn't even be shown to children, but I would make two points in retort to that:

Speaking only for myself, I don't have a problem with creationism being taught in schools insofar as it isn't taught as science. When major proponents of the theory acknowledge that there is no scientific support for it, then it has no business being mentioned in high school science classrooms. This ties back to what I mentioned earlier regarding hypothesis creation and testing, and the absence of evidence supporting core creationist assertions. We don't teach string theory in high school either, for largely similar reasons (plus complexity).

I mean, we can talk about the preference granted to uniformitarianism all we want, but its simply the default position regarding any instance in which immediate observation is the foundation of inquiry. Even creationists would have to presuppose such a system if they want science, any science, to have any sort of use at all.

There's not much use in uncovering the physical laws of the universe if they can change at random.

Phryxis wrote:
1) As she says, the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, it's actually in the personal writings of one of the FFs (Jefferson I think). The 1st Amendment is closely related to this, but all it REALLY says is that there will be no State Religion.

Well, there's also the bit about laws that grant preference to a particular religion, but in general I think the specific language of that section is pretty much meaningless. The separation of Church and State is what follows from the absence of a State Religion.

Phryxis wrote:
2) Even if the church and state are kept separate, and are not integrated entities, people are still allowed to use their faith to make decisions. They can explain why they reach the conclusion they do, and then people can vote for that idea/person, or not. If you disagree with abortion because flying spaghetti monster hates it, and you say so, and everyone agrees and votes for you, THAT'S FINE. Just don't try to make FSM the state religion when you're elected.

Yeah, that's definitely true.

Mike Noble wrote:Wait, why exactly can't both creationism AND evolution both be right. Obviously the earth being 6000 years makes little sense, but I didn't think the bible actually gave an exact date on when the earth was created.

Bishop Ussher worked it out from information given in the Bible correlated with other historical sources.

Kilkrazy wrote:I found biology fascinating, because I was learning how bits of me work.
***I liked marine biology. PLus my team were a bunch of stoners and heads, wait, what did that make me???

In chemistry you can blow stuff up, of course, and I enjoyed that too.
****Yea that was seriously fun. Flicking toothpicks soaked in low concentration nitro BANG!

I'm still not getting why Christine O'Donnell wants Creationism to be taught in schools, because it is unconstitutional that it isn't, when the leading Intelligent Design Science foundation in the country does not want Intelligent Design taught in schools, because it would be unconstitutional.
***Who cares? She said she's not a witch. I'm no longer interested. I wanted to see a Senator flying into the main chamber on a broom shouting "I'll get you my pretties!!!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mike Noble wrote:Wait, why exactly can't both creationism AND evolution both be right. Obviously the earth being 6000 years makes little sense, but I didn't think the bible actually gave an exact date on when the earth was created.

It can, without any difficulty whatsoever.

***Who cares? She said she's not a witch. I'm no longer interested. I wanted to see a Senator flying into the main chamber on a broom shouting "I'll get you my pretties!!!"

A. It would be fun to watch.
B. I totally thought that was the swear fiter kicking in there for a moment.