TV and Radio   permalink

Should the teaching of creationism be banned.

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 451 - 466 of 466
  • Message 451

    , in reply to message 450.

    Posted by molliepops (U14819007) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011

    This thread is becoming increasingly bizarre and projecting onto other what you think they are thinking doesn't help, who are you to say everyone but you has "fornication" on their minds all the time, some of us have far more important things to deal with everyday that that. So many other times you assume or tell people what they think or believe and don't ask and listen. I have been brought up to and believe in respecting everyone's beliefs but this fundamentalism is just seeming too unreasoned and is based on assuming everyone else is wrong no matter if they can prove their case or not.

    Report message1

  • Message 452

    , in reply to message 426.

    Posted by Steve Edwards (U10168543) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011

    cyborg_jim:

    In reality, evolution does not exist, because it was not made at any point to even behave randomly. 
    Do you accept that the human zygote is formed when a single male sperm out of about 300 million fuses with a female egg? 


    I do accept that there is a created mechanism which works best when people are perfect and not sinners. Fornicating minds and desires are the biggest problems facing a good physical body and a mind. 
    This mechanism would seem to suggest that at the moment of conception there was only a 1 in 300 million chance of any particular combination being selected. If a different sperm fused with the egg, the resulting DNA would be different. Isn't that a bit random? 



    Considering the acts of evil desires, most human beings turn out realtively well, which is thanks to God for putting a robust system in place to select the right DNA with the right genes. 
    Then why does God seem happy enough to create murderers?

    Report message2

  • Message 453

    , in reply to message 448.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011

    inannapriest:

    "Sociological Reasons Not to Live Together"

    Nowhere on this link does it mention biology. Please answer the question - in your own words. 

    Human behaviour does effect the person as a whole:

    An interesting link Perse, thanks for that. However, it speaks of excitation of the nervous system inducing phyisological change - not a change of morals doing that.  

    Spiritual and physical changes are more acutely associated with young people:

    en.wikipedia.org/wik...



    Report message3

  • Message 454

    , in reply to message 452.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011

    cyborg_jim:

    In reality, evolution does not exist, because it was not made at any point to even behave randomly. 
    Do you accept that the human zygote is formed when a single male sperm out of about 300 million fuses with a female egg? 


    I do accept that there is a created mechanism which works best when people are perfect and not sinners. Fornicating minds and desires are the biggest problems facing a good physical body and a mind. 
    This mechanism would seem to suggest that at the moment of conception there was only a 1 in 300 million chance of any particular combination being selected. If a different sperm fused with the egg, the resulting DNA would be different. Isn't that a bit random? 



    Considering the acts of evil desires, most human beings turn out realtively well, which is thanks to God for putting a robust system in place to select the right DNA with the right genes. 
    Then why does God seem happy enough to create murderers? 


    Then why would God introduce thou shall not kill in the 10 commandments?

    The basis of English law introduced by king Alfred in the 10 th century.

    Report message4

  • Message 455

    , in reply to message 454.

    Posted by IdrisC (U14559473) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011

    Perse
    Then why would God introduce thou shall not kill in the 10 commandments? 

    ... and then follows this by commanding death for such crimes as varied as picking up sticks on the Sabbath and being found not to be virgin on the wedding night (NB - not all virgins have intact hymens)

    Report message5

  • Message 456

    , in reply to message 447.

    Posted by cyborg_jim (U14526842) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011

    After 8 years of posting on these message boards, evolutionists will never get on with creationists, and vice versa. 

    You do seem determined to fulfil that prophecy by refusing to engage in civilise discussion.

    This is entirely your choice of course. It is a matter of public record that I have been more than willing to engage you in sensible discussion - one might even say I am running out of cheeks to turn. At any point you could simply say that you are not interested in discourse and only interested in preaching as it does appear to be the case.

    You can choose to be honest and act with integrity at any point. I don't know whether or not integrity and honesty are Christian principles of course - you could clarify this for me as well if you choose to do so.

    Report message6

  • Message 457

    , in reply to message 454.

    Posted by jakswan (U14812274) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011

    Then why would God introduce thou shall not kill in the 10 commandments? 

    What does that even mean? Euthanasia, abortion, wars, death penalty.

    The 10 commandments are awful you would have thought a God could have done better. Unless they are all actually thought up by man in the Bronze Age then they are you would expect.

    Report message7

  • Message 458

    , in reply to message 360.

    Posted by fos1313 (U14829942) on Monday, 11th April 2011

    Please make up your minds. Is evolution a theory or a fact. Theories not good enough. Fact requires evidence.  every thing we know about evolution is from the evidence we have gathered over more the 100 years. where is your evidence for your sky god. 

    Mathematically disproven.

    Sorry it's back to the drawing board.

    This time use faith. 
    mathematically disproven? what are these magic numbers that disprove evolution. and where are your numbers that prove your supernatural belifes. even if you did disprove every single one of the thousands of pieces of evidance for evloution, from all the diffent scienses it still wouldnt proove god.

    Report message8

  • Message 459

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by silverlinkage (U14828220) on Tuesday, 12th April 2011

    After so much prima donna airhead opinions and so much wild spraying of paint-gun contempt of what some people believe anyone who disagrees with a half-truth (neo-Darwinism) believe in it is a welcome to find a level-headed posting that approaches some balance. There is far, far too much bilious hot air and ignorant waffle surrounding what should be a precise debate.

    Check the Adam and Evolution column for more sense mixed in with orc-like nonsense.

    Report message9

  • Message 460

    , in reply to message 459.

    Posted by Richard Forrest (U9894298) on Tuesday, 12th April 2011

    After so much prima donna airhead opinions and so much wild spraying of paint-gun contempt of what some people believe anyone who disagrees with a half-truth (neo-Darwinism) believe in it is a welcome to find a level-headed posting that approaches some balance 
    In what way is it 'balanced' to post quotations from creationists, neither of whom has a background in evolutionary biology, and one of whom, Michael Behe, conceded under oath that creationism has no more claim to be called science than does astrology, and neither of which offer either evidence nor argument to support their position?
    It's worth noting that the Smalley quotation is of doubtful authenticity in any case - a matter which doesn't seem to bother creationists much. As for the Behe quotation, it is downright disingenuous:
    Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority.  
    Quite, but then nothing is science is based on authority. It's based on evidence and argument. Behe knows this.
    There is no publication in the scientific literature in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books that describe how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. 
    A flat falsehood. Behe was presented with numerous scientific papers describing possible evolutionary pathways for the bacterial flagellum during the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial. He dismissed them as "unconvincing" without even bothering to read them.
    There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. 
    Again, flatly false. There are numerous papers describing such experiments, and numerous papers describing mathematical models for such processes.

    The stunning hypocrisy of this quotation from Behe is that he starts by falsely accusing scientists of arguing from authority, but then proceeds to do exactly that himself!

    Report message10

  • Message 461

    , in reply to message 275.

    Posted by Liberty (U14778368) on Monday, 9th May 2011

    William Dembski is Qualified to make these 'calculations '  

    LOL William Dembski is a ID proponent, a pal of Behe's. He has qualifications in statistics, theology and (I think) psychology.

    He's no more a bona fide scientist than my Aunt Tessie who lives in Wigan and has a parrot for a pet.

    So his hunch is your hunch, then. 
    You obviously have no truck with ID ,but there are a number of highly respected scientists who think ID is a better explantion of Origin of life than the Evoutionary Paradigm. I fail to see that it is at all negative ,Dembskis association with Behe . I got my information from Stephen Meyers book 'Signatute in thCell' which I thought was a convincing read . No doubt you will disagree.

    Report message11

  • Message 462

    , in reply to message 461.

    Posted by halucigenia (U5287989) on Monday, 9th May 2011

    You obviously have no truck with ID ,but there are a number of highly respected scientists who think ID is a better explantion of Origin of life than the Evoutionary Paradigm.   Respected by who I wonder?

    Report message12

  • Message 463

    , in reply to message 81.

    Posted by Liberty (U14778368) on Monday, 9th May 2011

    Well said!

    Report message13

  • Message 464

    , in reply to message 461.

    Posted by Richard Forrest (U9894298) on Wednesday, 11th May 2011

    You obviously have no truck with ID ,but there are a number of highly respected scientists who think ID is a better explantion of Origin of life than the Evoutionary Paradigm 

    I for one have no truck with ID because it is nothing more than "scientific" creationism repacked to evade US laws against the teaching of religion in schools. I have no truck with it because it is dishonest.

    The "Evolutionary Paradigm" - by which I presume you mean evolutionary theory is not an explanation for the origin of life. It's an explanation for how life diversified after it came in to being.

    Of course, by the "Evolutionary Paradigm", ID proponents are referring to the assumption of naturalism fundamental to all science because they want to redefine science to accommodate supernatural explanations. It's an example of the dishonesty of the ID movement that on the one hand they claim that their "theory" has scientific validity, yet on the other hand are demanding that we redefine science so that their "theory" can be considered scientific.

    We don't need to redefine science. It works very well as it is. Something that no ID proponent has told us is how supernatural explanations can add anything to science. They set no constraints on possible outcomes, which makes them impossible to test using the tools of science.

    Report message14

  • Message 465

    , in reply to message 461.

    Posted by Maeght (U13975753) on Monday, 16th May 2011

    Liberty,

    'Signatute in the Cell' sees to have a lot of critics if you look around the web so if RF does disagree he won't be alone in that.

    Report message15

  • Message 466

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by lpilova (U14234193) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    Creationism is fact.

    The evolution theory is nothing but a worthless atheistic fable.

    God Himself said that He created this world in 6 x 24 hour days. Exodus 20:11

    The Holy Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, only teaches 6 day creation.

    Genuine proven science is correct, and supports creationism 100%. Proven science does not conflict with creationism.
     
    Luther

    Don't miss BBC 1 T V tonight Thursday 23rd June 2011, 8 pm Planet of the Apemen: Battle for Earth, it's a special programme to explain some of the history of our shared ancestors, yes yours and mine.

    Take one of your heart tablets sit down, relax and enjoy an evidential journey that has to be more enlightening and informative than dogma; I'd hate to think you missed it.

    If you do reply to thank me, for telling you so that you don't miss it, see if you can do an un-dogmatic answer that's more than two lines, I bet you can't on both counts.

    Regards lpilova

    Report message16

Back to top

About this Board

The BBC Religion and ethics message boards are now closed.

They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available.

Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

We will be introducing a new blog later in the year. Aaqil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion & Ethics, has a blog with more details.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

Opening times:
No longer applicable

This messageboard is post-moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.