Should creationism be taught as the foundation of science?

[Shad]

With an opinion the conclusion is reached by choosing it, as I have explained to you many times. Facts are forced by evidence, and the conclusion is then a copy / model of what is evidenced.

Yes an opinion can be chosen and the basis of this choice can be deeply flawed as I already pointed out. Perhaps you should attempt to keep up with what I have said and address my questions rather than looping your red herring repeatedly.

 

[McBell]

Yes an opinion can be chosen and the basis of this choice can be deeply flawed as I already pointed out. Perhaps you should attempt to keep up with what I have said and address my questions rather than looping your red herring repeatedly.

It is as though he is trying to convince himself...

 

[Shad]

It is as though he is trying to convince himself...

No I think he has fully convinced himself that his sophistry is valid. However his basic misunderstanding of principles of logic, philosophy and science show that his thinking is very narrow and lacking.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yes an opinion can be chosen and the basis of this choice can be deeply flawed as I already pointed out. Perhaps you should attempt to keep up with what I have said and address my questions rather than looping your red herring repeatedly.

Obviously you do not agree that an opinion is reached by choosing about what it is that chooses. You reach an opinion by sorting out the best option.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And opinion is generally a personal assumption about reality that may or may not be supported by evidence. Universally held concepts or concepts that have enough evidence that one could reasonably claim it to be universally true would be a fact.

It seems that you are having a hard time separating fact from opinion despite saying that "evolutionists" are the ones with this difficulty.

We use different definitions of both fact and opinion. Obviously no matter how many evolutionists agree with you, they would still all be wrong, what you are saying is simply false.

 

[rivenrock]

Only creationism validates both fact and opinion, that is why it should be the foundation of science.

Creationism in no way validates fact. Its version of our origins have been demonstrably proven to be non-factual and yet it continues to make the claim that it is telling a truth story about how we, and our world, came to be. Creationism should be utterly rejected and even the religious should treat it as a allegory and not as fact. It should never be taught in any science class, let alone be considered the foundation of science. The idea is preposterous.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It is as though he is trying to convince himself...

An opinion is the result of choosing about what it is that chooses. It's as simple a logic as 1+1=2, it is obvious and plainly right.

It shows that there is a spiritual domain, which chooses over the material domain.

Anybody who does not choose in stating an opinion, is phony. Is calculating rather than choosing. And this is what I see happening in modern society. Under the influence of evolution theory, they begin to conceive of choosing as sorting out the best result, just as natural selection sorts out the fittest organism. It seems appealing to sort out the best result, who could object to what is best? But it is very quickly shown that people who do this lack spirit, lack emotion, spontaneity. And people become crazy in calculating absolutely everything, really crazy. There is peace in acknowledging the spirit which chooses, as a matter of opinion.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

However there is no objective fact that "red" is the best color. So your opinion is that "red" is the best color. But then we can even re-word this that "red" being "your" favorite color is now also a fact.

Yes, there seems to have been an unfortunate muddling of fact and opinion in this thread.

 

[Shad]

Obviously you do not agree that an opinion is reached by choosing about what it is that chooses. You reach an opinion by sorting out the best option.

No I neither disagree nor agree. I still maintain your incoherent babble says nothing and is sophistry, not even good sophistry. So there is nothing for me to decide on. You have only made unsupportive statements and do nothing to clarify you statements when asked.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Creationism in no way validates fact. Its version of our origins have been demonstrably proven to be non-factual and yet it continues to make the claim that it is telling a truth story about how we, and our world, came to be. Creationism should be utterly rejected and even the religious should treat it as a allegory and not as fact. It should never be taught in any science class, let alone be considered the foundation of science. The idea is preposterous.

I appreciate there are a lot of theistic evolutionists. But to those theistic evolutionists, do you realize that science currently simply does not have a handle on any freedom being real? The mathematics about choosing has not been worked out yet. Is it not important to acknowledge the fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe?

The most famous creationist, the American William Jennings Bryan, said it was inconsequential to him if the creation took 6 days or thousands of years, creationism is not about that. Creationism is about acknowledging the fact that freedom is real and relevant, that things in the universe are chosen, created. It is no coincedence that the creationist movement is mainly American.

There is no way that the USA would be the USA as it is without creationism. There is simply no way that a wishy washy intellectual doubting that freedom is even real provides for a healthy democracy. There is no way that there is any American spirit without direct acceptance of the spirit choosing over the material.

The historical enemies of the free world like nazism and communism, they both denied the reality of freedom appealing to evolution theory. Nazism said that people are predetermined by their genetics, and that it is a matter of fact, not opinion, what emotional disposition people have. Communism was based on dialectical materialism, in which there were inevitable evolutionary stages of societal progress, the higher evolutionary stage being better as a matter of pseudoscientific fact.

So you see whole countries of tens of millions of people can become controlled by an ideology in which the reality of freedom is simply ignored, and what is good and bad is stated as fact. It is a matter ofcourse to acknowledge the obvious fact that freedom is real and relevant, and that it is a matter of opinion what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, no discussion necessary. Do this little thing, and the world is significantly closer to peace.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No I neither disagree nor agree. I still maintain your incoherent babble says nothing and is sophistry, not even good sophistry. So there is nothing for me to decide on. You have only made unsupportive statements and do nothing to clarify you statements when asked.

To any theistic evolutionist, looking at what your fellow evolutionists write as above, isn't it obvious that they do not really accept freedom of opinion?

They only support "opinions" where the conclusion is forced by evidence. Those are ofcourse facts, not opinions. Their support for freedom of opinion is not genuine, they do not accept to choose in forming an opinion.

 

[YmirGF]

To any theistic evolutionist, looking at what your fellow evolutionists write as above, isn't it obvious that they do not really accept freedom of opinion?

They only support "opinions" where the conclusion is forced by evidence. Those are ofcourse facts, not opinions. Their support for freedom of opinion is not genuine, they do not accept to choose in forming an opinion.

It is my opinion, based on ample facts available to anyone to verify, that your position on this matter is clear evidence why the Muslim world has fallen so far back in terms of scientific thought. Further, it will remain so, for generations to come.

 

[Shad]

To any theistic evolutionist, looking at what your fellow evolutionists write as above, isn't it obvious that they do not really accept freedom of opinion?

They only support "opinions" where the conclusion is forced by evidence. Those are ofcourse facts, not opinions. Their support for freedom of opinion is not genuine, they do not accept to choose in forming an opinion.

You seem to confuse freedom of opinion with acceptance/validity of a specific opinion one may hold. People have a right to their opinion, not a right to the validity of their opinion. There is no obligation for one to accept a view just because someone holds opinion X. Opinions can and have been composed of facts and false data. Opinions have a lower amount of certainty than facts so require evaluation to test the validity of an opinion. Hence supporting arguments rather than statements This is how we differentiate between ideas which are valid or not.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It is my opinion, based on ample facts available to anyone to verify, that your position on this matter is clear evidence why the Muslim world has fallen so far back in terms of scientific thought. Further, it will remain so, for generations to come.

It is creationism which is why the USA is the most advanced nation in the world. You are quite mistaken that evolution theory is not prevalent among muslims.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You seem to confuse freedom of opinion with acceptance/validity of a specific opinion one may hold. People have a right to their opinion, not a right to the validity of their opinion. There is no obligation for one to accept a view just because someone holds opinion X. Opinions can and have been composed of facts and false data. Opinions have a lower amount of certainty than facts so require evaluation to test the validity of an opinion. Hence supporting arguments rather than statements This is how we differentiate between ideas which are valid or not.

When you say the painting is ugly, or it is beautiful, each conclusion is equally logically valid. The logical validity of an opinion depends on that the conclusion is chosen. Each conclusion is logically valid, but not all conclusions may be morally acceptable. Opinions which are forced by evidence are not opinions at all, they are facts.

It is patently obvious that Shad and a lot of other evolutionists suppress opinion altogether. Saying opinions have a lower amount of certainty is making opinions into an inferior form of a fact. Shad is certainly no exception, this view is rampant amongst evolutionists.

It is very obvious that materialism, physicalism etc. provides room for statements like, "the earth is round", "the earth goes round the sun". Bravo for materialism. Now the statement, " the earth is beautiful". It does not figure at all in materialism, beauty is not a material thing. It is simply required for a functional concept of subjectivity that as a matter of opinion there is a spiritual domain, which chooses over the material domain.

Remember, nations of tens of millions of people can come under the spell of bizarre ideologies in which freedom is ignored, and what is good and bad is asserted as fact. Remember how insanely far people can and did go with this idea to ignore freedom, and ignore opinion. One should simply.....accept creationism, accept freedom is real and relevant, and accept that an opinion is arrived at by choosing about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.

Theistic evolutionist, the title does not make clear enough that you accept freedom is real, and accept opinion is valid. One should simply and openly support creationism. It does not matter that the choices described in scripture would not be accurate because, science cannot even properly describe any single decision in the entire universe whatsoever, because the mathematics of choosing has not been worked out yet. If science had some better knowledge about how choosing works, okay, then it is time perhaps to reevaluate your interpretation of scripture. But they do not have it at all, the maths about choosing is simply not finished yet.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Now the statement, " the earth is beautiful". It does not figure at all in materialism, beauty is not a material thing.

Beauty is a value judgement, an opinion. It's not a fact. "The earth is round" is a fact. I don't understand why you keep muddling up opinion and fact, it really doesn't make sense.

 

[McBell]

Beauty is a value judgement, an opinion. It's not a fact. "The earth is round" is a fact. I don't understand why you keep muddling up opinion and fact, it really doesn't make sense.

it has to be done to peddle his snake oil.

You notice his posts have lots and lots of words, but really do not say much.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Beauty is a value judgement, an opinion. It's not a fact. "The earth is round" is a fact. I don't understand why you keep muddling up opinion and fact, it really doesn't make sense.

Really you know in my experience evolutionists deliberately make these non-arguments. They pull all sorts of debating tactics, throw everything and the kitchensink at me. There is no honesty on the part of evolutionists that I have ever seen. Like a fair and reasonable, open, debate how choosing works. It simply never happens! They will never consider a concept as like that the spirit chooses, and the existence of the spirit is a matter of opinion. The only practically functional concept of choosing.

This is how it works, you have to fight them, or else freedom is not acknowledged as real and relevant, and opinion is shafted. That's it, evolutionism, the culture around the theory of evolution, is full of evil, I am sorry to say.

 

[McBell]

You notice his posts have lots and lots of words, but really do not say much.

Really you know in my experience evolutionists deliberately make these non-arguments. They pull all sorts of debating tactics, throw everything and the kitchensink at me. There is no honesty on the part of evolutionists that I have ever seen. Like a fair and reasonable, open, debate how choosing works. It simply never happens! They will never consider a concept as like that the spirit chooses, and the existence of the spirit is a matter of opinion. The only practically functional concept of choosing.

This is how it works, you have to fight them, or else freedom is not acknowledged as real and relevant, and opinion is shafted. That's it, evolutionism, the culture around the theory of evolution, is full of evil, I am sorry to say.

See what I mean?

 

[Sapiens]

I am not embarassed at all.

You should be be.

It is required for democracy, having a family, living your life, to accept the fact that freedom is real. Science is not so much wrong as it is weak. Some areas science has covered, some areas science has yet to cover. Freedom is one such thing that science has not covered.

Please define: democracy, freedom and science.

I
I am quite sure I know much better than you the most modern theory where freedom is accepted as a reality.

I have no idea of what you know and do not know, your use of the English language confuscates us all.

But this science is very marginal still, and many issues have not been worked out. I fully support this science, it is making good progress.

If you are a creationist you oppose science, they are incompatible.

What happens when scientists don't acknowledge the fact that freedom is a reality, then when they study human beings, they end up stating as fact who is loving and who is hateful.

I have never had an anthropologist, psychologist, sociologist or, for that matter, any scientist that studied humans express any opinion on who is loving and who is hateful. Perhaps you might provide an example?

The science becomes indistinguishable from a political or religious ideology about what is good, loving and beautiful.

Perhaps you might provide an example?

Only by acknowledging freedom is real can love and hate be considered as a matter of opinion, not fact.

[/quote]Perhaps you might provide an example?

Really you know in my experience evolutionists deliberately make these non-arguments. They pull all sorts of debating tactics, throw everything and the kitchensink at me. There is no honesty on the part of evolutionists that I have ever seen. Like a fair and reasonable, open, debate how choosing works. It simply never happens! They will never consider a concept as like that the spirit chooses, and the existence of the spirit is a matter of opinion. The only practically functional concept of choosing.

This is how it works, you have to fight them, or else freedom is not acknowledged as real and relevant, and opinion is shafted. That's it, evolutionism, the culture around the theory of evolution, is full of evil, I am sorry to say.

Again, I think that the reason you have these thoughts is because you don't use the same dictionary as everyone else. Let's try this, please add these to the definition list: choosing, evolution, creationism.