Should creationism be taught as the foundation of science?

[Sapiens]

With this logic one can distinghuish opinion from fact, and then you get pure facts. Unlike you, whose opinions and facts are in essence pseudoscientific socialdarwinism, facts and opinion rolled into one big mess, because you don't distinghuish fact from opinion.

The term "pseudo-scientific Social Darwinism" is redundant.

Social Darwinism has nothing what-so-ever to do with Darwinism.

 

[McBell]

The term "pseudo-scientific Social Darwinism" is redundant.

Social Darwinism has nothing what-so-ever to do with Darwinism.

now now.
Baby steps.

I have calculated that more than two facts a page and he will be lost for at least two more pages.

 

[Trantorfuzz]

With creationism facts only can be taught in science class. By learning creationism students will be better to distinguish fact from opinion, and produce pure facts in science class, without their opinion mixed into the facts.

What happens now is that students put matters of opinion, like morality, into the scientific fact category. That makes for facts which are prejudiced, and opinion which are asserted as fact.

Take something simple and practical like giving an accurate eyewitness account. If a student knows that to obtain facts one must copy, and not choose, in producing a conclusion, then that is good guidance. It will produce more accurate eye witness accounts, they will have better skills of observation.

Creationism teaches nothing about how to distinguish fact from opinion. Insteqad, it teaches demonstrably false claims. The idea that evolution is an unworkable theory kept alive by dogmatism is demonstrably false. So is the idea that God is necessary in order to construct scientific theories that explain the diversity of life and predict what evidence will be found to support these explanations.

I know of no students of science who make moral judgments a part of biological or physics methodology. This is, rather, the province of creationist pseudo-scientists.

Parts of your post are incoherent. The coherent parts of your post are inaccurate.

 

[psychoslice]

Should creationism be taught as the foundation of science?, no, it would be an embarrassment for science.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Creationism rules because:

1. it validates both opinion and fact, and makes them distinct

compare that to social darwinism, materialism, physicalism etc. those only acknowledge facts. And because of that failure to provide room for opinions, inevitably opinions get to be mixed into the facts.

2. The fact is that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. Creationism is the single big idea in science that deals with this... decisive reality.

3. Creationist theories (intelligent design) about the first decisions by which the universe started, and how organisms are chosen in the DNA system (which DNA is similar to the world in a 3D computergame), are good theories, explaining a lot more than evolution theory ever could.

 

[averageJOE]

3. Creationist theories (intelligent design) about the first decisions by which the universe started, and how organisms are chosen in the DNA system (which DNA is similar to the world in a 3D computergame), are good theories, explaining a lot more than evolution theory ever could.

From Bill Nye: "Do you have a creation model that predicts something will happen in nature?"

IOW's, besides general prophesies like; "there will be great famine in the world, wars between mankind, and great earthquakes", what predictions can creationism make in nature?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

From Bill Nye: "Do you have a creation model that predicts something will happen in nature?"

IOW's, besides general prophesies like; "there will be great famine in the world, wars between mankind, and great earthquakes", what predictions can creationism make in nature?

Ofcourse freedom brings variety. It also predicts intelligently designed organisms, that organisms are chosen as a whole, rather than many independent decisions coming together coincidentally forming a whole. It predicts that much of the DNA contains environmental information, which guides the design of organisms in the DNA world. It predicts organisms developing into adulthood, according to a representation of the organism in the DNA world. It predicts instantaneous creation of complex things at the start of selfcontained systems. That means a system which has many possible configurations which total 0, so that there is no priority for starting with a simple system over a complex system, because they all total 0. It predicts that initial decisions combine with next decisions, so that possibilities around what has been initially decided are more likely to occur, than possibilities far removed from what is initially decided on.

Maybe it predicts that people would form governments based on an idea of choosing what to do, and how to organize the decisionmaking. Or so to say, it does seem strange that the system of government is based on choosing when freedom would not even be real. With creationism it just makes sense that we have governments and people choosing what to do.

 

[averageJOE]

Ofcourse freedom brings variety. It also predicts intelligently designed organisms, that organisms are chosen as a whole, rather than many independent decisions coming together coincidentally forming a whole. It predicts that much of the DNA contains environmental information, which guides the design of organisms. It predicts instantaneous creation of complex things at the start of selfcontained systems. That means a system which has many possible configurations which total 0, so that there is no priority for starting with a simple system over a complex system, because they all total 0. It predicts that initial decisions combine with next decisions, so that possibilities around what has been initially decided are more likely to occur, than possibilities far removed from what is initially decided on.

Maybe it predicts that people would form governments based on an idea of choosing what to do, and how to organize the decisionmaking. Or so to say, it does seem strange that the system of government is based on choosing when freedom would not even be real. With creationism is just makes sense that we have governments and people choosing what to do.

Please explain the model of this and how it works.

 

[metis]

Creationism rules because:

1. it validates both opinion and fact,...

"Creationism" is a religious concept, not a scientific one. No matter how hard someone may try, and many have, there simply is no objective evidence for a "creator". One may believe so on the basis of their faith, but religious faith is not science.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Please explain the model of this and how it works.

Creatio ex nihilo and ex nihilo, nihilo fit. Creation from nothing, and from nothing comes nothing. Or so to say the totality of the universe can only be 0, as shown in the principle an action has an equal and opposite reaction. So you can have something, while the totality of it is nothing.

An object conisists of the laws of nature. The symbols in mathematics are representative of the fundamental units of existence, and not any complex thing like a particle or string or something is a fundamental unit. An object has a future of alternatives, which are just as real and measurable as the object's current state. But they are alternatives, and have the attributes of alternatives, and not the attributes of the current. The object anticipates this future of alternatives. So to describe an object mathematically completely one must also describe it's potential future states, and also it's past states. Time passing is making a future potential, into a current value. That is a decision, so time is then the sequence of decisions. etc.

Also common sense about how choosing works is useful. But one has to be careful to distinguish choosing from sorting. With sorting the result is forced by the sortingcriteria, and this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with any choosing.

 

[metis]

Creatio ex nihilo and ex nihilo, nihilo fit. Creation from nothing, and from nothing comes nothing. Or so to say the totality of the universe can only be 0, as shown in the principle an action has an equal and opposite reaction. So you can have something, while the totality of it is nothing...

Who's saying that our universe came from "nothing"? If somethings go back into infinity, then there would not even be a "nothing".

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

"Creationism" is a religious concept, not a scientific one. No matter how hard someone may try, and many have, there simply is no objective evidence for a "creator". One may believe so on the basis of their faith, but religious faith is not science.

I don't know if you are dense, or trying to misrepresent, but obviously questions about the creator are a matter of opinion, and questions about the creation are a matter of fact.

It simply means that creationism confirms that what is good and evil, loving and beautiful is a matter of opinion, because all those are grounded on the identity of the creator being a matter of opinion.

Creationism does not assert the existence of the creator is a matter of fact, it has with some significant exceptions, always overwhelmingly emphasized faith, opinion, as the way to reach a conclusion about the creator.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Who's saying that our universe came from "nothing"? If somethings go back into infinity, then there would not even be a "nothing".

It is obvious common sense that the 0 is at the center of mathematics, and not infinity. And mathematics describes the universe accurately and exhaustively.

 

[metis]

I don't know if you are dense, or trying to misrepresent, but obviously questions about the creator are a matter of opinion, and questions about the creation are a matter of fact.

It simply means that creationism confirms that what is good and evil, loving and beautiful is a matter of opinion, because all those are grounded on the identity of the creator being a matter of opinion.

Creationism does not assert the existence of the creator is a matter of fact, it has with some significant exceptions, always overwhelmingly emphasized faith, opinion, as the way to reach a conclusion about the creator.

It's pathetic that not only do you not understand the evolutionary process, but neither do you understand how the word "creationism" is used. To help you understand the definition of "creationism", let me provide you with said definitions provided by Dictionary.com:

noun

1.the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

2.the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.

3.the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born. -- Creationism | Define Creationism at Dictionary.com

But I'm sure you think you know so much more about the English language than any English dictionary.

 

[metis]

It is obvious common sense that the 0 is at the center of mathematics, and not infinity. And mathematics describes the universe accurately and exhaustively.

There is no "center of mathematics". What is the center of 1+1+1+1=4?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It's pathetic that not only do you not understand the evolutionary process, but neither do you understand how the word "creationism" is used. To help you understand the definition of "creationism", let me provide you with said definitions provided by Dictionary.com:

noun

1.the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

2.the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.

3.the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born. -- Creationism | Define Creationism at Dictionary.com

But I'm sure you think you know so much more about the English language than any English dictionary.

It's whatever, I explained how I used the term in using it, so your failure to read is your own fault. And the general mode of thought in religion is that both the existence of God and the soul is a matter of faith and revelation, which is a form of opinion. So it is not like I am saying something uniquely idiosyncratic.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There is no "center of mathematics". What is the center of 1+1+1+1=4?

Yes why don't you argue towards 4 instead of arguing towards infinity?

0 is the most simple concept in mathematics, from which other more complex concepts can be built. 4 assumes 0, infinity assumes 0, 0 does not assume 4 or infinity.

 

[metis]

It's whatever, I explained how I used the term in using it, so your failure to read is your own fault. And the general mode of thought in religion is that both the existence of God and the soul is a matter of faith and revelation, which is a form of opinion. So it is not like I am saying something uniquely idiosyncratic.

Just for the record, I only on rare occasions read your posts because all they seemingly contain are childish insults and ignorance of science.

 

[McBell]

Just for the record, I only on rare occasions read your posts because all they seemingly contain are childish insults and ignorance of science.

Glad to know I am not the only one who thinks this

 

[metis]

Yes why don't you argue towards 4 instead of arguing towards infinity?

What is it about the words "There is no "center of mathematics"" that you don't understand. Why would I put "4" as being the center when I just said "There is no center of mathematics"?

Aye, aye, aye, my aching head.