permalink for this thread : http://search.catflaporama.com/post/browse/529798977
ThePrisoner Posted on 9/3 18:40
Creationists in Coulby Newham

The disgraceful brain-washing of children continues apace in the Boro. I can't believe that this is happening in this country in this day and age.

Link: Mentally ill people running schools

eddierainbow Posted on 9/3 18:44
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

good old creationists. who do these scientists think they are kidding with their evolution talk, backed up with facts, statistics and evidence?

squiffypants Posted on 9/3 18:46
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

What's happening? That schools are teaching creationism or that people who fail job interviews occasionally lie about why they failed?

squiffypants Posted on 9/3 18:49
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Point 1 - I am not a creationist.

Point 2- It's the "theory" of evolution, not the "scientific fact" of evolution. Something may come along to blow the whole theory out of the water as has happened in the past with water tight thories. Just ask Einstein.

I don't think schools should be teaching ceationism as fact, nor that they should be teaching evolution as fact.

ThePrisoner Posted on 9/3 18:55
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"What's happening? That schools are teaching creationism"

Yes. Vardy is a creationist who is sponsoring schools through this shameful PFI scheme and the headmaster McQuoid is an infamous creationist/fundamentalist - with the accent on the last three syllables.

There is a vast body of evidence for evolution so deserves to be taught in the same manner as any other scientific theory. Creationism needs to be treated as the mythology that it is i.e. fiction.

Nobody wants to stop these people believing whatever they want, so long as they keep it in private.

YodaTheCoder Posted on 9/3 19:01
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"It's the "theory" of evolution"

Yes, but the word "theory" when used in a scientific context is an idea that has been verified by observation or experimentation.

eddierainbow Posted on 9/3 19:04
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

It's like he's training up his own Hitler-esque Vardy Youth. it really shouldn't be allowed. as far as i can see he's putting millions of pounds into schools, offering normal english, maths and other education with a rider that you have to be brainwashed into believing this creationist nonsense. string them up i say.

The_Commisar Posted on 9/3 19:13
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

and he sponsored the makems..........to the barricades brothers !

fatknackerlardarse Posted on 9/3 19:23
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

The money was actually poured in by the Government and Vardy.

Can I just ask and this goes out to all of you, have any of your children ever attended this Academy?

The_Commisar Posted on 9/3 19:25
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Nope, don't have kids, and if I did, I wouldn't want them to go to a school that taught such views, same as I wouldn't want them to go to a school that taught that anti-semitism was ok.

mm40 Posted on 9/3 19:33
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

I know children who go to this school and some of the teachers, its an excellent school that achieves very good results for education. The only reason this is in the limelight is because its dead easy to criticise anything to do with christianity or chuch.

eddierainbow Posted on 9/3 19:40
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

the christianity point is largely irrelevant. this is a matter of science and education. roman catholic schools are not being criticised, for example, it's the creationism aspect

The_Commisar Posted on 9/3 19:42
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

mm40
the simple fact is that by teaching such rubbish they are encouraging kids to think scientific evidence is wrong.
It's not a great leap from teaching crap like creationism to the s**te that the B_N_P come out with.
There is no evidence, proof, factual basis, substance in creationsism, intelligent design or any such phooey. We left those sort of views in the middle ages.

mm40 Posted on 9/3 19:46
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

The evidence for evolution is also flawed, so in fairness there are two arguments although I agree both should be taught.

ThePrisoner Posted on 9/3 19:49
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"The evidence for evolution is also flawed"

And that flaw is? Though to be fair maybe you should contact Nature first to tell them before you spill the beans on fly me!

GibbosEmpire Posted on 9/3 19:50
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

One thing Ive never understood with the Evolution theory.

And that is if we evolved from primates,how come there are still primates alive on this planet that have NOT changed any characteristics in millions of years.

Anyone explain that one to me??

--- Post edited by GibbosEmpire on 9/3 19:52 ---

mm40 Posted on 9/3 19:55
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

the prisoner - one other theory for the evolutionists. Louis Pasteur one of the gretaest scientists proved that life has to come from life and this was called the Law of Biogenesis "No life has ever been observed to arise from non-living matter"
So were did we come from if you believe evolution?

The_Commisar Posted on 9/3 19:58
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

why don't primates continue to evolve...
when an organism finds a bit of the planet/environment it can exploit to the best potential it puts it's bag down says "this will do"
Chimps and orangutangs etc all reached this point, they could exploit their bit of the environment enough to guarantee survival, mutations and changes that took place did not give the new "strains" enough of an advantage for them to become dominant.

The example used by Darwin (I think) was finches, some finches exploit certain environments better than others, they don't need to change any more.

O've linked to an excellent site, the guy who wrote the article started to get offensive mails from the Christain right because he dared to diasgree.

Link: Evolution explained

squiffypants Posted on 9/3 20:02
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Yoda, don't edit my posts so my original post is misrepresented.

I stand by the following statement.

**It's the "theory" of evolution, not the "scientific fact" of evolution. Something may come along to blow the whole theory out of the water as has happened in the past with water tight theories. Just ask Einstein.**

There are plenty of gaps in the theory of evolution. It has never been "verified". Evidence, and plenty of it, supports the theory but it is yet to be proved and there is mounting evidence from recent scientific breakthroughs such as genetics, micro-biology etc which throw serious doubt on the whole idea of natural selection.

Where people go wrong, in my opinion, is assuming that casting doubt on the Theory of Evolution somehow strengthens the case for Creationism.

I believe Darwin is a damn site closer to the truth than the Creationists but I'm not buying is as a fact. Not yet.

As for the school and religious beliefs, if they teach creationism and people buy that and are happy their kids get a good education there what the f**k has that got to do with anyone else?

Sparky_Lightbourne Posted on 9/3 20:02
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

two classic errors there.

humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, humans did not evolve from primates.

evolution describes what it says on the tin, evolution. The origins of life ie the spark that set it all going is separate debate.

GibbosEmpire Posted on 9/3 20:04
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

So what did Humans elvove from ??

What did a human start out as?

The_Commisar Posted on 9/3 20:04
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Remind me, just when was Passteur writing ?

Theres a few straws being clutched I suspect.

ThePrisoner Posted on 9/3 20:06
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"the prisoner - one other theory for the evolutionists. Louis Pasteur one of the gretaest scientists proved that life has to come from life and this was called the Law of Biogenesis "No life has ever been observed to arise from non-living matter"
So were did we come from if you believe evolution?"

As I understand it Pasteur observed that bugs didn't spontaneously appear in a sterile medium. Thank goodness for that, otherwise we'd all be catching all-sorts of disases without neding to be infected. Unfortunately he then extrapolated this to come up with this so-called law.

What he had no knowledge of was the fact that amino acids can be formed from basic chemicals under certain conditions and that these can combine to from more complex compounds that can develop replicatory ability and these replicators evolve into what we call living organisms. To be fair to Pasteur he would have had to wait a few hundred million years to see it.

On the other hand it's so easy to say "I don't get it so God must have done it!". Take that line and we'd all still be living in caves. Those of us who hadn't already succumbed to disease before the age of 20.

Sparky_Lightbourne Posted on 9/3 20:07
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

squiffy, when do you accept something as fact? or how do you define truth, particularly in sythetic propositions?

Sparky_Lightbourne Posted on 9/3 20:11
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

suggest you read the link gibbo.

Link: hominids agogo

GibbosEmpire Posted on 9/3 20:13
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

So we are all Homos then?

ThePrisoner Posted on 9/3 20:17
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"So we are all Homos then?"

Well I definitely intend to be erectus later on.

squiffypants Posted on 9/3 20:17
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"evolution describes what it says on the tin, evolution. The origins of life ie the spark that set it all going is separate debate."

No it doesn't. The actual basis of evolutionary thought is on the assumption that life was created from non-life by natural processes. Primordial soups and what not. It has been around a lot longer than Darwin. Darwin basically refined the idea by adding the idea of natural selection which was the natural mechanism used by life to continue to evolve.

It is based on the common ancestor. One chemical change in one warm pool somewhere on earth which became "life" and eventually evolved into all life on earth. Darwin himself admitted that it would only take the discovery of one complex organism that could be proved to not have evolved from a simpler organism and his entire theory would be in shambles.

The whole idea is based on gradual change, which is where most people start to see a potential problem. The old "so a fish grew legs and started to breath?" thing.

Modern scientific methods are hinting at exactly this. Complex life forms that have no common route back to that spark as you put it, hence the theory collapses.

Sparky_Lightbourne Posted on 9/3 20:26
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

no you are wrong. the origins of life are not part of biological evolution but rather abiogenesis, the development of life forms non-biological origins or if you are of that bent, a divne spark.

Modern evolutionary thought is not entirely based on gradual change either so most people don't know what they are on about, yet again.

--- Post edited by Sparky_Lightbourne on 9/3 20:27 ---

squiffypants Posted on 9/3 20:27
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"squiffy, when do you accept something as fact? or how do you define truth, particularly in sythetic propositions?"

An excellent question and one that demands a lot of thought.

There are things we believe, even though we have no proof or our proof is flawed, and things we believe as we know it is a fact.

As a kid I used to believe in Father Christmas. My proof was that my parents said he existed. As evidence mounted to the contrary I continued believing purely because I didn't want the alternative to be true.

I remember a scientific study in the USA that "proved" using most accepted scientific methods, that the larger your feet the better at spelling you were likely to be.

Of course the evidence was based on school spelling competitions where older kids, generally, were better at spelling than younger kids, and tended to have larger feet. The link was there.

I think I have successfully avoided your question.

squiffypants Posted on 9/3 20:34
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"Modern evolutionary thought is not entirely based on gradual change either so most people don't know what they are on about, yet again."

We aren't talking about modern evolutionary thought. We are talking about Darwins' Theory of Evolution which is utterly wrapped up in gradual change.

If we are going to introduce more modern theories we will be here for ever, and none of them have yet been proved, in any way, either.

Sparky_Lightbourne Posted on 9/3 20:35
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

no you have not, you have just exposed the problem with inductive reasoning ie people with big feet are better spellers which works fine until you find an adult who can't spell.

The reason I asked the question is that any debate on the relative merits of science versus religion quickly descends downhill because most people have little idea about why they accept things as been true or what even truth is. Which is one of the reasons that sceintific theories are described as theories and not fact. Falisification and the rest Popper Kant Hume and the rest read the link if you are intrested.

Link: a right kant

Sparky_Lightbourne Posted on 9/3 20:38
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

you really need to do some reasearch into the subject you are trying to argue about. Evolutionary science didn't stop when darwin died and there is plenty of evidence out there.

Oh and read the other link and we might get somewhere.

Link: evolution

YodaTheCoder Posted on 9/3 20:41
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"Yoda, don't edit my posts so my original post is misrepresented."

WTF are you talking about?

dicky_rooks Posted on 9/3 21:35
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Do the people who believe that "It's the "theory" of evolution" not believe that matter is made up of atoms? As no-one has ever seen an atom the theory that all matter is ultimately composed of atoms is just that - a theory.
Evolution happens and is observable - that's why bacteria become immune to anti biotics

Scrote Posted on 10/3 1:44
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

prisoner - " "I don't get it so God must have done it!". Take that line and we'd all still be living in caves. "

are you telling me that all those books showing the pre-darwinian victorians living in houses much the same as the ones they lived in after him are a shameful lie put out by Christian fundamentalists

erm...

squiffypants Posted on 10/3 2:09
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

" Evolutionary science didn't stop when darwin died and there is plenty of evidence out there."

Are you delibrately missing the point then? Or is this a wind up?

number9point5 Posted on 10/3 9:55
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

surley the school is allowed it's opinion on how and what it teaches? If you don't like what or how they teach then don't send your kids there. And as a teacher of "theology" he should have an opinion on theological teachings?

Oh and it's always nice to hear the Evolutionist Nazi's deride anyone who has the affrontery to disagree

trodbitch Posted on 10/3 10:02
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"surley the school is allowed it's opinion on how and what it teaches"

Not they don't. Simple answer.

the_stallion Posted on 10/3 10:08
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

There is a link between this thread, and the match today- Wayne Rooney.

number9point5 Posted on 10/3 10:32
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

I find it amazing that so many people come on here to defend evolution? is your belief in it so tenuase that you have to deride all others who disagree as stupid or moronic for daring to disagree? Sounds more like Eugenics to me.

Here's a challenge for you explain the duck billed platapus in evolutionary terms so that you will change my beliefs.

One thing is for certain and that is either Creation is correct or evolution is correct. And thats the great thing about having the ability to be self aware, the fact that we can try to discover where we come from. Now once we have figured that one out we can try to find out where we are going?

--- Post edited by number9point5 on 10/3 10:33 ---

PumpingGnome Posted on 10/3 11:22
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

The duck billed platypus is what it is because it has found its own niche where it fits in quite nicely, thank you very much.

Maybe you should try this one. Say you get a serious infection. Which antibiotics would you like to be treated with? The early ones that the bugs have evolved resistance to or the nice shiny new ones that are one step ahead of evolution?

NickTheJew Posted on 10/3 11:33
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

HOW CAN ANYONE SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THE CREATIONISM RUBBISH

Are you seriously expecting anyone to believe that 10 million species of animal and insect were rounded up 2 at a time on to noahs arc. That is 20,000,000 specimens. It would take more than a few lifetimes to even find them. Also what about those that are unknown even now.

AND NO.1 WHAT ABOUT ANIMALS THAT WERE EXTINCT BEFORE HUMANS EVEN EXISTED. DID THEY JUST APPEAR FROM NOTHING. NO THEY LIVED MILLIONS OF YEARS BEFORE US AND WE EVOLVED FROM OTHER ANIMALS TO BECOME HUMANS JUST LIVE EVERY OTHER ANIMAL ON THE PLANET. WE ARE NOT THAT SPECIAL.

There is no other answer.

number9point5 Posted on 10/3 11:34
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"The duck billed platypus is what it is because it has found its own niche where it fits in quite nicely, thank you very much."

So you have no idea hence the impotent response?

YodaTheCoder Posted on 10/3 11:46
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"So you have no idea hence the impotent response?"

Well, It appears science has failed again, in front of overwhelming religious evidence.

Off to church we go.

number9point5 Posted on 10/3 11:54
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

""So you have no idea hence the impotent response?""

Well, It appears belief in God has failed again, in front of overwhelming scienctific evidence."

Off to who knows where we go.

PumpingGnome Posted on 10/3 11:57
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

I don't happen to think it's an impotent answer, I happen to think that it's a very good one, thank you very much, but you are quite entitled to differ.

Have you made up your mind what drugs you want for this hypothetical infection yet? I don't seem to be able to find an answer to that one anywhere on this thread.

red_rebel2 Posted on 10/3 12:03
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

I have no problem with religion as a personal belief system and moral guide but teaching creationism goes well beyond that.

I mean, telling kids that dinosaurs didn't exist and the bones were planted by God as test of faith? The Arc is true? The Earth is only 7,000 years old? Is there anyone who would seriously defend teaching that as fact? It is lunacy.

number9point5 Posted on 10/3 12:12
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Well I acctually agree that creationism is pants and that is not what is taught in the bible that I have read. As for antibiotics I will take what works.

But to equate a "bug" with the complex being that a human is is facile. but then that is just my rational thought out opinion.

I don't ridicule your belief in evolution don't ridicule my belief in God. As i said in my previous post, one of us is right and one is wrong. i await the results.

That said i'm off on me jollies.

--- Post edited by number9point5 on 10/3 12:13 ---

theboydom Posted on 10/3 12:19
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"Are you seriously expecting anyone to believe that 10 million species of animal and insect were rounded up 2 at a time on to noahs arc"

he took more than two of everything if you read the story. how do you know there were 10 million species on earth at the time? you got an exact date for noah? tell the evolutionists, 'cos they still can't tell us when man appeared

there is, as yet, no evidence to show that a more complex organism can evolve from a less complex one. all observed environmental adaptations are dead ends as the species becomes more specialised. to convince yourself that the whole of creation came from a primordial soup, you have to first accept that evolution is the only way we all got here (as no such process has been observed in life or re-created in a lab). bit like the creationist argument but with science/atheism as it's god, isn't it?

as for the creationists of coulby newham, i got taught that peppered moths adapted to their evironment in industrial manchester by changing colour. i even passed an exam by learning it by rote as an example of adaptive evolution. you won't find it getting taught now as the bloke who reported it admitted he made it all up, and even pinned moths to trees to take the pictures that were in my textbooks. any of you on here who have a naive faith in science just remember, a lot of scientist are the same as the rest of us with ambitions and better paid jobs thay long for, if only they can make a breakthrough in their chosen field. it doesn't do any of them any good to stick their hands up and say "actually, that don't make sense". a huge body of work has to be gathered round a popular theory before it can be changed. their is a phrase for it which i can't remember atm, but basically if you observe a theory having to get more and more complex to explain a fundamental idea, eventually it collapses under the weight of all the extra bits of theory which have to be added to it to keep it creaking along.

ThePrisoner Posted on 10/3 12:23
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"I find it amazing that so many people come on here to defend evolution?"

The thread didn't start out to defend evolution, rather to protest that creationism garbage is actually being promoted as truth in a state funded school (in fact in many state funded schools).
Evolution has the defence of reams and reams of verifiable scientific evidence. Then again, for some reason (or lack of reason) many Christians accept almost all science except for evolution. Why?

As I said earlier you are free to believe whatever you wish, even something as pathetically lauaghable as the Biblical creation myth, but it has no place in any state school.

As an aside, why do people believe the biblical creation myth to be true, whilst the Greek, Egyptian, Mayan, Scandanavian etc. creation myths are ignored.

One thing that amuses me no end is how Christians don't realise (or if they do, ignore) the fact that if they had been born in India they'd be banging on about how the Hindu creation myth is the truth (or the Muslim one, whatever that may be). And vice versa, of course.

PumpingGnome Posted on 10/3 12:25
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Quite frankly I can't see the conflict between accepting evolution, or something fairly like it, and a belief in God unless you believe that the bible is 100% true, in which case there is absolutely no point in discussing anything further. The bible is so full of contradictions so it can't possibly be true, but don't get me started on that.

I certainly don't "believe in" evolution as a faith tenet - personally I accept it as it is - a theory with plenty of evidence supporting it whilst also accepting that there are things which aren't currently understood. Science is like that - it accepts that there are things we still don't understand and it tries to find out the answers. And I'm not ridiculing anything. People are quite at liberty to believe what they like, but I would object most strongly if they started telling my kids that their blind faith has to be my kids' science. Because it isn't.

--- Post edited by PumpingGnome on 10/3 12:28 ---

NickTheJew Posted on 10/3 12:30
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"he took more than two of everything if you read the story. how do you know there were 10 million species on earth at the time? you got an exact date for noah? tell the evolutionists, 'cos they still can't tell us when man appeared"

Well according to your own theory there must have been the same number of species around today(or even less today due to extinction) as there was then as evolution 1 doesn't happen that quickly and 2 your "theory" doesn't allow for evolution so there must have been.

NickTheJew Posted on 10/3 12:32
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Nothing against the bible, just i think it is ridiculous that people can take the stories literally, they are stories in which people are meant to use to live a good life, ie love thy neighbour, don't steal/kill etc... If they are meant to be taken literally then I'm sorry if that is what you believe as you are basing all your belief on things that cannot be true.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 10/3 12:49
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

I think trod summed up the original arguement with

"surley the school is allowed it's opinion on how and what it teaches"

"Not they don't. Simple answer."

But aside from that, if you don't understand what scientific theory and method is you can't really comment.

Theory is not a theory as in the literal "I have a theory sense" its often decades, or in this case over a 150 years of hard work by people far more in the know then most of us... and you know what, every shred of evidence supports it... there are no sails and rudders in human cells for instance, which was purported by a prominant christian scientist.. all the evidence, even down to our own physiology, we have redunant genes, a redundant organ, the fact you can drink milk, receeding jawlines.

Only if you ignore all these things and a million more can you start to seriously consider creationism... whether there is a christian god is another question, but the bible was wrong on this one.

Have religion if you want, its your choice and I can respect that and I have many friends who are religious, but don't push your beliefs on other peoples children at school... if I found out the school I sent my kids too was doing this, I'd pull them out.

Longish post sorry!

TheSmogMonster Posted on 10/3 12:56
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Just got to add,

"ou won't find it getting taught now as the bloke who reported it admitted he made it all up, and even pinned moths to trees to take the pictures that were in my textbooks."

Wasn't that 'discredited' in the 1980s by watchtower magazine?

As the original study was in the 1850/60s he'd have had a hard time admiting it!

The photos your talking about were made for the textbook and had nothing to do with the original study.

The pinning of the moths was actually to monitor whether birds preditary patterns differed with the new moths to the old.

Meh I've confused the two....

--- Post edited by TheSmogMonster on 10/3 13:11 ---

Sparky_Lightbourne Posted on 10/3 12:58
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

wasn't going to bother but just to correct another outrageous faslsehood; the peppered moth wasn't faked and remains a textbook example. It is as usual a slur from those with a (creationist in this case) axe to grind and sloppy journalism.

Its all on web for those that care

--- Post edited by Sparky_Lightbourne on 10/3 12:59 ---

Link: none of you will read it anyway

bobstermarley Posted on 10/3 13:04
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

In my experience of education, teachers were always dressed atrociously. Now multiply that with the fact that you'd be being subjected to Christian teachers, and it sends a shudder down the spine. Wall to wall Farrah action slacks and sandals with socks, liquorice allsort earrings for the ladies and handknitted jumpers.

No child deserves to be subjected to that.

PumpingGnome Posted on 10/3 13:09
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

All my teachers (at secondary school anyway) were Catholic priests and although they all wore frocks they didn't wear Liquorice Allsort earrings. More like Bet Lynch hoops.

bobstermarley Posted on 10/3 13:16
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Bet Lynch hoops? LOL

Peter Vardy's lot are a worrying bunch though.

That quote's a classic - "What is the point of sending young people out into the world with 20 GCSEs when they're going to go to Hell?'

Reminds me of The League of Gentlemen, "this is Anne, don't laugh", when the missionaries turn up on the doorstep.

italian_love Posted on 10/3 13:26
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

i went to tht and it was a loada $h!tee theres so much i could tell you ppl, but i might as well right a book on it because theres that much. it was bollox end of.

theboydom Posted on 10/3 13:28
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

sparky, so you are saying they didn't pin dead moths to trees, photograph them, the pass those photographs off as dark moths on light trees and vice versa in my school textbook and make me learn that those moths were real and had been eaten by birds and that was why the dark form prevailed in industrial areas? i just imagined all that?

YodaTheCoder Posted on 10/3 13:33
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"theres so much i could tell you ppl, but i might as well right a book"

You are write, you should right a book.

italian_love Posted on 10/3 13:35
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

myabe i will YodaTheCoder but what should i name it

PumpingGnome Posted on 10/3 13:46
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

One of the funniest things I ever was witness to relates to this post.

I was coming back from London on the evening train once when I worked for a certain local authority in the area. I saw three people I knew - two members, one of whom I shall call Bill and the other I shall call Ray, and a (quite well known in rugby circles) character who was one of the council employees. I shall call him Dave. They clocked me on the way back from the bar (I'd managed to evade them on the way there) and was invited to join them.

As the conversation dragged on, one of them, a council member who may well still be on the council, asked us if it was OK if he did some reading. I presumed it would be council minutes or something, but he took the biggest bible I've ever seen out of his luggage and opened it out on the table.

Everybody went quiet. Dave, ever the diplomat, took one look and said "You don't believe that schit, do you Ray?"

The conversation that followed was interesting.

jonesy_boro Posted on 10/3 13:54
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

i go to the kings academy and im in year 10. the religious teachers teach us that 'God made the world' and that the world is only a few thousand years old. however, most of the geography and science teachers tell us that the religious theory is a 'load of rubbish' and the world is billions of years old.

PumpingGnome Posted on 10/3 13:57
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Jonesy - go with the scientists. You know it makes sense.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 10/3 13:57
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

jonesy_boro listen to your science teachers on this....

The quote the late great Bill Hicks


That's good. You believe the world's 12,000 years old?

"That's right."

Okay, I got one word to ask you, a one word question, its ok its just one word, ready?

"Uh-huh."

Dino-saurs?

zaphod Posted on 10/3 14:39
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

There's nothing wrong with creationism being taught in RE as a religious belief. Presumably they teach a lot of other religious beliefs as well.

All science starts as a theory, being the best fit with the available evidence. Experimental science then tests the theories and the experiments confirm or refute the theories. Once experiments confirm a theory, it ceases to be a theory and becomes fact. In the case of the theory of evolution, it's not possible to carry out experiments, so it remains a theory, but over 150 years no evidence has significantly undermined it, so it remains a good working hypothesis with increasing evidence supporting it. Lots of unclear areas remain, though.

BTW, the obvious response to the stupid Bill Hicks quote is: have you ever seen a dinosaur?

TheSmogMonster Posted on 10/3 14:46
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

zaphod... are you suggesting someone hid the bones underground to trick us? I've seen the bones, and despite what I've been told about them just putting the parts in the wrong way round, I've never seen a dog with a head that big.

But seriously, theres a lot of pro dinosaur evidence which creationism ignores along with many other ages of the earth, and that ultimately is the point of the 'stupid quote'.. ergo its not that stupid is it?

Are you thinking of the Karl Popper Black Swan zaphod?

ThePrisoner Posted on 10/3 14:57
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"There's nothing wrong with creationism being taught in RE as a religious belief. Presumably they teach a lot of other religious beliefs as well."

They do at my children's school. I don't know about Kings Academy but I'd be surprised if any other religion other than literalist Christian doctrine gets house room. Does anyone know if children of other faiths attend that school? Are they excluded by policy?




"In the case of the theory of evolution, it's not possible to carry out experiments"

As mentioned earlier evolution is seen in action constantly at the bacterial level, otherwise bacteria wouldn't develop resistance to anti-biotics.

ohtheway Posted on 10/3 15:02
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

For me, no schools in this country should be teaching religion at all.

Religion is based purely on faith, and there are so many faiths, there is so much to teach.

Religion was and is the cause of so much hatred. We should spare our young the burden of this drivel and educate them, not bigot them.

If parents want their sprogs to learn religion, they should teach the kids themselves on an evening or a weekend.

Thoughts?

onthemap Posted on 10/3 15:02
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Its the same on TV, Songs of Praise every bloody Sunday but I can't remember seeing Atheists half hour.

zaphod Posted on 10/3 15:03
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

SmogMonster, I'm not trying to argue that dinosaurs didn't exist. I've even been to a museum full of them in Alberta.

I just object to yet another stupid quote by Bill Hicks being quoted as if it were humorous and/or meaningful. To those who don't believe in dinosaurs, there are easy put-downs: have you ever seen one? They're just bones and you can't prove how old they are etc. etc.

NickTheJew Posted on 10/3 15:17
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

You can prove how old they were, there are techniques, just you are not aware of them..... How do you think we know the time periods in which different dinosaurs existed...

zaphod Posted on 10/3 15:21
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Carbon dating. Another theory.

onthemap Posted on 10/3 15:26
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Carbon dating is one of those awkward factual theories.

ThePrisoner Posted on 10/3 15:27
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"Carbon dating. Another theory."
At what point does theory become fact? Or is nothing fact? Is everything theory? Or do you consider some things to be 'highly probable' and 'highly unprobable' and nothing is certain?

This is philosophy, not about the teaching of creatioism, which we can definitely can say has not one shred of evidence to support it. Fairy tales like Genesis are not evidence.

zaphod Posted on 10/3 15:30
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Carbon dating over long time periods is a theory. No way to prove it.

NickTheJew Posted on 10/3 15:30
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Makes a hell of a lot more sense than anything the church comes up with. It does work, it may be inaccurate if you look at it specifically, relatively it gives a figure much more accurate than the 9000 years old rubbish of the bible.....

As is said the bible cannot be taken literally it is a series of stories to live your life by in order to be a good person. End of.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 10/3 15:31
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Yeah carbon dating is factual, just because you don't like an arguement doesn't mean you can just ignore it and play the 'its a theory card', you'd need to give counter evidence. Thats the method, otherwise you are relying on a book.

Bill Hicks was right about it too, even if you're not a fan. If you follow the root of his arguement its correct.. dinosaurs existance means creationism can't have happened.

NickTheJew Posted on 10/3 15:32
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Going on your ideas then, Atoms are not actually there then, they are a theory as one cannot actually see an atom. Is this the level of your argument?

onthemap Posted on 10/3 15:32
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Befoer anyone comes back and says that carbon dating isn't 100% accurate, the only variable in the process is whether the rate of decay in a radiocarbon is the same now as it has always been. Given the widest fluctuation it still wouldn't possibly place the earth at just 7000 years old.

br14 Posted on 10/3 17:26
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Well unless someone has been around for a few thousand years I dont think you can say Carbon dating is established fact. It's just a reasonable indication.

I understood the the half life could be affected by environmental conditions.

The bible doesnt actually give time periods for mans "creation".

By the way, theories are never really established fact, they are simply supported (or not) by evidence. Plenty of theories that were considered fact have been disproved later.

I reckon the idea something as complex as all life on earth came about by pure chance over millions of years is just as ridiculous as suggesting that an alien lifeform with the ability to manipulate energy designed life.

Both crazy ideas and highly improbable. The only logical position is to be agnostic. Anything else requires some form of faith.

--- Post edited by br14 on 10/3 17:26 ---

BoroInNC Posted on 10/3 18:29
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

On the one hand: Coulby Secondary was a bit of a dump, and needed investment. (I avoided it, being a left-footer. Nothing like a Catholic education to make you sceptical of religion.)

On the other hand, Peter Vardy's thing is a bit different from the Marists at St Mary's, who'd nip down to the Salty for a pint at lunchtime (and normally be at the bar before you were, should you fancy a cheeky one).

ThePrisoner Posted on 10/3 21:14
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"I reckon the idea something as complex as all life on earth came about by pure chance over millions of years is just as ridiculous as suggesting that an alien lifeform with the ability to manipulate energy designed life."

Life did not arise by pure chance. It arose because conditions were right. It didn't arise on other planets ion the solar system because conditions weren'r right. The jury is still out on Mars. Richard Dawkins gives a brief account of how it is thought this happened in the early part his book The Selfish Gene.

I don't think God is conceived as an alien life form by religious believers. He is conceived as being outside the natural world entirely not as someone nipping to Earth to pay a visit from Alpha Centauri.

"The bible doesnt actually give time periods for mans "creation". "

Actually it does! The infmaous Bishop Usher calculated the day of creation by adding up the ages of the generations in the Bible to arrive at 22nd October 4004 BC. This is one of the bases for Creationism. Laughable and tragic in equal measure.

Link: Usher

theboydom Posted on 10/3 21:43
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

NicktheJew

here is a picture of some atoms for you, just so you can stop worrying about them...

btw, if "the bible cannot be taken literally it is a series of stories to live your life by in order to be a good person. End of." where does that leave jesus. he believed in the old testament...

Link: atoms

TheSmogMonster Posted on 10/3 23:56
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

It leaves Jesus as a man who existed but probably wasn't the 'son of god'.... interestingly he diverted from the old testament himself, so make of that what you will.

NickTheJew Posted on 11/3 0:59
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

ok then sub atomic particles, the point wasn't about atoms it was about theories on things that cannot be proven by personal experience.

Scrote Posted on 11/3 2:46
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"...it was about theories on things that cannot be proven by personal experience."

i don't think you understand your own argument (or lack of it) but surely any average individual doesn't have personal experience of anything other than their own narrow field of expertise - and - as the expertise increases, the area narrows

and while you're on about sub-atomic particles can i just point out how absolutely absurd-sounding some of the theories are surrounding such things - particles that can be in two places at once with the same bit of information spring to mind - the sub-atomic world is probably the best 'proof' there is that certain things can exist outside the 'normal' (from human perspective) physical plane

Scrote Posted on 11/3 2:55
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

the prisoner - "As mentioned earlier evolution is seen in action constantly at the bacterial level, otherwise bacteria wouldn't develop resistance to anti-biotics."

thats not Evolution though is it - thats not a bacteria starting off with four legs and then suddenly sprouting wings and a feathered tail - its the micro-evolution of some bacteria being naturally resistant to whatever is used to kill off the vast majority and therefore being free to multiply and pass on the mutation that gives the resistance - it is still the same species of bacteria

the resistance isn't developed - the lack of resistance is targeted in those individual bacterium that are susceptible

the same goes for the peppered moths as well regardless of whether the data is sound or not (and i've just read the linked report - hence the edit )

basically light moths were more easily seen and eaten and therefore their numbers declined as the darker genetic variation was favoured - in the non-polluted countryside the light coloured moths fared pretty well - absolutely no evidence of Evolution at all - not one tinsy winsy little bit...

--- Post edited by Scrote on 11/3 3:09 ---

Scrote Posted on 11/3 3:03
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

theSmogMonster - "hard work by people far more in the know then most of us..."

how do you define "in the know" - the field i work in is full of people who push themselves forwards as being the "person to go to" and yet all too often i find that they don't actually understand the basics of what they purport to be masters of

assuming this is normal behaviour of people trying to climb the business ladder of success then surely you have to question what the motives behind the hard work were and how much "hard work" was actually done and how much was just blag by someone trying to get out of the position they were in 'cos they felt out of their depth

the most worrying thing about middle management that i've found is that some 75% would probably not be able to cope on the 'shop-floor' - it astounds me every time i see it but it happens far too often to just be someone trying it on

and that goes for whoever it was using Dawkins as a reasonable source for evolution - the guys career depends upon his convincing people that he is correct - does that not make you just a little bit wary?

--- Post edited by Scrote on 11/3 3:04 ---

The_Commisar Posted on 11/3 9:20
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

basically light moths were more easily seen and eaten and therefore their numbers declined as the darker genetic variation was favoured - in the non-polluted countryside the light coloured moths fared pretty well - absolutely no evidence of Evolution at all - not one tinsy winsy little bit...


That my friend is rubbish and you have shot yourself in the foot.
It is a perfect example of evolution, an organism mutating, the mutation providing an advantage and hence becoming the dominant gene. It's that principle which has produced a massive range of species and sub-species.

Your other point is even easier to take apart

thats not Evolution though is it - thats not a bacteria starting off with four legs and then suddenly sprouting wings and a feathered tail - its the micro-evolution of some bacteria being naturally resistant to whatever is used to kill off the vast majority and therefore being free to multiply and pass on the mutation that gives the resistance - it is still the same species of bacteria

the resistance isn't developed - the lack of resistance is targeted in those individual bacterium that are susceptible

a) thats not Evolution though is it - thats not a bacteria starting off with four legs and then suddenly sprouting wings and a feathered tail - - and evolution isn't about that eiether, evolution is about an organism looking to exploit it's local environment
b) Thanks for stating that there is micro evolution, all evolution is micro, it is observable, small, distict changes between generations.
c)It's still the same species of bacteria - yes it has the same starting point, but given sufficient time and environmental pressure it will change to be distinct. Or are you saying that as a camel and a llama both shared the same genetic starting point they are the same species ?
d) the resistance isn't developed - the lack of resistance is targeted in those individual bacterium that are susceptible - nonsense, mutation produces chnges which make the resistent strain dominant

NickTheJew Posted on 11/3 11:41
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

I was simply referring to electrons protons and neutrons, won't get into quarks and all that messiness. My point was you cannot see electrons, but we know they are there. Same with the half life thing we know it works but cannot prove it (even with what people are saying about enviromental effects etc, it is not going to produce an error of 300,000,000 years now is it....)

Scrote Posted on 11/3 20:44
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

commi - the problem is that the dark moths are only going to remain dominant as long as there is enough pollution to make their condition favourable - once the environment changes then the lighter variation will move in - this is not what is meant by Evolution - unless you want to start changing definitions

in the evolution from a proto human to a human we are told that chimps are still chimps 'cos they evolved down a different route from the same proto human - if this is the case and the moths example holds then where are the proto humans?

if the proto humans died out due to selection (like the bacteria) then how did they evolve down different routes without the groups being split by natural barriers which we know didn't happen (assuming what we are told is correct)

there are far more holes in the macro evolution theory then i can be bothered going into but your 'taking apart' of my post on micro evolution misses the point and, if anything, makes mine more strongly

evolution due to environmetal pressure is the micro evolution of selection and doesn't begin to explain how primordial soup became a hippopotamus

speciation due to natural barriers - e.g continental drift - just shows how an individual species can evolve through micro evolution to best survive in its environment - camels and llamas are both still recognisable as being related however they do not resemble an amoeba

"all evolution is micro, it is observable, small, distinct changes between generations" - explain the evolution of echo location avoidance in moths given your quote (i.e. use the defintion provided by yourself)

trodbitch Posted on 11/3 20:55
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

For me, the problem is that with evolutionary theory, it is open for debate. The theory can (and is) revised when new observations are made. As for 'creationist' theory, that seems not to be open to any debate, you just have to accept it or "go to hell" apparently - a framework that helped keep us in the dark ages.

Using a static religious theory as an answer to the questions of the universe can only hold us back.

If any other part of society was defined in those terms, there's be uproar yet there seems to be a justifed black-hole of logic where religion is concerned. Ask someone why god allows bad things to happen and you are told "god moves in mysterious ways", try using that as a defence in court when up on a charge.

YodaTheCoder Posted on 11/3 21:19
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"there seems to be a justifed black-hole of logic where religion is concerned"

You say "black-hole of logic" I say "the god botherers have their heads up their ar.ses"

TheSmogMonster Posted on 11/3 23:16
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Has scrote just joined this thread to pick a fight?

Scrote Posted on 12/3 1:36
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

not so much to pick a fight - just for consistency

i have no problem with evolution as a mechanism for change but i can't get past the whole amino acids joining together and producing something as unquantifiable as a human conscience

if atheist evolution was such a no brainer why have we evolved with such a complex psyche that allows so many individuals to waste time and resources on religion? if it serves no purpose why did we develop it?

as far as i'm aware the creationist theory is relatively new as a religious movement (only really developing as a somewhat retarded answer to darwin)

the bible has a wealth of information in it that explains a vast amount of scientific knowledge at a time when people weren't supposed to know such things - there are passages about the earth revolving around the sun which in turn moves through space etc. - just because people decided the earth was flat or weas at the centre of the universe doesn't contradict the bible - it just shows how badly wrong people can be

i believe in God and i belive that the bible is God's attempt to show us the 'path to enlightenment'

i also believe that Jesus was God's flesh incarnate and that his instructions are paramount when it comes to doing God's will

scrapping over whether the earth is more han 10,000 years old doesn't do anyone any good and the religious fundamentalists who keep dragging it up should be ashamed of themselves - but the problem is that evolution has become seen as being one of the primary battlegrounds between faith (in God) and atheism

this has been driven by both sides and both sides are as bad as each other IMO

there are plenty of people able to reconcile religious belief with scientific breakthroughs and as i mentioned earlier re the sub-atomic world - we are only just beginning to understand the fabric of reality

how anyone can be certain of anything is beyond me

zaphod Posted on 12/3 2:18
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

I agree with that. I'm obviously a Scrotist.

I was previously just arguing the point, as devil's advocate, because the Hicks approach of sneering at people who are not in the "right-on" crowd disgusts me. People's beliefs should be respected, even when you think they're very wrong.

The_Commisar Posted on 12/3 6:00
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Scrote, your way off beam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
commi - the problem is that the dark moths are only going to remain dominant as long as there is enough pollution to make their condition favourable - once the environment changes then the lighter variation will move in - this is not what is meant by Evolution - unless you want to start changing definitions

No No NO and No again.
The dark moths have evolved from light moths to exploit a particular environment. If that environment remains, then so will they. They can compete more effectively there.

if the proto humans died out due to selection (like the bacteria) then how did they evolve down different routes without the groups being split by natural barriers which we know didn't happen (assuming what we are told is correct)

The groups evolved to exploit different environments, and yes, there are variations due to regional differences, ever wonder why certain groups evolved dark or pale skin ?

Sorry, defending intelligent design or creationism is simply arguing for a reliegos stace, if we go down that route can we please start the bonfires for the heretics and save time and effort.

zaphod Posted on 12/3 6:22
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

There's no reason to expect every species to successfully evolve. Some fail and die out. There were a variety of hominids, but only one (homo sapiens) evolved successfully. The others could not evolve to deal with the environment. Evolution happens by natural selection and reinforcement of random mutations.
Extinctions happen very frequently.

The argument about black skin and white skin is weak, however. There are lots of white skinned people native to tropical countries. Some Javanese and some Chinese, for example, are whiter than Europeans. There are no native black people in the tropical Americas.

YodaTheCoder Posted on 12/3 8:06
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

''

--- Post edited by YodaTheCoder on 12/3 8:06 ---

borobuddah Posted on 12/3 8:32
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

And they are into subliminal advertising, "work rest and play"

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/3 8:37
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"if it serves no purpose why did we develop it?"

are you talking about religion or the brain...

We developed the latter first, and its worked, we are a very succesful animal... if its the former, then we developed it as a means of socialising norms and values, if you don't believe in that kind of thing, and simply because its right if your religious.

The issue is in a secular society like ours, we've got to look at things rationally for the whole, not for any individual religion.

hense

"how do you define "in the know""

Generations of people who have or who are dedicating their lives to the work, I imagine they know far more then us on here.

zaphod, I went to Catholic Schools I've got plenty of religous friends, who I've played the dinosaur card on, and none of them have ever been as offended as you mate

ToneLoc Posted on 12/3 9:01
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Some of the people on this thread really really scare me.

ThePrisoner Posted on 12/3 9:32
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Ton up. There is a God!

trodbitch Posted on 12/3 9:33
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"i have no problem with evolution as a mechanism for change but i can't get past the whole amino acids joining together and producing something as unquantifiable as a human conscience"

Yet some deity just created us from nothing in an instant? You have no problem getting your head around that then? Consider this, Einsteins Special theory of relativity is used in practical terms to keep the GPS satellites in sync, the distances they work over actually mean the effects of relativity affect their performance. I have a hard time getting my head around it but I'm willing to accept that the theory is pretty sound in terms of solving the GPS problem, I don't need to look to a TomTom god.

"if atheist evolution was such a no brainer why have we evolved with such a complex psyche that allows so many individuals to waste time and resources on religion? if it serves no purpose why did we develop it?"

I am able to use my brain to do some pretty unimportant tasks like playing on my xbox but I don't think *that* is part of Gods plan either. It must be shattering to know that some things just happen for no reason but I don't need the crutch of religion to get through it.

"how anyone can be certain of anything is beyond me"

Fair enough but I'm fooking sick of being told I have to respect peoples religious beliefs when they are quick to poo-poo an argument that is founded in logic and open debate, a philosophy that is open to peer review and can (and is) revised when new observations are made.

Your religious beliefs can only be respected when you keep them private, funny how many people are happy to share them with other people but are unable to deal with them sharing theirs back. Once you start telling me that you are going to start teaching my children that they must follow a belief system WITHOUT QUESTION or they will go to hell, you are opening yourself up to criticism.

Scrote Posted on 12/3 10:02
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

trod - i'm not defending the creationism in schools - i thought i made that clear - i think it is irresponsible at best and plain evil at worst

commi - the dark moths didn't evolve from light moths to exploit the environment - they existed in nature and were lucky enough to be favoured when the polluted conditions arrived

The_Commisar Posted on 12/3 18:43
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

moths, yes scrote, a mutation was found to give an advantage, thats evolution for you.
Thye have moved into an environmental niche to exploit it.
Try as you might, there is no way to disprove creation, people have been trying for a few years now but it's founded in hard, provable facts.

rob_fmttm Posted on 12/3 18:51
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

The big question remains however - what exactly do they and don't they teach in Coulby Newham?

I find the thought very frightening indeed that creationism should be anywhere near the curriculum in a school in Middlesbrough.

Scrote Posted on 12/3 23:30
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

but the mutation wasn't a response to the conditions - it was just favoured by the conditions that arose after it was already prevalent in the moth population

in your earlier post you said (and i quote) "The dark moths have evolved from light moths to exploit a particular environment."

either evolution was a response to pressures or it was an accidental mutation that happened to benefit from a later environmental pressure - which is it?

the first is what i'd call macro evolution and is the aspect of evolution that i disagree with

the second is micro evolution and i have no problem with it at all - however it certainly doesn't begin to explain the evolutionary process from amino-acids to humans

that said - the biggest problem i have with the likes of Dawkins is where the original spark for life came from - so far the best we have is a frankenstien-esque lightning hitting a pool of water with just the correct composition of chemicals to produce life - and you think belief in God is blind faith!!

ThePrisoner Posted on 12/3 23:41
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"The big question remains however - what exactly do they and don't they teach in Coulby Newham?

I find the thought very frightening indeed that creationism should be anywhere near the curriculum in a school in Middlesbrough."

Link: Wibble.

br14 Posted on 13/3 5:36
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

No more frightening than a theory being taught as fact without a counterbalancing view.

While not wishing to be seen as supporting a "biblical" view of creation, I think you'll find that the Genesis account makes a reasonable estimation of the development of life on earth. So that covers Jews and Christians - not sure how other religions view Creation.

Given that we have no idea how early man counted time, I doubt that the Usher calculations have much merit - though you never know.

While evolutionary science provides some evidence of adaption the focus has been on the development of species and not on the origin of life. There is a considerable difference between a chemical pool in a lightning storm and a single celled organism.

Evolution requires just as much belief as a religious view of creation. After all, for the Creationist the answer is simple regardless of the question. No matter what God in which the Creationist believes the answer is always the same "God made it that way".

The Evolutionist on the other hand must rely on a long line of pretty improbable coincidences to provide an answer for why life exists. Which is why most conveniently skip over the hard part.

Given that at present neither choice can be proven without doubt, the only logical choice is to site on the fence as an agnostic. A number of prominent scientists fall into this category and have written as much.

If you feel happier believing in Evolution thats fair enough. At least you dont have to worry about being accountable to a Supreme Being for your actions.

Spare a thought for the Creationists whose belief in a God means they have to concern themselves with Gods wishes for them.

Personally I'm happy here on the fence, though the idea that there may be a force greater than ourselves at work is appealing.

The_Commisar Posted on 13/3 6:01
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Scrote
all organisms mutate, change, move, some slowly, some very fast.
The trigger for mutatation can be anything.

To pick up on your very specific point
""in your earlier post you said (and i quote) "The dark moths have evolved from light moths to exploit a particular environment."

either evolution was a response to pressures or it was an accidental mutation that happened to benefit from a later environmental pressure - which is it?""

a) The moths with the mutation are at an advantage in a given environment and will therefore prospoer in that environment to reach a point of genetic dominance
b) This is what evolution is about, chane being used to exploit envirnmental corcumstances


Re your last comment

that said - the biggest problem i have with the likes of Dawkins is where the original spark for life came from - so far the best we have is a frankenstien-esque lightning hitting a pool of water with just the correct composition of chemicals to produce life - and you think belief in God is blind faith!!

There is more chance of this happening than an omnipotent creator who rather than nip out to the shops for 20 benson and a loaf decides he'll knock up the universe that afternoon...
It's also worth noting that there have been experiments to demostrate the practicality of creating life in sucg a manner, meanwhile the creator has steadfastly refused to repeat the water into wine gig or the raising of the dead.

zaphod Posted on 13/3 8:35
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

SmogMonster, I was just teasing.

I have no trouble believing in the existence of dinosaurs and evolution. Both seem to me eminently rational, but you just need to be aware of the counter arguments, which are not completely irrational. There's far too much "party line" on this thread (i.e. it's all entirely obvious and anyone with a different view is stupid).

guyb Posted on 13/3 9:21
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Creationism has a place in school and it's in RE lessons. It has as much place in Science as the work of Paul Daniels.

I get so frustrated and angry when I read about these fundamentalist nutjobs. It's a good job the bible doesn't say the Earth is flat (although I bet half of them believe that).

Didn't we win these arguments over 200 years ago?!?

zaphod Posted on 13/3 9:33
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

I believe it is in fact taught in RE, not in science.

Why do you get angry and frustrated, guyb? Are people not permitted to hold different views from you, even if they're not completely rational? Too many wannabe dictators on this board.

green_beret20 Posted on 13/3 9:38
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Did I just miss something.

Parents are still free to send their kids to these 'religious' schools. I disagree with what they believe but I feel in no way threatened by them.
You'd think by the reactions on here they were training the next generation of the Hitler Youth.

Calm down.

rob_fmttm Posted on 13/3 9:39
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Exactly Guy.

Downilson Posted on 13/3 9:55
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Do the children have a choice, green_beret?

rob_fmttm Posted on 13/3 10:01
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

And the point is it is the main "state" school for the south Middlesbrough area.

guyb Posted on 13/3 10:03
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

According to The Observer and other sources - and I quote: "it was revealed that the school was teaching creationist theory as a valid scientific alternative to evolutionary biology."

Doesn't sound like RE to me. Freedom of choice is one thing but how can it benefit kids to be taught that belief overrides proof?

It's the thin end of a fundamentalist wedge. We live in an age where celebrities walk around with red string on their wrists and believe that by swinging a chicken around your head you can ward off the evil eye (kabballah); or that we are all originally alien spirits trapped within shells trying to escape (Scientology).

The state now believes that all of these views and more, no matter how crazy, should be given equal respect in the eyes of society and the law.

Given the assault on enlightenment and secular values on all sides by the forces of faith and superstition - Science and Reason need all the help they can get, starting with cast iron decrees that they will be taught, correctly and unhindered, in all schools.

Link: Observer Story

Piquet2 Posted on 13/3 10:07
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

I can't be bothered reading this thread all the way through....would someone care to give me a quick synopsis?

mickbrown Posted on 13/3 10:08
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Quick synopsis

Creationists? Mentalists more like.

YodaTheCoder Posted on 13/3 10:12
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"I can't be bothered reading this thread all the way through..."

Quick synopsis: You are lazy because your parents were lazy, if you were a moth you'd be dead by now.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 13/3 10:13
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Excellently put guyb.

As for the flat earth theory, people still believe this in pockets.

I'm sure I've read somewhere - several years ago that, it was only in the 1930s that the government here officially recognised the earth wasn't the centre of the universe....

The problem with this debate is that science has become so self assured of its supremacy that its not trying to appeal to society as a whole any more, even though our dependance on science is so total.

This has left a gap where as guyb said, some schools are trying to teach belief over proof. It worries me, we've come along way in the past 400 years.

zaphod Posted on 13/3 10:13
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Wow, Denilson, you mean children get a choice at other schools?

green_beret20 Posted on 13/3 10:18
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Well theres a lot of things I don't like children being taught, such as to live your life on the welfare system.

I went to RC schools, I still to this day don't believe a word of any of it. I wouldn't underestimate these kids to make up their own minds once they hit adulthood. Even if they do, I still believe them to go on to lead normal working day lives from a relatively good education.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 13/3 10:21
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

green_beret20 I went to a RC school too, and you'd expect a level of it there, although as far as I can remember we never were taught creationism, not even in RE.

This is a state school though, and it IS teaching creationism as fact.

And

"Well theres a lot of things I don't like children being taught, such as to live your life on the welfare system."

Doesn't that happen more in the home then at school?

PS completely agree with you on that last one either way

--- Post edited by TheSmogMonster on 13/3 10:25 ---

Downilson Posted on 13/3 10:27
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Fair enough, GB, but also surely you're much more likely to be Muslim if you are put in an Islamic faith school at an early age; or Jewish if you are sent to Yeshiva; or Christian if you're sent to, say, Liberty University in America. I'm not arguing against religion, or against Coulby Newham as I know nothing about the school, but about faith schools in general. I don't believe in them and think they, more often that not, are responsible for creating religious people rather than people coming to faith off their own rational and considered thoughts once knowing at least some of the facts. One of the things I agree with Dawkins is that its wrong to inculcate children at these types of schools, his example is that you wouldn't send a child to Conservative School, or Labour School; as you'd want them to make their own informed decisions about politics. Why not also religion? As regards the responsibility of schools thats why we have a National Curriculum of course but Creationism in any other class apart from RE is surely an erosion of that; and we don't want to end up like America where Christian homeschooling is massive in reaction to the 'corrupt' state schools. I'm sure we'd all agree that the ideal is a secular, pluralist school where the children are taught to question, criticise and form their own ideas on religion, politics and morality. Do faith schools fit this bracket?

--- Post edited by Downilson on 13/3 10:28 ---

YodaTheCoder Posted on 14/3 12:04
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

.

Link: Science v Faith

Scrote Posted on 14/3 22:00
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

yoda - the only problem with that image is that it only represents a small percentage of religious people

there are people who claim to be scientists that make ridiculous announcements based on their own study - are we to assume that it is fair game to bring those nutjobs up any time we try to have a debate about whether science in general should be ignored because of them?

ThePrisoner Posted on 14/3 22:10
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"there are people who claim to be scientists that make ridiculous announcements based on their own study - are we to assume that it is fair game to bring those nutjobs up any time we try to have a debate about whether science in general should be ignored because of them?"

Any nutjobs presenting their own ideas soon get them shot down by peer review. If their claims can't be re-produced or verified independently then they end up in the rejected theory bin.

Anyway, here's a blast from the past to provide some more food for thought. It must be true because it was shown on the BBC (not Blue Peter though).

Link: Blind Watchmaker

Scrote Posted on 14/3 22:38
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"Any nutjobs presenting their own ideas soon get them shot down by peer review."

so when the peers of the religious nutjobs shoot THEM down why are their views still considered acceptable ammunition for the anti-religious mob?

and considering i've already questioned dawkins's motives, posting a video of his work, whilst citing peer review of nutjob scientists as a fail-safe, has to count as irony i'm quite sure...

ThePrisoner Posted on 14/3 23:16
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

"so when the peers of the religious nutjobs shoot THEM down why are their views still considered acceptable ammunition for the anti-religious mob?"

Because their views have not been shot down. If they were there wouldn't be millions of creationists in the USA and schools teaching it here. Flat Earth and the phlogiston theory are not taught in science anymore (well, dunno about Tennessee and the rest) because these theories *have* been refuted and almost no-one subscribes to them anymore.

You question Dawkins motives because he earns his living as a scientist? That is the refuge of someone who cannot refute Dawkins' arguments. I could level the same accusation at every priest, rabbi and mullah. Come to think of it, didn't something like that lead to a little spat in Europe called 'the reformation'? If only they'd had peer review, all that buying indulgences stuff might have been rejected before it caused the Thirty Years War!

smoggy_in_sunderland Posted on 15/3 0:28
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

Of course Dawkins has an agenda pretty much everyone in the country if not the world does.In Dawkins case he uses evolution to push the idea that evolution = god dosnt exist. while I am not qualified enough to comment on the science part I am opposed to the idea that religon and science are incompatible, after all both have the same goal to make sense of a senseless universe they just use different methods to do so.

--- Post edited by smoggy_in_sunderland on 15/3 0:30 ---

Scrote Posted on 15/3 0:50
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

thePrisoner - the director of the vatican observatory has rubbished the claims of intelligent design

untold numbers of bishops and the equivalent in other denominations have also rubbished intelligent design

if this isn't equal to peer review in science then what is?

the fact that a very small minority with a disproportionately loud voice are able to sway opinion is not the fault of the normal religious folk - who do not espouse the ridiculous claims of intelligent design - in just the same way that the vast majority of scientists are not at fault for a minority of publicity seekers that manage to make headlines

as for dawkins - he is an avowed and evangelical athiest - his atheism informs his work not vice versa

how can 'faith' in athiesm be in any way scientific if faith in God isn't?

buffaloboro Posted on 15/3 2:31
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

it is a slippery slope - fight Vardy .

zaphod Posted on 15/3 2:45
re: Creationists in Coulby Newham

My distant memories of RE lessons at school are that they seemed designed to put kids off religion for life. I became a Christian only after I left school and didn't have to sit through RE lessons any more.

I doubt any brain-washing happens. Kids are usually aware enough to make their own minds up.