Creationist Science Fair

[cleanhippie]

[LostOne4Ever]

1. Reminds me of the girl

Who said that that her science fair project of putting a rock in water proved that life can't come from nothing....my head still hurts

[Curmudgeoness]

2. Creationist Science Fair.....an oxymoron

if I've ever seen one.

[dimbear]

3. Here's a little encouragement to excel at that sort of thing:

http://creationmuseum.org/special-events/science-fair/guidelines/

[Phillip McCleod]

5. that's warped. here's the guidelines..

..for those not willing to click through to the creation 'museum' website..

1. All projects shall be of an experimental nature where a hypothesis is developed and tested.
* Projects that compare products (e.g., comparing the absorption of different paper towels) or demonstrate principles (e.g., how a volcano erupts) will not be considered acceptable.

2. All projects should lie clearly within the life science or physical science categories and should be entered under one of these two categories.
* Life science projects include biochemistry, cell biology, genetics, microbiology, ecology, botany, etc.
* Physical science projects include chemistry, astronomy, physics, engineering, weather, etc.

3. All projects should be clearly aligned with a biblical principle from a passage or verse.
* The student should be able to explain why the verse or passage selected relates to their project. (Students should read the article “God and Natural Law” by Dr. Jason Lisle for an explanation of this concept.)
* Students should consider the context of the verse(s) they are using.
* The verse chosen does not have to directly apply to the project topic (e.g., Scripture does not directly address radio waves), but may simply relate the project to the Creator of the universe.
* Students should read the article “God and Natural Law.”

4. Students should be able, with a clear conscience, to sign the AiG Statement of Faith, which upholds the belief in the creation of the universe in six, twenty-four-hour days about 6,000 years ago by the Creator God as revealed in the Bible.

my emphahhh-sis.

[pokerfan]

10. From the AiG Statement of Faith

How open-minded...

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

[hrmjustin]

4. Anyone who thinks the Flintstones is how it really happened scares the hell out of me.

[PotatoChip]

6. Me too.

As an aside, I wonder how many Christian believers agree with the creationist POV. I've never met one; or at least not one who openly admits to it. Have you?

[edhopper]

8. At least half

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

probably a majority.

[trotsky]

11. Well I've never met one so therefore they don't exist.

See how easy that is?

[PotatoChip]

12. Yikes. 46% is a disturbingly high amount.

I doubt it could possibly be more than that. Certainly not a majority.

[trotsky]

17. Keep in mind, it's 46% of *all Americans*.

Atheists are a greater percentage of the population than either Jews or Muslims, and constitute up to 10% or more of the population. And I don't think there are many atheists that are creationists. So 46% of Americans could very well translate into a majority of American Christians who believe in creationism.

Scary, yes. But true, and we need to acknowledge and accept reality, not close our eyes and pretend it's not there.

[PotatoChip]

19. Umm.

Scary, yes. But true, and we need to acknowledge and accept reality, not close our eyes and pretend it's not there.

I simply said that I never met one. Or at least not one who has openly admitted (to me) that they adhere to creationism.

That is hardly the stance of someone who is pretending that these people don't exist.

[trotsky]

21. Many people do.

Or they think creationists and associated right-wing fundies are a tiny, insignificant minority and don't represent Christianity.

The numbers tell another story.

[cleanhippie]

7. Why?

[hrmjustin]

9. Science tells us that it did not happen that way and they reject that. That scares me.

[trotsky]

13. Science tells us a person cannot be clinically dead for 24+ hours and come back to life.

It also tells us that a female human virgin in the Bronze Age could not give birth to a baby.

Do you reject either of those things?

[hrmjustin]

14. NO I do not reject the virgin birth.

As a Christian I accept that God made that happened and suspended the laws of nature. I accept that Jesus was raised from the dead and that is my faith.

Now your next question is why do I believe one not the other. My answer is I choose to believe the miracles surrounding the life of Jesus Christ. I do not believe the creation story because we have massive evidence that life evolved over millions of years. Now you would say that science can also prove that you can't be revived after a certain point and you need a biological father. That is all true but I still believe in the case of Jesus Christ that the case was different. It is my faith.

[trotsky]

16. OK, just wondering if you had a double standard.

Thanks for confirming.

[hrmjustin]

18. I disagree but you can think what you want.

[trotsky]

20. It's not a matter of what I think.

You said that creationists scare you because they reject what science says when it comes to an article of their faith.

Then you admitted you were justified in rejecting what science says when it's an article of your faith.

Why is the same behavior OK for you but not for them?

[hrmjustin]

22. I did not say it wasn't ok for them to believe what they want, I just say they scare me.

They scare me because they reject science. I also don't like the politics that usually comes along with it and the Anti-gay views that usually come along with people who believe in creationism.

Maybe you are right and it is a double standard but I am entitled to my views.

[trotsky]

23. They scare you because they reject science?

You also reject science. Shouldn't people be scared of you too, by the criteria you yourself selected?

[hrmjustin]

24. I do not reject science. I just believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah and that the

biblical events surrounding his life is true.

I do not reject science.

[trotsky]

25. QED n/t

[hrmjustin]

26. I have answered your questions, if you have more you know where to find me.

[skepticscott]

29. Science says that people don't come back from the dead

You believe that they can, and that science is wrong about that. You reject science. Biblically simple.

[hrmjustin]

30. I do not reject science. I believe the laws of nature were basically not in effect for Jesus Christ.

[skepticscott]

31. Science says that laws of nature can't be suspended

they wouldn't be "laws" if they could be, now would they? You still are rejecting science, which is creepy and scary. Or maybe you just like to call it cherry-picking and special pleading (which obviously the creationists aren't allowed to do without being mocked).

[hrmjustin]

32. I do not reject science!

[cleanhippie]

34. Yes, you do! You reject it in favor of your belief.

[hrmjustin]

36. When it comes to Jesus I believe the laws of nature were lifeted by God.

[cleanhippie]

41. I understand, and that would be complete rejection of science for a particular instance.

There are no two ways about this. The natural laws of the universe cannot be suspended. Anyone who says that they can be, especially by some outside-the-natural-laws-of-the-universe-supernatural-entity is rejecting science in it's entirety.

You said that you are scared of those that reject science. YOU also reject science (at least in THIS particular case), what makes you any less scary than those that scare you?

[hrmjustin]

43. Ok than be scared of me. All I can tell you I disagree that with you that I reject science.

[cleanhippie]

44. Not scared of you, but you are, in fact, rejecting science for belief.

That is a fact. Believing that a supernatural force suspended the laws of physics IS rejecting science. You can claim otherwise, but that fact remains.

[hrmjustin]

45. Well I am glad you are not scared of me.

[cleanhippie]

46. You have yet to explain why you are scared of them but no one need be scared of you for rejecting

Science. What makes your rejection of science less scary?

[hrmjustin]

47. The evidence for evolution is clear and they reject that. It scares me that they think it is a

satanic plot to turn people away from God. I also don't like the politics and anti-gay views that come with it.

As for my beliefs you know them already but to someone who does not believe I can understand how my views can be seen as hypocritical. If right wing politics did not come with Creationists I would be less scared. Also the fact that they do not accept that they can possibly be wrong. I accept that your ideas that there is no God is possible. I like many others have struggled with faith but I still believe. Yes it means that I go beyond what science can prove.

Just so you know I will be going away tomorrow for a week and will be away from my computer so if you respond after tomorrow know that a response will come later next weekend.

[cleanhippie]

48. Have a great time. Talk to you when you return.

[hrmjustin]

49. Thanks my friend!

[Marrah_G]

37. About the whole death thing.....

I remember reading once that up until modern times it was not uncommon for people to be pronounced dead when they weren't.

I know that wasn't the point you were making... but I love random facts like that

[Buzz Clik]

51. "Science"?

Nice thing about true science is believing first hand observations. If the observations are repeatable, you seek an explanation. Non-repeatable observations are set aside for further testing.

[cleanhippie]

27. From some of the conversations you and I have had...

You have rejected things that science tells us didn't/can't happen. Should I be scared of you?

[hrmjustin]

28. No I don't think so but you have to make that choice.

[cleanhippie]

33. You have rejected scientific knowledge and the physical laws of the universe in favor of a belief.

Should I be any more scared of you than you are of them? Why or why not? And if not, why are you scared of them for doing the exact same thing you are doing?

[hrmjustin]

35. I am scared of them because of the politics and anti-gay views that usually comes with creationists.

If someone finds me scary I can't help that, but it would probably be a first.

[cleanhippie]

39. Now you have changed the reason why you are scared of them. First it was their rejection of science

Now it's

the politics and anti-gay views that usually comes with creationists

.

The latter I can understand and support. The former, the rejection of science, is something YOU have done. Is the rejection of science now not a reason to be scared of them?

[hrmjustin]

40. No rejection of science is something to be scared of them.

And I disagree with you that I reject science but if you want to be afraid of me I can't help that.

[cleanhippie]

42. If you think the laws of physics were suspended by a supernatural force, you are rejecting science.

[rug]

15. Why is the kid drawn like a fat stupid kid?

[goldent]

38. Don't forget the flag -- he represents everything the privileged class sees as a lesser person

40 years ago he would have been black, with a piece of wheat straw in his mouth, and skinny as a rail.

[rug]

50. Well, he may have to look harder for material now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121884398

[Buzz Clik]

52. Because it is a cartoon.

Ask Bruce Tinsley why he portrays liberals as pudgy, goateed idiots.

Same answer.

[rug]

55. Which means it's drawn deliberately to emphasize physical features that way.

It's a common propaganda tactic most expertly used for racist, anti-Semitic and, most recently, anti-Moslem purposes. If this cartoon is meant to promote a purported progressive purpose, it only demeans it instead.

[Buzz Clik]

56. Attempting to make a rhetorical, philosophical, or intellectual argument about cartoons is useless.

Political cartoons are meant to present a single position with extreme bias and hyperbole. If you don't like the cartoon, turn the page and move on.

Being a complete fan of political cartoons of all kinds, I can tell you this: every side gets skewered, every ox gets gored. Find a cartoon you like and cling to it. For me, I like them all. One's that make me squirm are the best. A little introspection goes a long way.

[rug]

57. I have no problem with political cartoons.

I have problems with political cartoons that are lazy and try to make a political point by mocking physical features. I've seen too many racist cartoons to give that a pass, turn the page, or move on.

[Buzz Clik]

58. Regardless of how you spin or obsess over this cartoon, it is not racist.

Can you please explain your objection?

[rug]

59. Who's spinning or obsessing?

The cartoon is clearly drawn to depict a fat, stupid kid and a fat mother gullibly accepting creationist nonsense. The only thing missing is a Walmart bag. There is a class aspect to this cartoon that is both inaccurate and elitist.

[Buzz Clik]

60. You're still trying to analyze too much.

It's a cartoon, not an academic commentary or a media opinion piece.

Is the cartoonist trying to cash in on stereotypes? No doubt. But, that's the point of a political cartoon: 10 seconds and out. Are they generally flawed? Yep. Biased? Of course. It happens.

I could give you ten political cartoons published in the last 48 hours that are equally bad portraying some point of view.

Let me repeat: arguing about political cartoon is a waste of time.

[rug]

61. This is the fourth post you've made arguing with me over a cartoon.

[Buzz Clik]

62. fifth

[2ndAmForComputers]

53. How can he get a prize? He's off by 983 years!

[dimbear]

54. You are correct, but it's just a slip. What he meant to write was the entire lifetime of the earth

is 7000 years. It's easy to see why, because to God a day is like a thousand years, and God created the universe in 6 days and on the seventh rested. The last 1000 years of the 7000 will be marked by the return and rule of Jesus.

I calculate, depending on Bishop Ussher, that the beginning of the thousand year reign of Jesus should fall around 1996. in the ordinary reckoning of years. I'm looking forward anxiously to the arrival of that year.