|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Date: 4/26/2004 7:25:00 AM
From Authorid: 23075
I think both should be talked about in school and then the decision left up to the individual what they want to believe  |
Date: 4/26/2004 7:35:00 AM
From Authorid: 15070
When I was in 6th grade, we were offered the option. Don't they still do that? And, yes, it was public school.  |
Date: 4/26/2004 7:36:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Yea let them teach Creation in schools, along with the Earth being the center of the universe.  |
Date: 4/26/2004 8:12:00 AM
From Authorid: 48809
I personally believe in evolution, but I know that not everyone does... so why not teach both ?  |
Date: 4/26/2004 8:14:00 AM
From Authorid: 13119
why would you want to inject religion back into schools? Your idea of creation is based upon a God, and then he made the heavens and the earths, etc. Is there not supposed to be a seperation from religion in schools.  |
Date: 4/26/2004 9:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 51635
Nope, if your parents wanted you to be taught about creation, they would send you to a religious school, not a public school. Unless ALL denominations and ALL beliefes are taught, none should be... I think it all comes down to how children treat eachother, if all but one child stands and bows their heads for prayer, what happens to that one child? Does that child get picked on at recess? Will that one child feel obligated to pray in a way that goes against his/her beliefe system so as not to be harrassed by the other children? If no one else stood up to pray would you? Would you put yourself in the position of being the only kid to do something, put yourself at the mercy of the children you go to school with? Its the same reasoning for dress codes...  |
Date: 4/26/2004 9:26:00 AM
From Authorid: 15319
Let me say this simply, NO!!! There is a seperation of Church and State you know. Evolution has nothing to do with the Church or religion, but Creation DOES. If your going to teach Creation (assuming the Christian creation) in schools, you have to teach ALL the religions creations in schools also. To do otherwise would be clearly biased for the Christians.  |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 9:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 15319
Although this is somewhat off topic, it never ceases to amaze me how people will be so stupid as to make the old "They took God out of schools" comments. Do you realize how utterly ignorant these people are? They never took God ANYWHERE. All they did was declare that schools (unless its a religious school obviously) cannot lead students in prayer nor can they mandate a certain religion. You can still pray to God, you just simply can't do it in a way that infringes on other students rights. My old High School had the Brothers And Sisters In Christ (B.A.S.I.C.) club along with the FCA (Fellowship of Christian Athletes). Did I complain about them? No, but I felt the school violated Church and State seperation. It would have done me no good if I DID complain, 95% of the school was Christian. |
Date: 4/26/2004 9:36:00 AM
From Authorid: 30747
In my day religious education was offered as an extra-curricular course with a parants written permission. I really don't think it should be standard education for the simple fact that religion is a private matter and I can only imagine the PTA meetings with parants complaining about their kids being taught something they don't personally believe in...which, if your going to teach religion, you have to cover ALL the bases right? Talk about opening a can of worms...eeeeekkkk. Best to keep school on the scientific aspect of things and the religion taught in the churches. IMO  |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 10:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 13119
Dark Angel, your comment about "how people will be so stupid as to make the old "They took God out of schools" comments. Do you realize how utterly ignorant these people are?" Shows your lack of knowledge, they did take religion out of schools. when I went to school ALL children had to say the Lord's Prayer, it is religion in schools. Now they are not allowed to hang religious items or sayings in the hallways and yet before they did. So for us older people they have taken religion out of school |
Date: 4/26/2004 10:48:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
science is not a religion. it does not follow on that if you teach a scientific theory, that you should also teach a certain christian belief to balance it out. creationism is a belief held only by one religion of many, and there are a good deal of christians who do not view the story of creation as literal fact.  |
Date: 4/26/2004 11:13:00 AM
From Authorid: 19092
There is creation science that is not related to any religion. Creation science is a theory just like evolution is a theory. Both can be taught without the influence of religion. Just present the facts and theories and allow the individuals to decide for themselves. Something, at present, they are being denied by government...  |
Date: 4/26/2004 11:28:00 AM
From Authorid: 12133
Yeah, they are right, you can't teach Creation in schools. Might offend someone who doesn't believe in God. As for the ones who DO believe in God, oh well, their rights don't matter here. Its funny, when I went to school, prayer was still allowed, but i don't recall it being done much. But, I don't recall going to school and worrying about getting shot either. Nor did I have to worry a lot about drugs, generally, just a few people with pot. I didn't have to worry about gang wars. There was a lot of stuff I didn't have to worry about. Now I don't have to worry about some closed minded person getting offended by a prayer to a being they claim not to believe in anyway. Thank God/Allah/The Easter Bunny/Oblivion/Buddah.....did I miss a deity? Don't want anyone's feeings hurt. Funny thing though, they take out God, let in guns, violence, drugs, and gangs, and they call this progress.  |
Date: 4/26/2004 11:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
As noted in the National Science Education Standards: "Explanations on how the natural world changed based on myths, personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspiration, superstition, or authority may be personally useful and socially relevant, but they are NOT scientific." Because science can only use natural explanations and not supernatural ones, science teachers should not advocate ANY religious view about creation, nor advocate the converse: that there is no possibility of supernatural influence in bringing about the universe as we know it. The SUPERNATURAL: gods, (many different creation stories) and ghosts, demons, devils, angels, and the like, are OUTSIDE the natural world. It is NOT science. Has nothing to do with science.  |
Date: 4/26/2004 11:43:00 AM
From Authorid: 52155
Since Evolution is only a theory (meaning it is not a fact,) I don't see a problem with teaching both Creation and Evolution  |
Date: 4/26/2004 11:45:00 AM
From Authorid: 53052
evolution is based on science where as creation is based on the bible  |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 11:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
Many religions; many different gods, different creation stories and theories......Religions themselves evolve, even religions that disallow belief in evolution. In time the creationist churches will come to terms with the world that science has shown to be reality. But until that.. evolution takes place, the public schools must continue to present the best understanding of science that is available at any given point in time. It is sad that this may cause discomfort to certain individuals. But the fact that reality is not "fair" may itself be an important lesson for our children to learn, over and above any lessons they may learn about human origins. Our children deserve the best possible education we can offer them today to prepare them for the REAL world. They must learn to properly evaluate and distinguish between what is real and what is fantasy, and things of "faith" and in order to make the decisions of tomorrow. Their chances for success depend on their understanding of REAL science, where hypotheses must be tested repeatedly and subjected to possible falsification, before being accepted. No reputable scientist accepts the pseudo-scientific world of "creation science," nor should we be teaching our children a corrupt form of "science" which is based on belief, or acceptance WITHOUT evidence. To ban any teaching tool from the science classroom because it presents a scientific fact which offends those who still desperately want to believe otherwise, is to do a great disservice to the students of today and the leaders of tomorrow. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 11:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 12133
1) I've gt pics of ghosts. Lots of people have pics of ghosts, just because science can't explain it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Eddo aslo has a good point. Evolution has not been proven yet either. And let's look at science also. Science used to claim the Earth was flat. Science used to claim that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Science used to say a lot of things, that were later proven wrong. So much for infallible science, huh? |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 11:48:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
A theory must be capable of observation and testing. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 11:50:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
"Science used to claim that the Earth was the center of the Universe" - Science? It was the Catholic Church, The great infallible Bible. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 11:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
EDDO.....There you guys go again....and AGAIN. You STILL throw out that "It's just a theory" statement; when you do NOT know (nor want to know and understand!) what you're saying. "THEORY" is not the same in the religious world or viewpoint......as that which is used and clarified by the realm of SCIENCE. You've been told this MANY MANY times. Many times it has been explained to you. Just because the believer in creation and gods CAN'T understand , does not mean that their beliefs in such should be taught as "facts". |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 11:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 52155
So, Thinker (Like I said,) Teach them both.... |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 11:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
Crash, do you wish to LEARN? Do you wish to study some REAL science books? Do you wish to LEARN here, or do you just want to jump up and down and repeat the same old "God-did-it" mumbo jumbo, in hopes of out shouting the evolutionists? |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 11:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
EDDO, WHY teach something in a SCIENCE classroom that is NOT about Science???? |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 11:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 12133
But yet you want "Evolution" taught as fact, when it is no more provable then the Biblical theory of creation. Just proves that some people are willing to believe anything, as long as its NOT what the Bible says. Its funny, MANY things "Science" has come up with, and taught as fact, has later been proven wrong, and the Bible correct. And no Rod Tod, the Bible does NOT say that Earth is the center of the Universe. Not that I'm aware of, anyway. Nor does it say that the Earth is flat, like what was commonly believed. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Why Thinker, by all means, PROVE to me that evolution is right, and is PROVABLE, and not someone's theory. By all means.... Which you can't, so your "theories" are just as unprovable as mine. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
No, instead the infinite God gives his lack of knowledge of the workings of the universe, when he claims he somehow he made the sun move. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 52155
Since Macro-evolutino has not been proven, why teach it at all? Why not just disregard the orgins of the universe from classrooms altogether since it cannot be proven? |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Almost none of the creationists have had their work published in regular scientific journals. In order to get published, they have formed their own journals, but the rest of the scientists do not recognize those journals as playing by the strict rules that regular science demands. Most of what the creationists have said to "prove" their point has been shown to be either invalid or false. "Intelligent Design" proponents are just cloaking in, or painting the SAME old creation story with a new paint job; dressing it up with scientic terminology, pseudo science, junk science, and scientific "SOUNDING" jargon. THAT works for the non-scientist; and it works very well for those who are science illiterate, and got their "science" education from the pulpit or Jack Chick tracts and Josh McDowell. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
Why is it then that so many public schools in our country manage to get away with teaching the religions of Scientism and Secular Humanism even in the face of widespread efforts to erect a "wall of separation" between church and state? Cannot both views and theories be presented? And why can't students be allowed to decide for themselves which theory has more evidence? Wonder if fear has anything to do with it...? |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Creationists, believers in gods; they must COUGH UP A CREATOR. No such , NO deities has been detected in a manner whereby ALL who use the method for detecting this deity experience pretty much the SAME results. Although all Creationist systems purport to answer the question, "Where did we come from?" and all ASSUME that our existence cannot be explained as coming about via natural means, few if any of the known creationist systems address the question, "Where did the deity come from?" If life and the Universe are so vast and complex that their existence needs OR "must have been created" to be explained by saying there is a Creator, then we must explain the existence of an even more vast and even more complex Creator. To explain the existence of a Creator, being that much more complex than we are, is harder than to explain the existence of our Universe and ourselves. Think about it. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
I agree, KC. They keep going on and on about "Well, Creation is just a myth, and its in the Bible, however, OURS is a myth, that was created by man, so OURS is worthy of teaching in schools." Funny how that works. Heck, offer 2 courses, one offering Creation, the other offering Evolution, and let the students choose which one they want to take. |
Date: 4/26/2004 12:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Its funny, Thinker...Do I wish to learn? Do I wish to read REAL science books? And then you go on to explain that other scientists don't even believe their companions theories! Yeah, that just sells me on THEIR theories! |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Crash, LEARN what a theory IS in the scientific realm, try to digest that, and understand it, and MAYBE you might find some answers therein. DO SOME INDEPENDENT study, research. How in the sam hill is one to explain your questions; and have you understand them, IF you don't even know the basics of Science??? That "willing to believe anything as long as it isn't what the Bible says"....IS TOTALLY a misrepresentation of ME, nad it sure as heck is NOT anything to do with SCIENCE! Get outta here with that nonsense. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
Can, indeed, any teacher discuss the origin of the universe, and particularly the origin of man and his "values", with out teaching or discussing religion? It seems unlikely that there can be such a thing as "value free" or "religion free" education on many of those subjects that most intrigue man. We are led to conclude that all schools are to at least some degree "religious schools", it is only a question of which religion is being taught. Why is there such a "phobia" with respect to creation science? What better place to talk about it than in a class room. let the students express themselves, explore all theories, learn from each other...but instead, we deny them the freedom, while at school, to openly talk about evolution vs creation. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
So, God doesn't exist, because you can't fully explain it? Or because you can't see it? For centuries, man couldn't explain, nor see air, but that didn't lead them to doubt its existance. |
Date: 4/26/2004 12:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
Most people's idea of education or the learning process would be to allow a student investigate and learn about the creationist side, or perhaps the conservative side or maybe even the poltically incorrect side *gasp* and let them draw their own conclusions and form their own opinions. Instead of producing the single minded robots so many claim to abhor (when that single mindedness differs from their own)  |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
Because Creation Science is an oxymoron. Lets just teach pixies made the universe, its holds as much truth as Creation. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
I too, having very strong religious beliefs, sat through the evolution thing while at school. I was taught something totally against what I believe. I am no different today than I was then. The exposure to "evolution" caused me no harm. So, if someone who does not believe creation, has to sit through being taught something that is totally against what they believe...then all are denied...perhaps a double standard to some degree. Think about it... |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
KC, you are another one that all these things have been discussed and debated with; you've been told and your same questions have been answered. All you guys are doing is refusing to learn, and refusing to accept anything that is not based on your faith. (the opposite of what Crash was talking about). What you people THINK, push, claim, and insist on teaching children, is that YOU think that evolution is "A religion", or "Humanists" are religious, when it is not. And please, do not drag out the ridiculous "Humanists say they are religious". THAT is what it is classified under, so that they can receive tax breaks, and or are able to get some sort of exempt status regarding bulk mail, and other perks that the religious organizations enjoy. Hey, they had to categorize those folks someway. Goverment MUST put a label on anything and everything; doesn't matter what the ACTUALITY of the truth is. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Well, if theory is the scientific realm, then the Bible's "thoery" of creation is JUST as valid as man's theory now, isn't it? I'm more than satisfied with the Bible's "theory" because, in the long run, how the Universe was created, is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with anything I am concerned with in my daily life. |
Date: 4/26/2004 12:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 52337
In the Bible it says stuff about a ROUND world. It says things about currents in the oceans. Man didn't beleive any of this until thousands of years after the Bible was written. I PERSONALLY beleive in Creation only because the Bible has not told a lie yet. Most of the predictions in the Bible have came true. Every one of you that believe that God isnt real, explain the truth of the Bible to me. Love Always, Cady  |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
By that matter, Rod Tod, fairies holding the Universe together hold as much water as your "evolution" theory also. So, by accounts, both theories are about the same, neither are provable. So, why can't both be taught, or give the students the choice in which class they want to take?? |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
The Bibles "theory" does not measure up to scientific standards, and is invalid as a scientific explaination. Mans theory meets the standards, The Bibles does not. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Go back through the archives of USM; you will be able to click on HUNDREDS of discussions and "debates" about evolution, creationism. ALL the same people, all the same tit for tat.....and NO ONE is on the same page, ever. The creationists are armed to the teeth with their big ole "GOD-DID-IT" stamps, and "That's-all-ah-need-ta-know" statements. Well, carry on, dearies, because I'm not very interested in wasting anymore of my time. That is what this is: a waste of time. Perhaps someone else has it to waste, and will indulge you. As the kids say: I'm outta here. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
Evolution has been tested and recorded, more so than the Creation myth. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
The Bible "theory" doesn't hold up to scientific standards? Well, according to Thinker, neither does man's evolution "theory". And personally, until its PROVEN wrong, and it hasn't yet, I will stick with what the Bible says. Its funny, I suggest letting the students make the decison for themselves, and choose which theory they want to learn, and neither of you are even open to that possibility, and yet, you two call US "close-minded" Neither theory can be proven, nor disproven, so therefore, which version to believe should be open to what the idividual chooses to believe. If people want to believe in evolution, then let them go to a certain class, and learn that theory. If they want to believe in creation, let them go into a different classroom, and learn that one. That way, most of the people will be happy, and it should stop all of the bickering. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Yeah, and until someone went AROUND the world, science also had a "theory" that the world was flat. Science has been proven wrong, countless times. The Bible also is not infallable, so again, we are back to "Your theory is as good as mine", so let the students choose which version they want to hear. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
Creation is not a Scientific theory, why keep calling it such? |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
Science is a self correcting method. |
Date: 4/26/2004 12:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 12966
there is more scientific proof to support creation than there is to support evolution. Many scientists have accidently disproved evolution while trying to prove it, they just don't tell everyone because they do not want to admit their mistake. A lot of the stuff in science books is just a lie, and scientist have admitted that it is a lie.  |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
And it was Science which proved the world was not flat, any errors made are also corrected. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
the·o·ry (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. 2)An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. I think the Bible's "theory" on creation falls within these guidelines, therefore making it a "theory". |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
So science is ok, as long as they can fix their mistakes, at a somewheat later date, when its proven they are worng. You win, just convinced ME to give up over 2,000 years of Biblical theory to support your idea! |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 52155
Excellent point with your "close-minded" statement, Crash. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 52155
So teach all three- Creation, Evolution, and Pixies. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
And science did not prove the world was flat, Columbus did, without meaning to. It was NOT a trip made as a scientific experiment. That scientists figured it out...well, most people could have figured it out from the info they recieved AFTER the fact. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Thank you, Eddo. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 52337
Are we aloud to post our beliefs on God on USM? I thought it was banned because of all the disagreement |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 52155
and KC also makes an excellent point with his "double standard" comment... |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
'Scientific Theory Definition: [n] a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"' Its not a scientific theory. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
A theory is an idea, that people are trying to prove, or disprove, otherwise, it is a fact. |
Date: 4/26/2004 12:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 25438
If by "creation" you mean the idea that man was created by "God" as stated in the bible this theory is discussed. It is not discussed in science because there is no proof or basis behind it but we discussed that theory in History. You can't discuss any form of faith in a science class, there is no way to make the idea of creation scientific.  |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 12:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
A theory is not a Scientific theory. Evolution is a Scientific Theory, Creation is not. Was that clear? |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Its kinda funny, SCIENCE discovered a beatuifl formation in a distance galaxy, not the long ago. Now, the funny part is, what did they name it? "The Eye of God" or something like that? |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
scientific theory n : a theory derived from or used in science So, if SCIENCE doesn't use it, its invalid? Sorry, I don't agree with that. Even according to you, science has been wrong many times. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
They also use the name of Pagan Gods, doesn't mean they worship them. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
People are wrong, science is a method, science in the end corrects the mistakes. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Another funny point, people who believe in Creation are generally saying "Let the people choose for themselves" the ones who believe in "Evolution" are saying "Our way, and our way only." And yet you call us close-minded. Are you people scared of competition? We have FAITH in what we believe, and are willing to let other people tell their "theories", but you aren't willing to let us teach ours. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 52337
But God is Science.. It's just no one has figured Him out yet.. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Excuse me, but aren't scientists PEOPLE? And even if science corrects its mistakes, it was still WRONG. |
Date: 4/26/2004 1:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 12084
A cold heartless piece of stone, that is naked and appears to be alone, is what is reflected in a statue that is named the thinker. Art is what it is all about. Should we banish art is our schools too?  |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
You still don't get it. Why would Science teach FAITH/RELIGION?! If you want to learn about stories go to sunday school. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
And if you want to learn science, go to a laboratory!!! |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
God is NOT science, He has nothing to do with science. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
Crash maybe its new to you but some schools have a Science class. Obviously they teach science. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
If a school is used to teach people, then should ALL aspects of a certain subject be taught, and not just ONE? For someone to be able to make an EDUCATED decision for themselves, they should be allowed to see ALL aspects of a point, and not just one. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Well, according to Christian people, God is responsible for ALL science. Just because SOME people choose not to believe that, doesn't make it wrong. There are still people to this day, that believe the world is flat, does that make THEM right? I don't think so. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Well, considering I excelled in science, and considering I have had college Anatomy, and Biology, science is not a new thing to me. BUT, I can also look at what they teach, as an end result of a Supreme Deities work, and not the end result of billions of years of "accidents' that happened to work out, and to produce life as we know it. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
But as usual they cant back it up with SCIENCE. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
Supreme Deity is a crutch, notice it gives all the answers without getting people to use their brains? God made the universe, God made it rain, God did this, God did that. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
And as usual, science guesses, until it gets lucky, and hits upon the correct answer. And no, most people don't think God makes the rain, they know that God made things the way they are, and rain is the end result of a working system. Makes as much sense as science claiming that through a series of "accidents" and random things happening, that a world capable of sustaining life was created, and that this has only happened ONCE, in the entire universe. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
And God is only a crutch, to people who have nothing to believe in. You want to believe that when you die, you become worm food, and that's the end of it. you have the right to your beliefs. I believe that when I die, I go to Heaven or Hell. This is my right. MANY people have came back, after dying, and have told remarkably similar stories about what they have seen, and what they have felt. So, if I'm right, look at what I have to look forward to, after dying, as opposed to you. |
Date: 4/26/2004 1:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 43807
The creation myth is exactly that a myth, mean while evolution is a theory.  |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 43807
hence to close my argument the creation myths ( yes there are many) Should be taught in conjunction with Mythology class. Evolution in science class bc it is a scientific theory. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Why is creation a myth? It is a theory, just like evolution. the·o·ry (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. The Biblical creation is a widely accepted THEORY about how the universe was created, and is used to explain a group of facts, or phenomena., therefore, making it a THEORY, and not a myth. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
Well, like I said, I believe that both should be presented to students for evaluation. I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear. Let the student weigh the evidence and decide for themselves...I am not saying stop teaching evolution, just be fair and teach the other sciences that offer evidence for creation. I have no phobia like some appear to have... |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Like I said, KC. The Creationists are generally all sying "teach both" while the Evolutionists seem to be scared of any theories, other than their own. And even according to them, they can't even agree on the same theory. Seems to me, that they should get their theories straight, before they try to push it off onto our children. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 1:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
Scientific evidence for creation abounds in areas of objective observation. Scholars in various scientific disciplines have written about the incredible complexity in living systems and the structure of the universe. This complexity is beyond the possibility of natural development. Myself, as one who is well schooled and experienced in electronics, radio frequency, and the science of microprocessors, I have a extensive mathematical education. The odds required for the "evolution theory" to be correct, I am unable to accept as fact. |
Date: 4/26/2004 2:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 33401
Evolution is more scientifically correct for public schools, creation and religious beliefs is for religious private schools.. Love,  |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 2:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 19332
.Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, a physicist working for the prestigious Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico (who is involved with the laboratory's particle beam fusion project, concerning thermonuclear fusion energy research) is a board member of the Creation Research Society. He has about 30 published articles in mainstream technical journals from 1968 to the present.In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had "a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters." Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, "It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters." This admission is particularly significant since Science's official letters policy is that they represent "the range of opinions received." e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones. Humphrey's letter and Ms. Gilbert's reply are reprinted in the book, Creation's Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.) On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article * "Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps" to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn't want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn't even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a "slight bias" exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.  |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 2:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 19332
In the 70's and early 80's physicist Robert Gentry had several articles with very significant creationist data published in mainstream journals (Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc.), but found he couldn't publish openly creationist conclusions. Gentry had discovered that granites contain microscopic coloration halos produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium. According to evolutionary theory, polonium halos should not be there. Some believe that the existence of polonium halos is scientific evidence that the Earth was created instantaneously. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 2:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 19332
In answer to the authors question, yes, I believe if one is going to be taught the other should be taught. In these things I do agree with my mom firstborn, ok done here, back to the poem section for me. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 2:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
The problem being, if they KNOW its Creation, they lose billions of dollars per year for "research". Same reason cancer hasn't been cured yet. |
Date: 4/26/2004 2:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 13283
They both deserve equal time . Since there is a thing called evolution , take a wild a guess at who got it started . Who set it in motion ? ( God )  |
Date: 4/26/2004 2:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 29387
Why not have a class named "Creation," and a class named "Evolution." Then, students can choose which class they want to take, and what they want to learn about. Perhaps neither creation nor evolution should be taught in generic science classes; rather, they can be the one in-depth subject of a course. This seems logical instead of teaching two opposing views.  |
Date: 4/26/2004 2:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 62599
I say give religion as an option class, then u can learn about creation. but anyways, what christian child doesnt know about creation?  |
Date: 4/26/2004 2:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 18527
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].  |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 2:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 18527
I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his]. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 3:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Basically, all I have heard of evolution is: SOme scientists have this idea, but not everyone agrees with it...." I'm sorry, if even the scientific community doesn't agree with it, why is it even being debated about, to be taught to our children? Shouldn't courses be taught on facts, and not speculation? Math teachers don't teach "We THINK 1+1=2". |
Date: 4/26/2004 3:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
OKay here's a question for you should evolution be taught in Christian schools. No it shouldn't why? because it is not what the school believes. Even students want to learn about Creationism they can go to a christian school!  |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 3:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
I shouldn't have to go to a Christian School, to learn about Creation, when Creation is just as valid of a theory, as Evolution. When someone can PROVE that Creation is PURELY Biblical in nature, and has nothing to do with facts, then it should go to a Christian school. Until then, it is still just as vaild of a theory on the creation of the universe, as Evolution is. Should Evolution be sent to Atheist only schools? Or "Scientific" schools? Its amazing that Christians are willing to let people make their own choice, and to offer both, with the option left up tothe individual, while others want Creation completely removed, and NO ONE has yet to prove that Creation is wrong. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 3:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 51635
If parents want their child to be taught the creation theory, they can send their kids to private school... thats what religious freedom is about... there isn't enough time in a school day to include the theories from ALL religions so non of them are taught... thats the way it is and the way it should be... |
Date: 4/26/2004 4:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 38849
Actually I've attended a Catholic school and both Creationism and Evolution were taught. The concept being that creation took place to start the universe, and evolution took place since so that we might understand and find our God we believe in. Do I think both theories should be taught? Yeah I do. I don't believe creationism has to have a "christian" focus, all that has to be said is that it is the theory that the universe was created by a supernatural power. Can explain the possible ways of proving that, showing that, whatever. Much like evolution is a theory that is taught the flip side is creation. What is the big deal? --  |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 4:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
The majority of parents are unable to afford "christian schools". Is it right to deny an alternative science to evolution?? Creation science has some valid principles, they should be explored and offered to all in the name of "education". How can one call themselves "educated" if they are not presented with all theories and possibilities? |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 5:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 62599
you can probably mix creationism and evolutionism in together, but ud have to alter some stuff. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 5:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Its funny, NONE of the "Evolution" enthusiasts, have come CLOSE to proven that "CreatioN" wasn't the way things happened! You just don't like the fact that its part of the Christian, and Jewish religions. All of you keep on about "Evolution" and none of you can prove that this is how things happened, BUT, you want us to teach "Evolution" to our children, when its not even proven to be a fact. NOR, is it even a good porbability of being fact, so basucally, you want our children taught lies, just to make you feel better. And you people call Christians "hypocrits"! We people, of religious faith on this post, (and maybe a few who aren't) have all said "teach them both" whereas, the non-religious people are saying it HAS to be OUR way, without any other opinions. I for one, am sick and tired of the minorities trying to make the majority follow their whim. I'm tired of being expected to "roll over" as to not offend people. ENOUGH!!!! I believe in Creation, and the vast majority of Americans do. Teach BOTH versions of it, to whoever wants it. If you are offended by "Creation" then put your kids in the other class. You do NOT have the right to say what my child can learn, just because YOU don't agree with it. My child has just as much right to be taught "Creation" in school, as your kid has the right to be taught "Evolution". If you don't like it, take YOUR kid to a private school, and let them learn just "evolution" there! |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 6:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 38849
Here are my thoughts on the matter: I do not think we evolved from monkeys. And there has been no proof of this to date, yeah there are similarities but no proof the two species are really related. Evolution does happen though, everytime children are born, there is a small amount of "evolution" if you will. DNA provided by both parents creates a completely unique individual, in essence a form of evolution. However, I also believe the universe hasn't always just "existed." Therefore, something of the "supernatural" must have started the universe. That "supernatural" being is what I happen to believe is God. Can both creation and evolution be taught without the need of specifing a particular religion? Certainly can. So I just don't see the issue of teaching both, so long as it's taught without a religious bias. -- |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 7:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
----->Are we aloud to post our beliefs on God on USM? I thought it was banned because of all the disagreement <----Cady, we are indeed allowed to express our religious beliefs on USM. If you knew the site's owners, a lot of the Admins, and a good majority of USM'ers, you would realize that the Christian God is the Primary Religion on USM. However-you can be banned (usually after many warnings) for attacking & slandering others. This is no more a Christian-vs-Non banning than O.J. was a "Black-vs-White" trial. Simply not true. |
Date: 4/26/2004 7:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
BTW-as a Moderator is "Religion" I would encourage you to post & share your faith & stories.  |
Date: 4/26/2004 8:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 54111
I agree with Crash Slayer and KC. Some of the things these "scientist" come up with don't fit into their math equations. LOL But I forgot its ongoing. But its taught anyway.  |
Date: 4/26/2004 8:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 19220
I haven't read any replies so if someone already said this then....opps. IMO they should offer both as an elective course in HS.  |
Date: 4/26/2004 9:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 62085
if evolution was a proven fact yes. But since we know it isn't, whats up? You just answered it in the post. Keep God out. After that its easy to program a young mind to any subjective agaenda or programming. They will believe anything thats in a text book.  |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 9:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
That's basically it, Knightmare. "We don't care if its the truth, as long as it doesn't include God" |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 2:25:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Convince someone they are flawed and in need of being saved, you can then convince them of anything. Crash for someone who apparently excelled in science, you show a great lack of understanding for it. Science cares for scientific evidence, God is not scientific evidence thus God is NOT valid. Science does not care for what you think the "truth" is, it does not care about opinions, it is a method to give accurate evidence and answers, more accurate than playing guessing games with God. |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 2:35:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Crash using your logic should we then accept a mad mans ramblings off the street as to how he claims the world started? You can't see Evolution is Science, Creation is not. Evolution has been observed, and tested. Creation is far more guessing than Evolution, because Evolution fits the Scientific Standards, so Mr Madman off the street can't claim his beliefs should be taught too. |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 5:26:00 AM
From Authorid: 62085
what?? evolution isn't science its a idea without backup. Name one species that is the result of evolution. Adapting to different enviroments, etc only results in different messages carried by RNA to the DNA. Its never evolved a completely new animal, human or anything. Maybe because Crash has a background in science--- he knows it has no validity. |
| Date: 4/27/2004 5:49:00 AM From Authorid: 58681 I'd just like to point out if I may that scientists are not necessarily athiests. Some are, some are not. The science class in school is about the study of physical phenomena, i.e. things we can see, measure, etc and which is an ongoing study. Creationism is a belief based on ancient teachings from many ancient texts. This is not to say that these texts are invalid. If we go back to the original texts from which these modern texts are derived, we will find that the ideas in them are quite valid and sometimes are proven by science. Evolution is not necessarily opposed to religion. |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 5:50:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Biological evolution is fact, the mechanism of evolution is a theory. Without backup? Micro-Evolution is backup, Transitional fossils are backup, observations of Speciations is backup. Speciation in fruitflies, green algae, and bacteria have all been observed and documented. If Crash does have a background in Science he knows the answer why Creation isn't taught. |
Date: 4/27/2004 6:17:00 AM
From Authorid: 47218
sure, evolution should be talked about in school. In a comparative religion class or a philosophy class. It has no place in a science class. If they want to be fair, they should a unit on critical thinking where they discuss how and why certain hypothesis gain the status of theory. Don't confuse the kids by mixing religion with science. People are confused enough as it is.  |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 6:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 47218
I've read some of the arguments for "creationist" science. Taken on its own, it's a pretty weak theory. We might as well say the planet was pieced together by pink elephants. The only reason it gets such strong support is because people's religious convictions are behind it. So covertly, it is a religion. |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 6:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Mollycat I've just explained why Evolution has its place in a science class, I don't know why you think it needs to be in a religious class. |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 6:44:00 AM
From Authorid: 47218
oh dear, that does sound silly. I meant to say "creationism." |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 6:45:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
oops. sorry |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 6:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 47218
y'know, if I was a high school biology teacher and I was forced by state law to mention creationism in my class, I think I'd place it in a unit called "why creationism is not a widely accepted scientific theory" and go from there. |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 8:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 52155
Transitional fossils? What transitional fossils????? |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 8:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
If evolution and creation were taught in school, then it would give christianity an unfair advantage. if you are going to insist that religious viewpoints must be taught, thewn how can you justify teaching the Bible's version of creation, without teaching the various creation ideas from all other world religions? Also, a point everyone seems to miss in these debates is that just because the THEORY of evolution might sometime be proven wrong, that does not mean, it automatically prooves any other view right. |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 9:14:00 AM
From Authorid: 52155
So then why teach any of them Dark Phoenix? If none can be proven, why teach any of them? |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 9:29:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
bird-reptiles: Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, and many more. | reptile-mammals: pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta | Human-apes: a list with dates are here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3 | and legged whales and seacows |
Date: 4/27/2004 9:38:00 AM
From Authorid: 36967
A know a Creationist that goes around public schools, speaks. What he does is legal. Many people think that Christians are trying to make science class into sunday school, that is not true. Even the Creationists themselves don't want classrooms to be a sunday school. Creation in itself is not relgion, but people have put religion into it. Basically he teaches the evidence against evolution, which there is.  |
Date: 4/27/2004 9:51:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54461
With man mostly everything is impossible. With God, ALL things are possible.  |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 9:53:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
God is only limited to your imagination. |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 10:01:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54461
GOD IS UNLIMITED! How can we explain miricles? |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 10:01:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54461
Very good debates all. I do believe this was a good post for me too do. I shall post more. Thanks for everyone who replied back, and read this post. |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 10:03:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54461
How can we explain people that have come back from the dead, and actually talked to there loves ones, and actually seen hell or heaven? How can we explain the Blind people that have died, and had seen in there near death experience, and came back to tell everyone what they have seen? |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 10:04:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
I thought this topic is about science explaination of evolution and creation. How can you say everything is possible with God with no scientific evidence?? |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 10:06:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54461
It makes sence too me, God is the answer, and is just as proven to be correct than Evalution is. There has been so many flaws with Evalution, and why hasnt the body evolved into another stage? Why is there still monkeys? Why is there still the first step of evalution (Monkeys) if humans are suppose to be the next ones in line? There shouldnt be Monkeys no more. Us humans are suppose to be the next Evolving being. Whats next that we evolve into? A Giant Bear with 2 heads? |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 10:07:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
And then you have NDEs of athiests going to heaven, christians going to hell, witnesses being told by religious figures of reincarnation. Doesn't exactly go in Christianitys favour does it? |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 10:07:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54461
Science should not teach so many false statements just too go against the teaching of Creation, and the existance of God. |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 10:10:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54461
But if you believe in a Religion, you have no doubt where you will end up when you die. But if your Athiest, then you just think your dead and thats it. Dont you want to see your loved ones again? Dont you want to have peace and happiness? Doesnt it make sence to bow down to a supreme being that has so much more sence, and power than we do? Doesnt it make sence too worship a Supreme Being that has by faith explained that he exists, and by the books of the bible that has shown so many signs of existance? He shows even today he exists by miricles, and signs. |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 10:11:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54461
But if you believe in a Religion, you have no doubt where you will end up when you die. But if your Athiest, then you just think your dead and thats it. Dont you want to see your loved ones again? Dont you want to have peace and happiness? Doesnt it make sence to bow down to a supreme being that has so much more sence, and power than we do? Doesnt it make sence too worship a Supreme Being that has by faith explained that he exists, and by the books of the bible that has shown so many signs of existance? He shows even today he exists by miricles, and signs. |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 10:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
"There has been so many flaws with Evalution, and why hasnt the body evolved into another stage?" - Why do they need to? "Why is there still monkeys?" - This has been explained countless times, simply because they are right for their environment. "Whats next that we evolve into? A Giant Bear with 2 heads?" - That makes no sense, what kind of environment would need that? I'm trying to be serious, if you knew at all about evolution, something like a Human evolving into a Bear with 2 heads would need some dreamt up God. |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 10:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Why wait until you die to have peace and happiness? Have peace and happiness in this life. Sometimes you cant have what you want, and believeing in a Religion that promises you so much great stuff may set you up for a fall, or make you regret the way you treated others because you thought you were helping them. |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 10:41:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54461
As God has said in a round about fashion. "The Fool Has Said in his heart there is no God! Is Rejecting the Truth." |
Date: 4/27/2004 10:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 62060
Er, no evidence for evolution? Two words - FOSSIL RECORDS. If that needs more explaination, let me know.  |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 10:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Uh huh, so the Wise believe rain comes from the windows in heaven? And all the other made up stories? |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 10:49:00 AM
From Authorid: 62060
And Crash, to your math analogy. If everything to the power 0 is 1, then what is 0 to the power 1? What is the square root of a minus number? There is an entire unit of math devoted to 'imaginary' numbers, what people 'think' would fit. |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 10:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
KJ-52 After giving an example of a Human turning in a Bear, you shouldn't be so quick to label people a fool. |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 10:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 62060
And the only evidence for creationism in the creation of the universe is th Bible, which is NOT scientific fact. As to the 'big bang' idea, which is classed as a valid scientific theory, we have background radiation and RED SHIFT. Every theory, if not to be considered falliable, has to have some evidence. |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 11:23:00 AM
From Authorid: 62060
hmmmm, no replies... |
Date: 4/27/2004 1:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
my school we talk about both and only a few teachers actually bring up the question of the origins of life  |
Date: 4/27/2004 1:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 59876
teach evolution as a scientific theory, teach creation as religious history, and let the families sort out where it belongs and let the child learn to explore their options.  |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 2:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
This is the definition of theory: the·o·ry (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. "Evolution doesn't fit. Its is NOT widely accepted, even among scientists, nor has it been repeatedly tested, therefore, "Evolution" is nothing more than a hypothesis. An educated GUESS. Whereas Creation IS widely accepted, making IT a theory. I still don't get it though, you keep on about how great science is, even after saying that it has to keep correcting itself. Religion is not perfect, nor is science, so why try to act like science is infallable? Its not. By your own words its not, Rod Tod. Also by your own words, scientists can't even agree about the hypothesis of evolution, so why teach our kids something that even the ones who study it, can't agree on? |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 2:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Ok, Fire Storm, get a calculator, any calculator. The one on your computer will work. type in 1+1 and see what answer you get. If no calculator is available, ask a 6 year old, they will tell you "2". That is a FACT, and science should deal with FACTS, before teaching them to our children. If it is still a hypothesis, then let them figure it out, and make it a FACT, before changing what we have, and teaching a subject that may or may not be true. |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 4:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 15319
^^ Even if Science DID declare it a fact, it wouldn't change your mind would it? |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 4:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
If they could PROVE it, it might. If they can't, then I'll stick with my point of view. However, if someone were to look at Evolution AND creation with an open mind, one could EASILY see the parellels in both stories. However, the Bible had the same story first, showing that there is quite possibly some sort of Deity involved, which is how mankind kknew about stuff before the means were available. However, science is not even open to the possibility, so instead of viewing ALL possible aspects of a problem, they want to put blinders on, cover their ears and go "Nyah, nyah...we can't hear you!" |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 5:02:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54461
God is Wonderful! |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 5:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
The difference between scientific theories and religious ideas is that a scientific theory allows for it to be changed, it allows for scientists to say "ok, we were wrong about this" whereas religions present their unproven beliefs as pure fact and almsot never accept proof to the contrary. of course, it is convienient that most religious beliefs are not things that can easily br proven one way or the other. to say that science has been wrong in the past, is not an argument against science, but rather against those who refuse to admint the possibility that they might be wrong. |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 8:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 52155
Yeah, it sure is convienent that the authors of the Bible wrote things 2000 years ago (some of it longer than that,) knowing that we would have a hard time disproving them nowadays... </sarcasm> Could it be that the Bible hasn't been disproved due to the fact that it is true? |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 8:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Tell 'em, Eddo *grins* |
|
Date: 4/27/2004 8:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Its kinda funny, if you take a test in school, and you get answers wrong, you generally don't get the chance to go back, correct them, and get credit for them. If you make a mistake, and run a red light, telling the cop "Oops, I made a mistake." Generally will not get you out of a ticket. 99% of the mistakes made in this world, we are stuck with. Yet, SCIENCE wants us to let them make whatever changes they wish, when they realize they made a mistake. Hmmm, funny how that works. Scholars, scientists, archaeologists, and many other "professiona;" people use the Bible for reference all the time. They used it to find Noah's Ark, they've used it to find the Hanging Gardens, they've used it countless times, and its been right. Its not infallable, nor is science. However, the Bible does not go back and say "Oops, we messed up, let us change that." However, until you PROVE that "Creation" is wrong, your "theories" and "Hypotheses" are just that, theories and hypotheses, no more, no less. And to try to teach our children a falsehood, that you can't prove, and other scientists don't even agree with, is just plain dumb. Like Eddo said, Creation hasn't been proven wrong, in well over 2,000 years, if that was a scientific theory that lasted that long, without being disproven, you would accept it as a fact, yet, you aren't willing to let the majority of the population accept "Creation" as a fact PURELY because its in the Bible. Well guess what, the Bible has been right, without "correcting its mistakes" WAY more often than science has. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 3:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Crash do yourself a favour and look up the definition of a Scientific Theory. Biological Evolution is fact, Mechanism of evolution is a Scientific Theory, Creation is NEITHER. Crash you don't want to read what people write, you're putting your hands over your ears, and continue to demonstrate your lack of scientifc knowledge or even the meaning of Science. Sorry Creation does not gain credit for not being disproved, its discredited for not having proof. Science corrects its mistakes so it doesn't become like the Bible, people are actually given proper treatment for illness thanks to Science, instead of trying to remove imaginary demons or praying in vain, they are given real help. No one will gain anything by proving Creation wrong, its already invalid, instead time is spent studying the real evidence. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 6:18:00 AM
From Authorid: 47218
crash, you don't understand how the scientific process works. You can't prove a theory. You can only disprove it. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 7:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 62060
Crash, in your replies, you actually managed to teach me that *gasp* 1+1=2, but you also managed to avoid my questions completely. If, as you suggested, input 0 to the power 0 you get 'error', the same as with a minus square root. But I digress... I'm guessing you've assumed I'm completely anti-creationist. But in that you'd be wrong. There are many ways in which the universe was created that are not explainable by science, eg cause of the big bang, implantation of a genetic code in the first single celled organism. I simply find issue with the misguided belief that humans arrived on this planet needing no improvement. Dinosaurs were alive on this planet for hundreds of years, whilst creationism implys humans were created days after the creation of the earth itself. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 7:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 62060
And by your repeated definition of a theory ANY religious creation stories would be valid. Including the Hindu belief that the earth is floating in a sea of wine. There is a small but vital difference between a THEORY eg Pixies created the universe and a SCIENTIFIC THEORY eg the earth goes around the sun. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 8:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Eddo, i was not talking specifically about the bible, but rather all religions. there is as much proof for one religion as there is another. If i have two boxes and i say that inside one is a stone and the other is empty, but you are only allowed look at the closed boxes, and not interact with them in any way, then you have no real way of proving what i say, or disproving it. If i say that we were all created by a giant blue spaceblob called bob, you have exactly as much proof as you do, if you follow the bible's version. Scientific theories, unlike religious ones, can be weighed against each other, because they are all formed through one set of rules. Therefore, the scientific theory will always be the most true, because it acknowledges the fact that such questtons as the origin of the universe are currently unable to be proven 100% The greatest strength of science, is that it allows for mistakes, unlike religion. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 11:23:00 AM
From Authorid: 36967
Teachers are allowed to teach creation without the religion. It can be done. I know teachers that do it. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 11:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
DRKPTRS, Here is a CLUE: Belief in a Creator, a deity, deities, gods, IS: RELIGIOUS. No matter how much you want to claim otherwise. SCIENCE is about the MATERIAL, the NATURAL Universe, and our Planet. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 11:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
SUPERNATURAL: 1. Of or relating to existence OUTSIDE the natural world. 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. 3. Of or relating to a deity. 4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous. 5. Of or relating to the miraculous. NATURAL: 1. The material world and its phenomena. 2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature. 4. The world of living things and the outdoors: the beauties of nature. 5. A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality: couldn't tolerate city life anymore and went back to nature. 6. Theology. Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace. 7. The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing: “She was only strong and sweet and in her nature when she was really deep in trouble” (Gertrude Stein). 8. The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament: “Strange natures made a brotherhood of ill” (Percy Bysshe Shelley). 9. The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing. 10. The processes and functions of the body. Based on these conclusions, we find that GODS, Creators, demons, angels, Ghosts, Ghouls, Goblins etc. are supernatural because they are not part of "the material world and its phenomena" and are therefore "of or relating to existence outside the natural world". We find that they are not of the material world and its phenomena because NO SUCH CREATURES OR ENTITIES HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO EXIST, and without positive evidence you cannot assert validation of these claims. Therefore, until such evidence is forthcoming, these all these remain SUPERNATURAL. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 12:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
That's not MY definition of theory, that is the dictionaries, cut and pasted. Oh wait, the dictionary is biased also right? |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 12:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Personally, I don't see why Creation and Evolution cannot go hand in hand. They do, you know. But some people are st stuck on what they DON'T want to hear, that they aren't open to anything else. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 12:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Firestorm, nowhere in the Bible, does it say that AT THAT TIME, the "Days" Gid used to create the world, were a 24-hour period. "a "Day" at theat point, could have been any length of time, and the Bible does say God created the animals before man, so it is very possible that this could go in roughly the same direction as Evolution. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 12:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Evolution: states that bassically the worl was formed fromcooling gasse into a solid planet, and the random atoms combined to form various things i.e water, air, hydrogen, etc. And THEN not only did this form, but it also formed into tiny little organisms that adapted to their environments, and became every creature that is, or has ever been, on the planet. An organism crawled out of a pool of water, and evolved into an ape, which in turn evolved into man. Hmmm THAT sounds plausible *rolls eyes* Things evolve into somethat suited to the environment that they are in. A fish does not evolve into an air breathing mammal. There's no need for it to. Yes, throughout the years, people and animals evolve and adapt to the environment that they are in, hence the differences in skin pigments of different nationalities. BUT, saying that every land creature evolved from sea creatures? I don't buy it. Let science find the ONE cell that was formed, and SHOW ME, how that cell evolved into every creature that ever existed, and I might believe it. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 12:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Mollycat, you can't prove a theory, only disprove it? Funny how that works. Well, Disprove the theory of Creation then. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 1:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 52155
actually Crash, in the orginal launguage used to write Genesis, the word translated as "day" (to decribe the portions of the universe that God created) is the same word used to describe a literal 24 hour period back then. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 1:49:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54461
I do believe that creation makes alot more sence than evolution. Its quite easier to understand as well. Science just tries to mess with stuff that really is not worth understanding. Why go out too space and search other planets, while you can work on getting cures for cancers, and Aids. Science is not that bad. But they should prove something before they call what they see. Creation has been around for along time. And us humans who dont believe in God, and the Supernatural.. this is what I have too say. There has to be a more powerful being out there than us humans. How can we explain miricles, how can we explain instant cures from diseases, and cancers from the result of a prayer. You athiests have lost your faith. You are troubled in your hearts. Its so much easier to accept that fact that God created everything! Why does science have to ruin it all with there lousy breakthroughs of evolution which you cant even prove. Creation makes much more sence. I do however agree, Creation should be an ellective. Oh well.. I guess Christians, and Athiests will never get along. But us Christians have something over you. We have a loving caring Father, who wants us to come too him in our time of need. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 1:51:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54461
If there was no God.. life would have no meaning. I would kill myself if God was not real. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 2:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
^^^^^You're using the "APPEAL to EMOTIONS" argument. Just because it is "easier" to slap a "Goddidit" label on something unknown, and disregard truthfulness shown by facts/evidence, does not mean that ALL should go along with it. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 2:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Crash said: "Creation hasn't been proven wrong"<<<<<<<You CAN'T PROVE something that doesn't exist!! It can't be done. On the other hand, facts of Evolution have been proven, and those facts, based on what the evidence SHOWS, thus far, STAND. They will stand until FURTHER evidence/testing/observation comes along and or is discovered to possibly overturn what is NOW KNOWN. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 2:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
KJ-52 SAID: "But they should prove something before they call what they see"<<<<<<WHY should that only apply to Science, and the Scientists; but NOT the god believer's???????????? |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 2:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Let's just say that I make up a story about the Boogie Man. I then tell everyone about the Boogie Man. I have no proof whatsoever. Then YOU find out that I MADE UP this crazy story. Is it rational then to STILL beleive in the Boogie Man, when the whole idea was my INVENTION in the first place??? Its like continuing to believe in the Blair Witch after learning that the movie was staged......... |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 4:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
There is a huge difference between prooving the existence of God, and prooving the nature of God. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 4:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
But gee, Thinker, even according to YOU, scientists can't agree on the same "theory". So yours isn't provable either. So quit trying to act like "Science PROVED how things worked." When in actuality, they haven't. They have their ideas, but that's it. So, science's version of what happened is just as much open to debate, as creation is. No better, no worse. So tell me, honestly..Why can't schools teach both? Why can't they let the student decide which version they want to learn? Neither are cut and dried, both are debatable. So what's wrong with teaching both? Yall have NEVER answered that question. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 4:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
"Yours isn't provable either" ?? "EITHER"?? Crash, your questions HAVE been answered. Your "theory" explanation HAS been answered. You just do not read; you do not UNDERSTAND; and you don't want to understand; you do not want to learn; and you only make bold assertions; and clearly demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about.......so NOW, you scream and shout that YOUR claim IS fact. WRONG. There IS much much more proof of evolution than there is ANY *for* your claim of creation by a creator!!! |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 4:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
If there are so many "facts" backing evolution, why can't even the scientists agree on it? And you still never answered my question...AGAIN |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 4:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
"Science" claims that the universe was created in one "Big Bang" and objects traveled until they basically came to the point that they are now. Who's to say that this is not how God did it? However, there is no proof that mankind evolved like the evolutionists claim. No "missing link" has EVER been found. So where is YOUR proof that "evolution" is correct? You have none. And 90% of what "evolution" claims, go conceivably run hand-in-hand with what the Bible teaches. |
Date: 4/28/2004 4:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
KJ-52 said: "Why does science have to ruin it all with their lousy breakthroughs""? <<<<<1ST OF ALL, That will go down in my HUGE "Fundamentalists say the whackiest things" LIST.  And Second: The religious folks have always fought tooth and nail AGAINST science. In 529 AD Justinian closed the Academy and the Lyceum, two universities in Athens, founded by Plato and Aristotle. The reason? Christian distrust of pagan learning. In 800 AD, French ecclesiastic St. Bernard forbid Cistercian monks from studying medical books, declaring that prayer was the only remedy allowed to treat the sick (meanwhile Persians required their physicians to take examinations before becoming licensed). It was not until ancient Greek ideas began to filter back into Europe and get printed that science began to win in its battle against the Church. Even then, and to this day, Christianity continued to try to suppress scientific discoveries that it found unpalatable or contrary to their beliefs. (check Galileo or Hawking for details). Used to be, people were banished to the dungeons, or burned for their scientific discoveries. Got a clue yet? |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 5:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Crash, You keep on lobbing the ball back over into the Evolutionists court; refusing to answer questions put to YOU. Answers HAVE been given to you, but you don't understand them, therefore tossing back the claim that no one has answered you. Back and forth, round and round, in circles. SCIENTISTS DO AGREE ON MANY MANY theories..........AFTER careful study, testing, observation and examination. BUT, you would KNOW this IF you understood BASICS of science and the Scientific Method!! On the other side.......YOUR side, all you can do is make claims, and show NO evidence of ANYTHING. Good freaking grief, Crash, why in the sam hill should lies such as claiming the Shroud of Turin is real be taught in a science class??? It IS a fake, and has been shown to be a fake, as have many other wild and whacky claims. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 5:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Well Thinker, I am not a person who generally has a closed mind-set against science, or against anyone elses beliefs. I try to see all sides of a situation, and decide what MY opinion of it is. I do not believe everything in the Bible as being fact, but then again, I don't believe everything science says as "fact" either. I'm just trying to find out the "evolutionist's" logic, in trying to take "creation" out of schools, when "evolution" is open to speculation, just as much as "creation" is. And yall STILL have not answered the question of "Why can't they teach both?" Its a valid question, none of the "religious" people on this post seem to have a probelm with it, yet "evolutionists" won't have it anyway but their own. What are yall scared of? Being proven wrong? Please, enlighten us. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 5:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
So, since people MANY years ago, did not agree with science, then science wants to return the favor? I thought mankind was supposed to GROW in maturity, and not "Well, someone put a scientist in a dungeon 400 years ago, so payback is Hell" kinda thing. And yet, it seems that that is exactly what the pro-evolution people are trying to do. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 5:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Crash, you can keep flogging away at the dead horse, all you want. You can lie about who is "close-minded" until you're blue in the face. But, you'll only be preaching to the choir. You LIE about me, if you assert that I do not or will not or have not considered ALL sides, all points of view. That is not anything to do with the TRUTH. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 5:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
You have yet to prove to me that "creation" is a fake. Where is science's evidence? SHOW me the evidence. Give me a link to it... |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 5:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Yet you LIE about me, saying I don't see all sides of it. I do, and still, I choose to believe in Creation. And since I'm too stupid to understand the answer, break it down for me, in simple English, and tell me why they can't teach both, and allow the student to go to whichever class they choose. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 5:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Crash, you're desperation is showing. CHRISTIANS did not approve; did not agree with; did not want; suppressed, denied any SCIENCE long ago. BECAUSE it contrasted with their beliefs. Get it?? "Your "payback is hell" is just plain silly; and a gross slander and misrepresentation of Science. Just Reeks of ignorance. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 5:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
ANd again, you still beat around the bush, and don't answer the question. NOW who's showing ignorance?? |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 5:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Besides the fact, I have come to this post, asking legitimate questions, which have STILL not been answered, and you revert to name calling. THAT shows ignorance, and not being able to provide a legitimate answer, so you resort to name calling. Nice maturity there. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 5:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Crash, you haven't SHOWN one tiny modicum of interest in the facts; you haven't shown in anyway here that YOU understand basics or the scientific method, and several of us have made some very good, basic, simple points. You've just came right back with assertions; nothing at all to support YOUR position. There is no way that anyone can go on from here, and get into any specifics with you, when you haven't got beyond the basics. You cannot leap from one point, or first base, all the way home, by just flying OVER and ignoring the other bases or steps in between, and the efforts to get through each step. Nothing works that way. Only in your fantasies. To state that "God did it" without clearly DEFINING just WHAT, and WHO, WHICH this "God creator" is.....FIRST.....before LEAPING over everything, ommitted, and ignoring everything TO THE CONCLUSION that it is the god of the Bible.....well, sweetie, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 5:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Well gee, Thinker..I'll just have God pop in, and tell you what he did, how about that? I asked a simple question "Why can't the schools teach both?" Simple and direct. If you can't come up with anything, other than resorting to name calling, and trying to put other people down, why don't you go somewhere else? Simple question, simple answer. No more, no less. I could care less what science believes, you could care less what the Bible believes. Fina. Let the schools offer the children a CHOICE in which version they want to here. Simple. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 5:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Where have I "name called"?? You've SHOWN your ignorance, Crash. Shown it all over this post. The problem is: in your mind, you see it as my saying your stupid or something. A person can be brilliant at many things but STILL be ignorant in OTHERS. Hey, I'm pretty smart when it comes to lots of things, but I am ignorant as can be when it comes to many others. If I continually enter into a debate on ANYTHING, and proceed to demonstrate that I am ignorant on the subject; then I sure cannot get all hot and bothered, if the opponent says I am ignorant, and EXPLAINS just how I've been ignorant, now can I?? "I can explain it for you.....but I cannot understand it for you" , is an expression that says it all. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 5:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
You have yet to show my ignorance, Thinker, jsut like you have YET to answer my simple question, and the question of this post. If you want to get in a debate on who is smarter, I can handle that too. But what this all boils down to, no matter which version either of us believe is: "Why can't they teach both in school?" Answer that ONE simple question, with a LOGICAL explaination, and I will depart this post. Shouldn't be too hard. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 6:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
I HAVE ANSWERED that question, Crash, all over the place. IF scientists, if science cannot see it; cannot detect it; cannot physically examine and test it, then it does not exist in the material, real, NATURAL world. You do not provide any clear definitions of anything; you just use your Bible. The "real god" MAY exist, there is no way to tell, there MAY be a "real bible" out there in some cave that has the actual "words of the real god". Right now, though, we have the christian religion with their clearly flawed bible. Now, there might be passages inside that bible that are from the "real god", but those "real words from the real god", were corrupted by humans that put together the bible, because they have clear passages of their god in contradiction with himself, besides many more mistakes. Since a contradiction can not exist in real life, this "god" out of the bible can not possibly exist. Now, the "real god" still could supposably exist, but the "real god" is not written about in the christian bible, that version can't exist. But, there are millions that still believe the bible as being perfect. Also, there are many christians who realize these glaring mistakes within the bible, they are either "cherry-picking" parts of the christian bible or/and other christian text, beliefs and opinions, much of this is very counter to the christians who believe the bible to be perfect and their version of a god to be perfect, but they are all still counted as within the christian belief system, and this is all suppose to be about the same god. This can't be, there are too many contradictions that are just too important to the belief system to be overlooked as just mere mistakes, these instead, leave out what is supposedly the most important part of the belief, THEIR version of a god. I know why christians don't want to really face up to this, it is because they already had for hundreds of years before and it caused many mass killings and wars. But, that still does not change FACT, christians have no clear definition to christianity to count themselves in a belief system containing 2 billion + members. Until they do, there will never be such a thing as christianity or of a christian god besides a false claims. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 6:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
IF there WERE....ANY evidence , ANYTHING of any proof or indications of a supernatural entity, a god (much less the Christian version), then there would not be any need for "faith". There is nothing whatsoever within the realm of SCIENCE that deals with, or relies upon FAITH. Now, THAT, in a nutshell, is why it must not be taught in any SCIENCE class. |
Date: 4/28/2004 6:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 16442
LMAO, I am going to find it so humorous when Science finally admits that there are many unexplained (faith) things that cannot yet be explained. They just wont admit it yet.  |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 6:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Ok, keeping it simple ..."Give me a logical explaination why schools can't offer both versions?" If you've done it before, please repeat yourself in simple terms. |
|
Date: 4/28/2004 9:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Humans have a great hunger for explanation. It may be one of the main reasons why humanity so universally has religion, since religions do aspire to provide explanations. We come to our individual consciousness in a mysterious universe and long to understand it. Most religions offer a cosmology and a biology, a theory of life, a theory of origins, and reasons for existence. In doing so, they demonstrate that religion is, in a sense, science; it's just bad science. Don't fall for the argument that religion and science operate on separate dimensions and are concerned with quite separate sorts of questions. Religions have historically always attempted to answer the questions that properly belong to science. Thus religions should not be allowed now to retreat away from the ground upon which they have traditionally attempted to fight. They do offer both a cosmology and a biology; however, in both cases it is false. Consolation is harder for science to provide. Unlike religion, science cannot offer the bereaved a glorious reunion with their loved ones in the hereafter. Those wronged on this earth cannot, on a scientific view, anticipate a sweet comeuppance for their tormentors in a life to come. It could be argued that, if the idea of an afterlife is an illusion (as I believe it is), the consolation it offers is hollow. But that's not necessarily so, a false belief can be just as comforting as a true one, provided the believer never discovers its falsity. But if consolation comes that cheap, science can weigh in with other cheap palliatives, such as pain-killing drugs, whose comfort may or may not be illusory, but they do work. Uplift, however, is where science really comes into its own. All the great religions have a place for awe, for ecstatic transport at the wonder and beauty of creation. And it's exactly this feeling of spine-shivering, breath-catching awe -- almost worship -- this flooding of the chest with ecstatic wonder, that modern science can provide. And it does so beyond the wildest dreams of saints and mystics. The fact that the supernatural has no place in our explanations, in our understanding of so much about the universe and life, doesn't diminish the awe. Quite the contrary. The merest glance through a microscope at the brain of an ant or through a telescope at a long-ago galaxy of a billion worlds is enough to render poky and parochial the very psalms of praise. Dawkins, a genuis mind. Expert analogy.  |
|
Date: 4/29/2004 4:07:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
"Evolution: states that bassically the worl was formed fromcooling gasse into a solid planet, and the random atoms combined to form various things" - Evolution has nothing to do with how the universe formed nor how the world formed. Evolution is how the different species and genetics came. |
|
Date: 4/29/2004 4:13:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
"Give me a logical explaination why schools can't offer both versions?" One is Science the other is not, that shouldn't be so hard to workout. Moonpriestess, I find it humorous faith even attempts to explain evidence, and then when evidence counters their faith, they begin pointing fingers that people are lying. |
|
Date: 4/29/2004 4:19:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
"If there was no God.. life would have no meaning. I would kill myself if God was not real." - Thats how much you value your existence? Thats sad. |
|
Date: 4/29/2004 6:42:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
>>>Finally "admits" unexplained "faith" things?<<<<< They "Just won't admit"??<<<<<<**Appears to me that an awful lot of people have been listening to the creationists 'intelligent design' position** News flash: There is NO conspiracy, conspiritors, attempting to take over the world, MP. Be rest assured, faith is not a very good way to determine Scientific fact. Anyone that claims that Science relies on faith, again, simply doesn't know much about Science and how it works, the Scientific method, and they are MISREPRESENTING and attempting to undermine and slander. Science DOES SAY that I will present any claim of fact to my peers for the express purpose of challenging them to scrutinize my work. I am deliberately wanting them to prove me wrong. And, I WILL submit to the results of that scrutiny. If my peers determine , show me that I am in error, I will toss it away like the old oil from an oil change and think nothing of it -- EVEN IF this is the pet theory that I've spent most of my life researching and perfecting!! If anyone, no matter who, if a young student comes up with something that completely and definitively unravels my life's work, then I will have much cause for celebration: because now we all know where NOT to go in the future! NO religious system even comes close to this standard. RELIGION (creationists) SAY: 1. The BIBLE is the truth as we currently know it. GOD DID IT. It says so right there in Genesis! 2. Yeah, you can test the current tenets of MY RELIGION under the most strenuous conditions imaginable; BUT.... 3. If Christianity, Creation Story fails to hold up under this testing, well, you are to abandon those testing methods, and all that "satan controlled" so-called "logical Scientific Method" and put your faith in God! You must adhere to what the Bible says. Don't listen to anything else! 4. MY system for determining facts and making a claim is a thing called faith, which supercedes all other methods for determining truth. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^THESE are the basics of Creationists beliefs with regard to their "Science" matters. ^^^^^ |
|
Date: 4/29/2004 6:44:00 AM
From Authorid: 12133
One is science? No, its an IDEA a theory...same as creation. No better, no worse. "Evolution: states that bassically the worl was formed fromcooling gasse into a solid planet, and the random atoms combined to form various things" - Evolution has nothing to do with how the universe formed nor how the world formed." <---- didn't this just make a claim how science says the world was formed from cooling gases?? And really, prove that God didn't create the world in just such a way. You can't. |
|
Date: 4/29/2004 7:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
"One is science? No, its an IDEA a theory...same as creation. No better, no worse." - Actually Evolution is Science, I have given proof of biological evolution and you just ignore it, and the mechanism is more than a THEORY its a Scientific Theory. Just because you dont want to understand what science is, doesn't mean its wrong. "And really, prove that God didn't create the world in just such a way." - Clearly you don't know science, making a claim requires evidence. No one is required to prove it wrong because that claim is already invalid. Evolution has the evidence, can you back your claim up with evidence? |
|
Date: 4/29/2004 11:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 62060
Crash, you've just proved my point. You have cut and pasted the definiton of a THEORY not a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Thanks, actually. |
|
Date: 4/29/2004 11:36:00 AM
From Authorid: 62060
And your logical explaination? Creation is Religious Theory, Evolution is Scientific Theory, backed up with viable facts. And by definiton Creation is taught in Religious Education. The fundamentalism of some Christians should not superceed scientific development - you'll notice that most of the scientists who disagree with evolution do so on religious grounds. |
|
Date: 4/29/2004 3:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Fire Storm, I also included the scientific theory, but you must have missed it in your haste. Rod Tod, you still have yet to prove Creation is wrong. You have yet to prove evolution is right. I can "Prove" the world is flat, using Scientific methods, to a point, a much greater point than science has "proven" evolution, without creation. Its funny that "Religion" knew that animals were here before man, its funny that creation knew that the world was flooded, before man came into existance, but yet, this "religion" doesn't know anything, but its written down THOUSANDS of years before science ever proved it. Adn yet, you keep harping on how GREAT science is, and yet, they make mistakes over and over again, but they are allowed since, eventually, someon will correct it, since it IS the "GREAT SCIENCE". And NOWHERE in "Creation" does it say that God made every animal, plant, tree, etc exactly like it is now., which could also incorporate some of science's evolution, but you don't want to hear it. |
|
Date: 4/29/2004 3:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
the·o·ry (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. 2)An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture........scientific theory n : a theory derived from or used in science. THESE ARE NOT MY DEFINITIONS< THEY CAME FROM AN ONLINE DICTIONARY. Blame them, if you don't agree with it. The only part of ANY definition that was omitted, was the part on "theory" dealing with music, which is irrelevant here. The scientific definition is as it was on that site, in full. |
| Date: 4/29/2004 4:23:00 PM From Authorid: 60940 My common sense answer: Your case id quite valid, but I could also argue, " why don't we learn any other creation myths?". Everyone is entitlied to their view, but is it right to educate children in only one faith? |
|
Date: 4/29/2004 4:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Science deals only with "WHAT IS" -- with claims of fact. Science does not deal with "what ought to be" or "faith" to be-- with claims of value. Religion will always exist, because humans will always be concerned with claims of value. Theists, including supernaturalist theists, needn't feel "pushed out" and marginalized in discussions about value. The extent of what we know or do not know about the human body will never affect how we value or do not value human life or a human individual. If we did base our values, ethics, and goals entirely on what facts we learned about existence, we'd be chopping and changing them every day for the past 6,000 years. We teach an infant that humans are valuable and that remains true whether she never learns anything further or she becomes a nuclear physicist. But "what ought to be" does not dictate "what is" any more than "what is" dictates "what ought to be." Science cannot dictate to religion, and religion cannot dictate to science. Supernaturalism can develop its own methodology in its own sphere, but if supernaturalists want to do science, you have to do it within the context of naturalism and the standards of scientific methodology. And that is what we must teach in our schools. Stop flogging at that dead horse, Crash. |
|
Date: 4/29/2004 5:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Well, I see you keep returning with YOUR flail in hand, Thinker.... |
|
Date: 4/29/2004 10:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/univclass/Defining.html |
Date: 4/29/2004 11:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 36079
I believe creationism can be talked about but the teachers can't/won't touch it. It is also a concern becouse they say it is teaching religion and of course in todays politically correct world we would have to include all religions creation theories. Since religion is not allowed in the classroom then I doubt this will happen. Although I found it interesting in my college social studies class we studied ancient religions. I studied Zoraster, anyways of course in that type of situation it was on topic, I seemed to be the only Christian and everyone talked as though Religions were all made up and used by weak people, or by rulers to keep the masses in control and along those lines. when I with belief in my faith I was looked on as a poor disillusioned soul. I understand that talking of religions can be offensive but debasing all religions is offensive to me, and if we can't talk about religion with any belief or credibility then I don't think nonbelievers should be allowed to down cast all religions/faiths saying that all were made up or whatever else they believe that is not absolute fact.  |
|
Date: 4/29/2004 11:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 36079
I wish I had dropped in sooner, I love these debates. I'm with crash, good job. Nice post, it's good to question school policy on ethical, moral, and those sorts of issues. There has long been a trait in education to bring about certian beliefs in developing persons almost like molding them into what they believe is the model adult. The politically correct adult. Where I think many things the school teaches should be taught at home, not in an government institution. |
|
Date: 4/30/2004 6:25:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54461
Creation to me sounds more fact that Evolution. School should teach them both. |
|
Date: 4/30/2004 9:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
"you still have yet to prove Creation is wrong." - No one has any reason to prove it wrong, you're jumping ahead of yourself its not even proven right, Creation is not Science and has no scientific value as it is or if someone were to prove it wrong. |
|
Date: 4/30/2004 12:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 62060
Crash, apologies for the theories - I didnt read back that far up. But anyway - proof of evolution. Fossil records. Any contradictions? |
|
Date: 4/30/2004 1:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
In my opinion, if it is outside of reality and not explicable by reason, by observation and material testing/examination, then it does not exist in any sense that is meaningful. The human mind, is so constituted that we not only believe what we see, we tend to see what we believe. Incoming data cannot shake a basic assumption if that basic assumption influences the evaluation of the incoming data. The only way to test such ASSUMPTIONS is to develop the ability to mentally step away from them, to "willingly suspend disbelief" and accept different assumptions for the sake of argument, just to see how the world looks that way and whether it works that way. This is SO bloody hard to do if your basic assumptions are a matter of "faith" and one of the articles of faith is that if you doubt them for a moment then you are somehow condemmed to eternal punishment. I say: Keep your "god-dit-it, that's-it" stamps out of the science realm. |
|
Date: 4/30/2004 2:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 62060
What about string theory? |
|
Date: 4/30/2004 5:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
If a school teaches creation, will it not have to teach every other religion's idea of creation aswell? |
|
Date: 4/30/2004 11:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 36079
Yep that is what I said pheonix, but you know the way some of these evolution advocates act it is a religion, or a cult. lol It is the atheists way of having a religion, the closest thing to, most of them seem to believe in it yet it is a theory. hmm lol They wouldn't have to argue for it if it were fact. Liberty thier are many people that I believe are going to heaven although they don't believe in the biblical account. All that is needed is belief in God as your savior. Although I wonder about Pastor Arnold Murray sometimes. lol |
|
Date: 5/1/2004 7:40:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
No Smurfpoo, Biological evolution is fact, the mechanism is the scientific theory. If people don't bother finding out what they're talking about, then they have no authority to state these false rumors. |
Date: 5/1/2004 9:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
The problem has been stated by someone up there as to why there is such a uproar over teaching both evolution and creationism in science: Sure evolution has its place, i.e., to teach the natural observable phenomenons of this world. But look at the root word's definition: To evolve means to "come into being". Come from where? To create means to "bring into being". That is not the same concept. To come means to "appear as the result of something; be derived from". To bring means to "produce; yield". Evolution does not answer where it ALL appeared from. It just takes what has already been produced and studies that. What is the answer as to what produced evolution? These two should not be taught as conflicting one another. They should not be seen as contradicting each other, because they are two different components of the same concept: How did we (humans) come into being. As to whether "creation" should be taught at public schools, I sincerely hope that our students in this country are able to understand that in order to evolve (come into being) they had to be created (brought into being). But then again, I have been told that I have "high hopes". God Bless.  |
|
Date: 5/1/2004 10:23:00 AM
From Authorid: 36079
As I have read it no one has proof ogf evolution, no one has seen anything evolve no records have documented it there is no hardcaore indefinite proof, only a likely chance. All xclose ties can be seen as being another close specie, not an evolved form. A mutation is never an evolvement. I would have to tell you to know what you are talking about, sorry about the typos my back space isn't working right. |
|
Date: 5/1/2004 11:25:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Actually Scientists have observed things evolve, they've observed speciation in fruitflies, green algae, and bacteria. |
|
Date: 5/2/2004 2:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 62060
Er, I kinda gave evidence for evolution before... And why do you assume that just because I am an 'evolutionist', so to speak, I am an atheist also? Just curious... |
|
Date: 5/2/2004 3:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
SmurfPoo, YOU need to know what YOU are talking about. You say "No proof; no one has, no, this and that..." and THAT is totally the opposite of what SCIENCE , over years and years, has been saying. Are you a scientist? A biologist? Paleontologist? what? There is much much MORE documentation clearly showing evidence of evolution, when there is NONE clearly showing anything pointing to a "god". NONE! The Theory of Evolution is ROCK SOLID. It has such a firm and broad foundation in every branch of science that it touches (including how the human brain functions), that there really is nothing going in science today that can touch it. At all! Maybe some day someone will find something, some new piece of evidence, some heretofore undiscovered fact that will be so convincing as to topple the entire realm of science and send Darwinism packing with its tail between its legs.... And that's how it will happen (IF it happens): someone will find new evidence. Meanwhile, facts are clear and are readily available to those who wish to avail themselves of them. The FACTS are there, Smurf. |
|
Date: 5/2/2004 3:20:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54461
I know some Christians that believe in Evoltution, and Creation also! So.. its not a bad thing. God does have much power, INFINITE POWER! So evolution could be real. Too me I dont believe in it.. but Im sure it is possible to believe in both. |
|
Date: 5/3/2004 8:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 36079
For one thing there are new species found all the time, either becouse we just never discovered them or becouse different type of species mated. Say all you want but there is absolutly no proof for the THEORY of evolution. Even if you gave me a page to read I would read through it like all the others and find it was not proof but what some scientist or whoever it may be giving thier educated guess. I have heard that most prehumans could be either an ancient ethnicity that had been wiped out or a exstinct form of monkey. I heard how Darwin and his buddies had provenly lied about some of thier work, or as in the case of a certian bird species they adapted to harsher climate conditions and developed longer beaks, those beaks went back to normal once the climate did. I am absolutly certian you couldn't show me proof of evolution that couldn't be discounted by science. |
|
Date: 5/8/2004 12:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
Show "the Missing Link". Show how man came from apes. |
|
Date: 5/10/2004 11:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
Smurfpoo, your "science" education is so severely limited. I really feel sad for you. Crash, you want neat & tidy, simple little answers; and to take you through the eons of steps to answer you, would bore you; you wouldn't even bother studying, and then...you'd not except it anyway. All species have descended from a common ancestor. As time went on, different lineages of organisms were modified with descent to adapt to their environments. Thus, evolution is best viewed as a branching tree or bush, with the tips of each branch representing CURRENTLY living species. No LIVING organisms today are our ancestors. Every living species is as fully modern as we are with its own unique evolutionary history. No extant species are "lower life forms," atavistic stepping stones paving the road to humanity. A related, and common, fallacy about evolution is that humans evolved from some LIVING species of ape. This is not the case -- humans and apes share a common ancestor. Both humans and living apes are fully MODERN species; the ancestor we evolved from was an ape, but it is now extinct and was not the same as PRESENT DAY apes (or humans for that matter). If it were not for the vanity of human beings, we would be classified as an ape. Our closest relatives are, collectively, the chimpanzee and the pygmy chimp. Our next nearest relative is the gorilla. |
|
Date: 5/10/2004 2:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
if God created man through some sort of evolutionary process, would he have been able to explain it in the bible? is evolution a concept man could have comprehended 2000 years ago, and are God's methods limited in that regard? |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
