|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/28/2006 3:52:37 AM | Evolution is a branch of study through science. Science is limited to the naturalistic world
and has nothing to do with the 'supernatural.' Science is restricted to what can
be readily observed and studied. It is myopic, in my opinion. I've alway's thought that science kept an open mind to ALL possibilities but it is actually closed off from it - ie supernatural. It's hands are tied to the physical world yet it uses theories to try and explain the unexplainable and the unobservable ie: dark matter, dark holes etc...probably
beyond my understanding but hey, if your accounting doesn't add up, get creative! ;)
Science will never acknowledge the possibility of God nor will it even try to disprove
God - it simply will not acknowledge Him.
Science is not police work - in asfar as trying to solve the origin's of the universe - it
has already concluded it was a scientific process and it's trying to unlock that
one and only secret - what scientific-un-supernatural process created it?
So, the subject is ridiculous: Creation vs Evolution. It comes down to this: Do you
believe in God or don't you? WTF?? This was a red herring.
 If this subject was to discuss evolution, then why is creationism being
entered into the same subject line? Science is hog-tied....the topic might
as well be: creationism vs BLT sandwiches.
So, to the faith-based fishies: let's blow this pop stand.
I'm glad I didn't read through 135 pages to have figured that out. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3352 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/28/2006 4:19:53 AM | you can add the word absurd along side with obsure
Obsure?
Naaawww... you go ahead, I'm not a big fan of meaningless clumps of letters.
BTW is nugatory where they send typos?
there is nothing logical about evolution to begin with
Oh my!
How so? Can you actually form this in terms of logic please.
Try not to be Obsure. (Whaddaya' know, it DOES go with absurd!)
i believe you might turn you attentions to christian schools as they dont seem to have any problems with having many, many classes without the evolution science nonsense.
Up here, the Christian schools are mostly public funded Catholic schools, they teach evolution in the science class, religion in the religion class. There's laws about depriving kids of an education here, even home schools have to meet minimum standards. I'm glad about that, understanding how science works especially biology is key to producing the researchers, doctors, etc. that in the future will conquer diseases, fix spinal cord damage, ...dementia............
Scientific literacy mean value of performance scale 15 years old
#5 Canada
529
#14 United States
499
Hmmm... I see, well, ...it's not so bad, somebody's gotta' flip the big macs.
BTW: The TOPIC?
Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/28/2006 7:52:08 AM | I apologize in advance, this will be a lengthy response, and will likely hit certain topic areas that have already been addressed. I hope to address posts by Charlie, Canadian Romantic, and Lazyboy.
Here we go...
Lazyboy
Your quote
“Could someone explain to me why the great minds of today seem to mention
God in some context in science? If God is irrelevant to the field of science,
why is it that he is mentioned so often. Here on this thread, there seem's to
be outright frustration on the side of science, but when I read books and
excerpts from many scientists, there seem's to be a more calm and willingness
to discuss it and perhaps even embrace the notion of a deity.”
God is not provable in the field of science. That, however, does not negate a scientist from having religious beliefs. If you re-read any number of posts on this thread, you will see repeatedly mentioned that scientific method cannot prove whether there is or is not a God. The stance on this thread has been neutral (for the most part) in that respect. Where the discussion becomes heated usually stems from the misquotes of scientists, and the citation of debunked people claiming to practice science.
Charlie
Your quote
“there are billions who are not philosophers and theologists but believe themselves in a single God”
Absolutely, there are indeed billions who believe in some form of a spiritual diety. Science, nor the people who have advocated on behalf on science in this thread, have said that such beliefs should not be held. Late, Tsur, Wonka, Ferel and myself have all noted on numerous occasions that the existence of God is not an issue for us, and if God did exist, it would not disprove our stance on matters.
Lazyboy
I looked at the website you mentioned here; and as is the same with almost every creationist website it begins by perverting evolution:
“http://www.religioustolerance.org/sherlock01.htm
Your quote
This web site claims that many of the positions taken by proponents of evolution
is based on circlular logic and is baseless.
I don't know if any of you want to take a crack at it and read and find a flaw
in the arguement, but I'm studying it now and seem to be taken in by it.”
Here is the quote:
Evolution requires two observations in order to be ‘scientifically proven:’
1. A living organism emerging from inanimate matter;
As has been stated over and over on this thread, evolution does not require that a living organism emerge from inanimate matter. This particular website is compounding abiogenesis and evolution. The two scientific theories are entirely different and independent. If God created all living matter, evolution would be almost entirely unaffected.
In fact, the article itself, when ‘quoting’ scientific positions offers no citations, or sources, except for 1. In fact, the author states from the outset that everyone has a bias, and the article clearly illustrates his bias towards unfounded accusations and distortion of the truth. I hope Tsur, Wonka, Bright, and Late read this essay…seriously, it is awful.
Canadian Romantic
This post annoyed me…for several reasons.
Your quote
“Brain examined only 2 of 10 sites I posted, and gave up further digging because, *Gasp*, the sites mention 'God'.
'Others' say they have been 'dismissed' or whatever already, but, same fallable reasoning because of the fact they mention God at work”
I have not addressed all the websites, but the ones that I did address, I quoted some very ‘unique’ positions that illustrated the absolute lack of effort that was put forth by the authors. But to put your mind at ease, at some point this weekend I will thoroughly address each site.
However, you should note that the problem I had with both sites that I did address was not that they mentioned God. This is a typical straw man argument, and you use them so often it is bothersome. The problem that Tsur, myself, and other have with these websites is their blanket assumption that the bible is true as fact, and that anything contrary to the bible is false.
These websites would be more acceptable if the starting position was, the bible was written by men, and here is our reasons for thinking that the bible is factual and accurate. But these sites do not do that (at least the two that I have examined thus far); they start by claiming BIBLE = FACT. If science agrees with something in the bible the websites are okay, the second science disagrees it is science and the method that is wrong.
Your quote again,
“Tsur speaks volumes about 'me' doing legwork to check sources, but *DUUUH* seemingly refuses to dig a little and check the increasing number of LIES being routed out more and more on wikipedia and talk.origins. (against 'Creationists')
And as mentioned, 'others' seem to think this is simply a name calling forum against Christians and Creationists, while supporting the fallable THEORY of Evolution.”
Here’s the crux of the wikipedia and talk.origins problem. You initially claimed that these sites are full of lies, or something to that effect. I remember that Wonka acknowledged that there are problems with the site, but not to the extent that you had hinted at. Tsur then asked if you could provide us with examples of these numerous lies and such on the websites. You respond by saying that we refuse to do digging; um just a thought, if you make a claim such as you did, I do not think it is our responsibility to investigate that claim. It should be you who provides illustrations, and if we are not satisfied with your examples, then we investigate.
Actually the way in which you have addressed this problem is analogous to the websites that you are so infatuated with. You start from the position that whatever you say is right, regardless of having no independent proof, and if you don’t like it, run off and try to prove it wrong…
And mentioning this mindset
Your quote
“My mind is made up, Please, stop confusing me with more factual evidences to support your views. It mentions a supreme being at work, therefore, I MUST automatically discard it and the Bible.”
This was you mocking evolution supporters. We DO NOT CARE if God created the world and everything in it. The problem we have with these websites is that they assume that the bible is 100% fact and true, without offering any independent and verifiable evidence. That is our problem. We endorse the method of science and these initial starting points (the bible is fact) does not work for us. Don’t confuse this with rejecting God, because that is entirely different.
Lazyboy
Again it is not surprising to see evolution **stardized…
Your quote
“I'm not gonna see a pattern with allllll of those different breeds and
ascert that I came from that ape or this monkey - these monkeys are dead and my
breed is surviving. Mutations? I can't buy it....”
You will be glad to know that evolution does not assert you came from a monkey either; only that there is a common ancestry. The best explanation of this, thus far, is Wonka’s tree analogy.
Charlie…again…
Your quote
“i believe you might turn you attentions to christian schools as they dont seem to have any problems with having many, many classes without the evolution science nonsense.”
Charlie, I would like you to take a minute and do some research on logical fallacies, in particular the straw man fallacy, non-sequitor fallacy, appeal to popularity, and appeal to the masses. You are constantly using this type of reasoning. I do not want to accuse you of doing this intentionally, hence why I suggest you try to understand logical fallacies in general.
Now, your quote essentially proves the point many, if not all of the science geeks in here have been making. The evolution is not taught in religious settings because it is not based on religion. The opposite:
RELIGION IS NOT TAUGHT IN SCIENCE BECAUSE IT IS NOT BASED ON SCIENCE!!!!!
Lazyboy….ARGGGGGG
Your quote;
“Science will never acknowledge the possibility of God nor will it even try to disprove
God - it simply will not acknowledge Him.”
You are correct, science will not acknowledge him – why – because there is no method to test for him…period. There is no value judgment here, it is just a simple fact…we cannot test for God.
Your quote:
“So, the subject is ridiculous: Creation vs Evolution. It comes down to this: Do you
believe in God or don't you? WTF?? This was a red herring.”
Read the original post before you start rambling about the merit of this post. The debate is about…actually read the original post yourself.
And finally, last but not least…its Charlie
Your quote:
“an illegal agreement makes it an agreement that never was. write me when you have proof of your nonsense science. about your mis spelling complaint, i've made note of it. about other sciences i have only made referance to evolution. keep up, hup, hup, hup!
big clumps of letters, you are describing your communication methology?”
You first sentence is a straw-man argument, this in not a debate about the law of contract. If you are interested about contract law, we can start up some correspondence, it just so happens I have spent the last 2 weeks at work looking at domestic contracts.
The proof of our non-sense science…hmm…there is such a wealth of knowledge on evolution from so many disciplines, honestly, you seem like you enjoy literature and reading. Check out a Chapters / Coles books, or a University library, grab a coffee, and enjoy. I am doing the same thing when it comes to different faiths, grabbing books, reading, enjoying…
And you big clumps of letters comment…Charlie, do you have Microsoft Word, or Word Perfect on your computer…or do you use hotmail? All of these programs employ a spell check function. I know personally that I am spell check dependant…I type in Word and cut and paste into the thread, it avoids a lot of needless confusion. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/28/2006 9:21:49 AM | Canadian Romantic,
Your quote:
"And, defending Tsur's infantile name calling in NO way bolster's what little shred of miniscule credibility he, or others emplying same said infantile name calling employ."
I do not recall having defended Tsur in the event her directly insulted you, if I did defend a direct insult, could you please tell me what insult Tsur threw your way (post #), and then tell me where I defended him (post #).
Oh, and not to be a smart-a*s but, you have referred to Tsur as using 'infantile tactics', 'infantile insults', etc...I suppose using the word infantile when describing somebody else may be considered an insult as well. I am curious to hear your thoughts on this, and on the same line...
I am not sure about your intentions, so I will not make assumptions; but your response to Ferel could easily be seen as mocking, and condiscending when you employ his manuerisms in responding to him.
This comment in particular I found bothersome:
"Read factual evidences posted for you to read before rushing to criticize and belittle 'the Bible'? Even common courtesy would dicate that."
You are always encouraging people on this thread to avoid insulting each other, and I agree with you entirely.
But, then you completely and utterly attack me by stating that I have belittled and critsized the Bible. I have never done anything of that nature.
I have never once critisized the bible, or the lessons contained therein. If you can point to a post where I critisized or belittled the Bible, I would appreciate that; otherwise I think an apology on your behalf would be in order. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/28/2006 11:31:28 AM |
Scientific literacy mean value of performance scale 15 years old
#5 Canada
529
#14 United States
499
Hmmm... I see, well, ...it's not so bad, somebody's gotta' flip the big macs.
Now, I don't know exactly what these numbers mean, but it looks pretty bad for science education in the US. Introducing pseudo-science into schools certainly wouldn't help this alarming trend. It's interesting to note that scientists and engineers have the potential to create wealth, whereas most occupations merely redistribute it (such as burger flippers and *ahem* pilots). | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/28/2006 12:15:22 PM | Evolution does not begin with the position that there is not a God, or that there is one. The presence of a supernatural being who created the world is thusfar not testable empirically, and relates to origin. Evolution is a theory describing the genetic composition of a population during successive generations due to natural selection which results in new species. It does not deal with the absolute origin.
there are billions who are not philosophers and theologists but believe themselves in a single God When a person thinks about God, he or she is thinking in theological or philosophical rather than scientific terms. Whether he or she is aware of it or not.
The reason that no one particular religious belief should be taught in public school is to protect our rights to have whatever religious beliefs we choose with no influence by the state. Why is this so difficult for people to grasp? In some cases I think people who try to push for religious interpretions of science in public school classrooms secretly do grasp that it is unconstitutional and desire for everyone to be forced to have their religion in spite of that fact.
We are allowed to have whatever religious beliefs we choose in the United States, in or out side of the class room. But we are not allowed to corrupt a public institution into forcing other people to share our religious beliefs. Because it is wrong. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/28/2006 12:28:19 PM | When a person thinks about God, he or she is thinking in theological or philosophical rather than scientific terms. Whether he or she is aware of it or not.
Scientifically correct, but you can't dismiss the fact that, for some scientists, had
it not been for science, they'd have never come to embrace the notion of a
deity. This is fact may be the basis and arguement for creationists to bring
ID into the classroom. Personally, if you want to bring it into the school it
would be better suited in Social Studies rather than science class.
I might ad that scientist should refrain from commenting on religion; there should
be some kind of ethical barrier or guideline. And vice versa. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/28/2006 12:38:25 PM | Personally, if you want to bring it into the school it would be better suited in Social Studies rather than science class.
Precisely. Seems like you went to a lot of trouble on this thread to finally end up agreeing with the OP!
Edit: Actually, trewq will have to clarify if he meant teaching creationism in science class or just in any school curriculum.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/28/2006 6:55:50 PM |
When a person thinks about God, he or she is thinking in theological or philosophical rather than scientific terms. Whether he or she is aware of it or not.
your definition about a person and his God is to broad.
The reason that no one particular religious belief should be taught in public school is to protect our rights to have whatever religious beliefs we choose with no influence by the state. Why is this so difficult for people to grasp? In some cases I think people who try to push for religious interpretions of science in public school classrooms secretly do grasp that it is unconstitutional and desire for everyone to be forced to have their religion in spite of that fact.
.
really, i thought it was to rid our so called public schools of any reference to a single God. In actuality there will never be a purge of God from our education system.
Evolution does not begin with the position that there is not a God, or that there is one. No big deal, scientists deserve to make up their projects, even goofy ones. are they living off the public dole?
 | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3360 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/28/2006 7:10:24 PM | i thought it was to rid our so called public schools of any reference to a single God
No, it's to safeguard against religious groups pushing their agenda on society, in this case, via deceit.
It's moot, really.
Science discounts the pseudo-science of Creationism, instead it's seen as a dishonest and deceitful ploy to inject one groups religious beliefs on the whole of society.
The courts aren't fooled by this deliberate deceit either.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3675_eight_significant_court_decisi_2_15_2001.asp
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/courtrulings.html
The only ones that don't seem to "get it" are the Creationist pseudo-scientists and their proponents, who all have their common bond in a single religious belief, that doesn't even have a consensus in that particular brand of religion.
Scientists recognize the dishonesty of this ploy, so do the courts.
What the topic of this thread is concerned with, however-
Please show how Creationism fits the criteria of science.
...If you can't even broach the topic with your post, your agenda, ....like the one of the Creationists vs Schools?
Is dishonest. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 8:41:25 AM |
imho there is noway anyone can reconcile theology and evolution. i agree neither side is on trial, but it is a battle for anyone who wishes to listen.
I disagree. Evolution (and creation, for that matter) does not affect my theological understanding at all. I know the universe was created, as well as all life therein. The gods truly did do it. As for how or when, they don't say. Hence, I'm perfectly comfortable following scientific inquiry into the how. As for it being a "battle" or not, that's mostly on those who want to view it that way.
your attempt to argue or reconcile theology in the context ... as science in the terms and frame of reference proves zero.
I'm not sure I understand this assertion, but I will say that requiring those who insist on "equal time" in science classes to provide scientific bases for their position doesn't have to prove anything. It's just the right thing to do.
Matter? Or a conscience mind? There are only two choice's to make....it can be argued it's a 50/50 chance for either side.
? No, really, ??? "Beginning of the Universe" is speculation. There's no way to prove any of it. That's the first point. Second, how do we know there aren't more choices? As for the odds, there's no way to calculate a fifty-fifty split, or any other for that matter.
God is just another possibility that has not been excluded.
I agreee. Not excluded from the scope of human understanding.
What is the purpose of a higher and intelligent mind when life can struggle along as fishies in the ocean and compete in the food chain that way. Why should only one mammal emerge and be blessed with super intelligence over all other mammals? What kind of mutation is this? I'm sure the squid made a wrong turn during the solar ray storms and is forever kicking himself for it.
My only issue with this is that there's a whole lot of assumption going on. There's an assumption that there has to be a purpose, that any one mammal has a higher intelligence than others, that squid care. Inductive reasoning is good as a starting point for some things, but there's a limit.
there is nothing logical about evolution to begin with
This might provoke a bit of a sh*tstorm, but that kind of comment is exactly why folks say you don't get it. Evolution is based on rational, logical responses to observational evidence in a naturalistic frame of reference. This is going to get fun. Or ugly. Yes, I mentioned naturalism. OMG, is Feral taking that tack now?!?! Bugger that. It's not metaphysical naturalism, the way some people would simply love to portray science while casting their Luddite stones at anything technological or reminiscent of higher learning. I'm talking methodological naturalism here. Which is, again, based on logic. "Nothing logical" you say? Bollocks, says I.
i believe you might turn you attentions to christian schools as they dont seem to have any problems with having many, many classes without the evolution science nonsense.
See, that's just the point. No one's trying to "convince" anyone of anything in public schools. Christian schools exist for that purpose. "We don't want our kids going to schools that don't glorify the Lord or whatever we worship, so we're going to start our own or homeschool." Fine. Cool. Do your own thing. Nobody's complaining about that. The whole "turning your attentions" angle is entirely on those who want to impose their agenda on others. Hence, you get the kind of crap where someone goes and "turns their attentions" (sights?) on public schools to say, "now, we want our views taught there, too." Fine. Cool. Whatever. You can want that, but it ain't right. And guess what? Folks are going to fight you on it. Why? Because it's an attempt to get an ideological agenda into the public forum in a dishonest and underhanded way. Plain and simple, the OP. You can do your own thing (Christian schools), no one cares; just don't try and force others to accept it (creation science nonsense), unless you're willing to put up a fight. And, by fight, I think it's been amply demonstrated that the tools to do so would be legitimate research, a non-ideological starting point, and valid arguments. More power to 'em, I say. Good luck.
Evolution is a branch of study through science. Science is limited to the naturalistic world and has nothing to do with the 'supernatural.' Science is restricted to what can be readily observed and studied.
Yep, that's science. And?
I've alway's thought that science kept an open mind to ALL possibilities but it is actually closed off from it - ie supernatural.
Oh, that. Yeah, that's all testable possibilities. Supernatural means outside natural experience, sort of like outside the realm of the testable. So, yeah, science doesn't mess with it.
Science will never acknowledge the possibility of God nor will it even try to disprove
God - it simply will not acknowledge Him.
Because, and this is the very point every religion keeps trying to make, one can't test God.
So, the subject is ridiculous: Creation vs Evolution. It comes down to this: Do you
believe in God or don't you? WTF?? This was a red herring.
True, the theistic argument that it's necessary for science to find some form of explanation to the origin of the universe in order to make sense of anything (evolution in particular, here), is a red herring. You get it. Let's move on.
Gee, can SOMEONE Please point that out to certain 'god-complex', "I'm right, YOU are wrong, Live with it." mentality mod's in here so THEY 'get it'?
You're talking about Late, right? I haven't seen any "I'm right/you're wrong" comments. Just a lot of, "please quit using flawed logic and blatantly nonscientific arguments to criticise scientific methods." I could be wrong, but that's what I see.
those attacks against said Creation views in and of themselves, ARE an attack against one's faith, as they are a part of the whole basis FOR said 'Faith/Beliefs'.
I'm curious about this one, though. Where are the attacks on belief? (other than the "this is what 'evolutionists' believe, let's attack those beliefs" kinds of things) I haven't seen anyone say "creation is wrong," only, "creation is not scientific, and to attempt to protray it as such is wrong." Where are the attacks on belief and, hence, believers?
Hmm, try, oh, I dunno, the Bible, and the hundreds of books that support it's PROVEN FACTS?
Could you please cite some of these facts?
And Brain? Pluuuuuease, Read factual evidences posted for you to read before rushing to criticize and belittle 'the Bible'? Even common courtesy would dicate that.
And CR? Please, share with us the factual evidences you've read to come to the critical opinion you have about the theory of evolution? Common courtesy, and all that.
I am not sure about your intentions, so I will not make assumptions; but your response to Ferel could easily be seen as mocking, and condiscending when you employ his manuerisms in responding to him.
Mannerisms? If you're referencing the responses in Msg #3373, that's more mocking Late. Dig? 
Scientifically correct, but you can't dismiss the fact that, for some scientists, had
it not been for science, they'd have never come to embrace the notion of a deity.
I would classify that under personal path to faith and leave it at that. More power to 'em.
I might ad that scientist should refrain from commenting on religion; there should
be some kind of ethical barrier or guideline. And vice versa.
Slight distinction here: A scientist, as a person, is allowed to believe whatever the hell they want, and should not be restricted from sharing their religious opinion outside of science, yes? Just because a scientist says he/she does/doesn't believe in God/the Easter Bunny, does not equal it being a scientific observation. On the other hand (the one with different fingers), for someone to attempt to impose their preconceived religious or philosophical beliefs on others through science is patently absurd, downright underhanded, and simply wrong. Just because someone has a religious conviction that God/the Easter Bunny does/doesn't exist, doesn't mean he/she should get away with trying to pass that off as science.
your definition about a person and his God is to broad.
Your shoes are untied. So are your mom's. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3362 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 10:53:39 AM | I haven't seen any "I'm right/you're wrong" comments. Just a lot of, "please quit using flawed logic and blatantly nonscientific arguments to criticise scientific methods." I could be wrong, but that's what I see.
What you see is what you get, fabricating a strawman fallacy isn't new here, it's often the basis of the Creationist argument used as a prybar to squeeze "Faith" into science, however, the prybar is made of rubber. In this case it's libellous and a personal attack, as is accusing others of personal attack on this thread when there's been no effort to address this via proper channels.
I haven't seen anyone say "creation is wrong," only, "creation is not scientific, and to attempt to protray it as such is wrong." Where are the attacks on belief and, hence, believers?
"creation is not scientific", proving otherwise is the topic of the thread. This has been re-stated, ignoring this by some is getting old. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 3:26:19 PM | Maybe we could shift the subject to cosmology and dump the evolution theory keeping
the ID alone.
That branch of science, cosmology, is probably more appropriate & fair to the
arguments that continues.
I've read many theories on the web that have very impressive arguments
for creationists from a cosmological point of view. I think to argue on the
premise of evolution vs creationism is cooked (& cooked up)....time for the desert!! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 3:36:31 PM | | So, drop the whole evolution thing, focus on cosmology? Okay, if you think it will help make ID make more sense scientifically. Why not? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 3:40:59 PM | Why not?
Because that's not the topic of this thread.
As this is a forum, not a chat-room, the purpose is also archival, for this reason hi-jacking the thread topic is not allowed.
Try here
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 5:14:27 PM | In Feral's defense, he was speaking figuratively and not advocating the shift of the topic (Creationism Vs. Evolution) to a new one (Cosmology). Feral has made many posts in this thread and they are often very informative and insightful and very seldom stray from the topic.
[This said, a seperate thread dealing with Creationism vs. Cosmology would be valid and probably of great interest.
- FM]
Passport:
really, i thought it was to rid our so called public schools of any reference to a single God. In actuality there will never be a purge of God from our education system. You completely missed the point of what I was saying. There is not an attempt to purge God to begin with. That is your misunderstanding. In the US the Bill of Rights gaurantees Americans the right to religious freedom, forcing people to learn a particular religion in school infringes upon that right. At this point I have no confidence that you will ever understand that.
your definition about a person and his God is to broad. It is your understanding that is, unfortunately, not broad enough. My words were extremely simple and extremely clear so as to remove any doubt that a rational person would accidentally misinterpret them. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 5:25:47 PM | Science in the class room, as I recall it, was not intended for us to make any
discoveries. We were being taught what science is and nothing more. Sure we
had small projects, but those were just to teach us the process of science to
educate us of how it works.
We were never taught the various branches of science. Just a general outline
on how basic basic basic science means.
Proving God exists using the rules of science is mere trickery by them to disqualify or a attempt to debunk religions whose beliefs are based on a single God.
I hear where you are coming from - sincerely I do, but I think you are misconstruing
the subject Science in the classroom. Maybe the arguement you should take is
that the education system should teach a specific branch of science like
cosmology as I've earlier mentioned. High school does not have the resources to
cover every branch of science. It's just way to costly & besides, you can always take
up that course in university.
There is no evidence that there's a conspiracy to surpress religion - religion will do fine without Science
class.
My science teacher, outside of the class, explained to me his belief in God, but he
did not elaborate what his religion was - now I understand why he seemed to
shy away from explaining it to me. It was not the topic he was teaching.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 8:30:24 PM | the number one message which started this tread.
I have seen many threads questioning the proof and validity for teaching evolution.
And although evolution may not as yet have enough answers to satisfy every one, there is certainly a wealth of facts to at least consider it.
On the other hand, all I see for Creationist is "someone told me".
So I ask where is the proof?
(and please before you all start with the bible quotes, remember they too fall into the "someone told me" catagory)
Where is the beef?
Show me the money?
Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School? religion works from establishing the truth. ones who finds the truth is proof. the beef and the money are found in those like anthony robbins and bill gates.
this thread has gained its momentum by evolutionists attempt to take control of the thread by stating their standards, how high or low they maybe, requiring the thread to live by it.
imho, the only thing which can control the teaching of evolution in public schools is called a budget. this can be reconciled with the taxpayers, communities and school boards. give them zero budgets or spend millions for the cause, and i reinteriate cause. its really the communuties responsibilites.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 8:35:32 PM | this thread has gained its momentum by evolutionists attempt to take control of the thread by stating their standards, how high or low they maybe, requiring the thread to live by it.
There is no glory to be had in this thread for the Evolutionists if they thought putting
on 'trial' the creationists would hand them victory. It's akin to putting on
trial a suspect without the benifit of expert witnesses (cosmology). The
guilty plea was entered by the court before the accused even took the stand. Where do you
find these kinds of trials? Oh yeah, in Iran. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3370 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 8:41:18 PM |
this thread has gained its momentum by evolutionists attempt to take control of the thread by stating their standards, how high or low they maybe, requiring the thread to live by it.
Nope, the standards are set by the terms of reference, which are set from the frame of reference.
imho, the only thing which can control the teaching of evolution in public schools is called a budget. this can be reconciled with the taxpayers, communities and school boards. give them zero budgets or spend millions for a cause, and i reinteriate cause. its really the communuties responsibilites.
Yes, taking biology out of schools would accoplish, ........what exactly? not meeting minimum federal standards?
religion works from establishing the truth. ones who finds the truth is proof. the beef and the money are found in those like anthony robbins and bill gates.
I see you "don't get" the meaning of the colloquialisms in the OP.
Please cite Mr. Gates' and Mr. Robbins' scientific proofs of Creationism, .......or is this just more off-topic mumbling? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 9:00:45 PM |
I've read many theories on the web that have very impressive arguments
for creationists from a cosmological point of view.
Sure there are lots of theories that are in favour of Creationism. Just not ones considered plausible by science or supported by evidence.
Which Creationists, by the way - Young Earth, Old Earth, Day-Age, Gap, which?
Either the Universe is some 10+ billion years old or it isn't. If it is, Young Earth Creationism (10,000 year old universe) is toast. It leaves a place for Old Earth types, mind you.
I mean I've seen many theories on the web that claim we were all here because Earth is a prison planet and Xenu the Galactic Rebel revolted and we were all trapped here (Scientology, Operating Thetan III levels, aka OT-III). Or that we're all inside a nucleus of a plutonium atom (see Ludwig Plutonium). OR that the speed of light has changed drastically over time (see Barry Setterfield), so the universe is really young.
Like Creationism, the problem with these theories is they are disproved by the actual evidence.
So, ok, please state the Scientific Theory of Creationism (see 'Dr. Pepper').
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 9:05:09 PM |
We were never taught the various branches of science. Just a general outline
on how basic basic basic science means.
So don't send your kids to that school, since it's obviously a bad one.
Me, I took chemistry, physics and biology in high school, in different classes, over different years. Plus my school had an entire program in microbiology from grades 10 to 13. So I had 4 science credits in grade 13 - chemistry, physics, biology and microbiology.
What sort of high school doesn't offer that sort of breadth? Apart from the microbiology, it's the standard Ontario curriculum!
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 9:07:25 PM | ^^^It's off topic but quickly start from Frank Tipler and move on from there.
But, to avoid straying off topic let's continue with the current thread as it
stands now.
So don't send your kids to that school, since it's obviously a bad one.
Me, I took chemistry, physics and biology in high school, in different classes, over different years. Plus my school had an entire program in microbiology from grades 10 to 13. So I had 4 science credits in grade 13 - chemistry, physics, biology and microbiology.
What sort of high school doesn't offer that sort of breadth? Apart from the microbiology, it's the standard Ontario curriculum!
I was referring to the science under cosmology. I wasn't being pendantic as
you'd choose to be at this opportunity. But, perhaps you can
explain what the thrust of your arguement is anyway - don't be coy.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 9:10:14 PM |
It's akin to putting on trial a suspect without the benifit of expert witnesses (cosmology).
The trial analogy is not really accurate, as Creationists are "standing trial" by their own choice. There would be no "accuser" if Creationists weren't trying to get their pseudo-scientific agenda into school science curriculum.
True, Creationism has evolution beat in terms of breadth-- evolution does not address the beginning of the universe, the earth, or, most often misunderstood, life itself. I sense frustration on the part of Creationists that they cannot (or rather, should not) address this greater breadth in the context of challenging the theory of evolution. But Creationists' answer to the questions is always the same: "It was God." This is not a satisfying conclusion to a scientist, nor should it be.
As for a premature "guilty plea", I don't see it. The Creationist stance has certainly been heard on this thread. If its arguments are outside the context of the debate (as referenced in the above paragraph) or are soundly refuted by others, that is only the fault of Creationism being argued as a valid science.
Cheers!  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 9:12:11 PM | I see you "don't get" the meaning of the colloquialisms in the OP.
Please cite Mr. Gates' and Mr. Robbins' scientific proofs of Creationism, .......or is this just more off-topic mumbling?
your definition of colloquial is based on your own minds limitations. how board or narrow minded ones width of the conversation is for each to determine.
Please cite Mr. Gates' and Mr. Robbins' scientific proofs of Creationism, .......or is this just more off-topic mumbling?
imho, you have answered your question to my statement,"Nope, the standards are set by the terms of reference, which are set from the frame of reference." exactly goes both ways. now play the game from the beginning, there was creation, there are books condensed into bibles, people have found the truths, put them into their hearts and began living a life to the truths and bingo you have t robbins and b gates. believers in their faith and their God.
by the way, where in the orginal meassage does it ask for scientific proof of creationism? it only required "Where is the beef? Show me the money?" imho my reply answered both questions. get with the drift.
| |
|
|
| Page 135 of 156
|
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
