|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/30/2006 9:27:45 AM | First this is what we wanted to be shown.........
Therefore, once again, various methodologies should be taught in our schools.
What is it you think they should be teaching??????????????????
I know one of the "Methodologies" I would like to see "Taught" is "Critical Thinking".
Again Fail, Good, Bad, they are Human perceptions/judgements and have nothing to do with evolution/nature. It is not Good, Bad , Progress, Guided, Controled, Better, etc., etc., that is just not part of the equation.
to believe in the theory of evolution requires faith
No, it requires one to study, learn and THINK. No faith needed or "wanted". If there is no logic/proof behind it no amount of faith will change it.
And to this......
(a framework that) excludes the supernatural.............. from a philosophy, anything can be proven within the confines of that framework.
I think you have this backwards.
By including the supernatural we can prove anything, all we have to do is say, "God did It."
And that is all that needs to be taught in Creation,
"Good Morning Class and Welcome to Creation 101."
"God did It!"
"Class dismissed."
and the kids can have the rest of the time to listen to their iPods...... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/30/2006 11:49:14 AM | Well maybe if you could point out.
the logic of the supernatural,
Then I might have to change my mind.
But so far all I see is a projection of opinion based on iognorance.
Some facts Please.
And I still have a lot of wind.....must have been the beans | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/30/2006 2:06:23 PM | Posts Deleted:
Again,
If you wish to address topics other than what is posed by the OP, search to see if such a discussion exists, if not, start a new thread in the forum appropriate to the subject matter.
If you are unsure whether your reply is on-topic or not, refer to the OP. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/30/2006 4:44:51 PM |
Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School?
I thought my last couple posts were completely onT!!! So to sum up: creation should be taught outside of sunday school (ie in the public school system) because no one theory of the formation of the world and universe (including evolution) answers all the questions. Schools are places where knowledge is disseminated, by withholding knowledge (no matter how absurd the OP may personally think it may be) one stifles free thought. By giving students knowledge from all philosophical frameworks, they can better understand and form their own opinions.
There is that better? | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3605 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/30/2006 4:52:41 PM | Hmmmmm..... nobody in this thread has advocated against a comparitive theology course, it's the validity of the science that's at issue. So far, science (the real kind, ie: peer review ), says it's pseudo-science, the courts agree.
As part of a course of study inclusive of theology and critical thinking, ..... I have yet to see one post on this or other threads concerning this, that would be against it.
(There is a thread on this topic, BTW)
But, this subject is about, teaching creationism/ID as a valid scientific perspective, .....it doesn't meet the criteria of the terms and frame of reference, so far..... unless one allows for deliberate misinterpretation of the terms and frame of reference of science, ......which, only the creationist/ID bunch allows for.
Do you have cites that don't have as there source, the "Statement of Faith", which basically stipulates: Ff scientific method, fact, theory, etc. isn't consistant with our view, ....we ignore it, because our perspective is based on "faith first"?
Or, any non-science, legal finding that is fooled by this ploy to get religion into science courses?
?????? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 4/9/2006 10:42:46 AM | Carbon dating is just one method used. And actually it isn't even used with fossiles as old as Dinosaur bones. Other forms of radiometric dating are used for that. Even so, carbon dating is FAR more accurate than you just suggested. Your illustration of how it works is completely fallacious and vastly over-simplified. You are a guy I don't see a point in even talking to because you just make things up. Your explanation of how science works does crack me up though.
Carbon dating was also covered in this thread explicitly. Amazingly, the argument you just presented makes the ridiculous arguments Creationists were presenting in the first 20 or so pages suggesting that carbon dating was bunk, and somehow evolution was also bunk as a result, almost sound rational.
And this is all beside the point. You need to prove that Creationism is Science, not the evolution is not a good theory (which you haven't proven, by the way). Evolution is an actual scientific theory; it doesn't involve cherubs, demons, angels, dieties, and other supernatural beings. You can't prove that Creationism is science because it isn't science by definition; its a religious belief. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 4/19/2006 9:56:17 PM | Post On-Topic
Before you hit "send" on your post, make sure that it correlates to the original post of that thread (not to be confused with the LAST post on the thread)...
Massive deletions again.
If your post is referring to something OTHER than the question posed by the OP, do a threads search first
Then, post a new thread
Off-topic posts will be deleted | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 5/1/2006 1:56:08 PM | Over the last millenia, religion,Christianity particularly has had to rethink their scripture interpretations as science progressed.Galileo was charged with heresy when he presented proof that the earth was NOT the center of the universe and that celestial bodies were not crytaline perfection but gas and mud worlds like our earth.This flew in the face of religious thought because it suggested that not only was man NOT the center of God's focus but that the heavens were also not heavenly crystaline perfection.
Evolution chips further at this thought as it shows man as just another animal,crawling out of primordial soup with no apparent spark of divinty but merely an accident of happenstance.Under this scenario there is no fall of man,therefore no need for salvation and therefore renders religion impotent.
I realize there are schools of thought that attempt to reconcile evolution and creation,such as the metaphorical interpretation of scripture and a belief in "divine evolution".One of the most interesting attempts I've read was from Lloyd Pye,who hypothesized that man was genetically engineered by ET's for slave labor and once the project was complete,we were abandoned.
Will religion continue to adapt? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 5/1/2006 2:09:10 PM | Evolution chips further at this thought as it shows man as just another animal,crawling out of primordial soup with no apparent spark of divinty but merely an accident of happenstance.Under this scenario there is no fall of man,therefore no need for salvation and therefore renders religion impotent.
Emphatically disagree. Science in no way renders religion irrelevant or impotent. Religion is a very important part of many people's lives and is the well-spring of their optimism and morality. Theology and science are simply entirely different. Science seeks to understand and to verify natural phenomena. Religion seeks to pacify the restless and troubled spirits, to guide the weak to greener pastures, and to provide hope to those who have none.
There is no need for religion to adapt due to science. Belief systems do not need to adapt. Science, in no way, threatens to mute the religious or destroy the beliefs they hold precious. People who try to reconcile science and natural history with religious parables, moral fables, and mythology are doing something quite absurd and useless, regardless of whether they come from the religious camp or the scientific one. The two universes should not be brought into the same conceptual frame.
When I read about religious parables I do not consider them lies. I look at what those ancient scholars were trying to teach me about human behavior and about treating nature and the unknown with reverence and awe. We are far closer to our ancestors than we would arrogantly like to presume. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 5/1/2006 2:26:49 PM |
There is no need for religion to adapt due to science. Belief systems do not need to adapt. Science, in no way, threatens to mute the religious or destroy the beliefs they hold precious. People who try to reconcile science and natural history with religious parables, moral fables, and mythology are doing something quite absurd and useless, regardless of whether they come from the religious camp or the scientific one. The two universes should not be brought into the same conceptual frame.
Perhaps "religion" was the wrong term.Indeed eastern religions and more progressive versions of Christianity and others can adapt.I don't see one can hold onto a more fundamentalist belief though, and reconcile faith with science.One or the other will have to be discarded or adapted.
When I read about religious parables I do not consider them lies. I look at what those ancient scholars were trying to teach me about human behavior, and about treating nature and the unknown with reverence and awe. We are far closer to our ancestors than we would arrogantly like to presume.
The 6 day creation story of Genesis is not told in fundamentalist camps as a parable or metaphor, it's taught as a literal fact, with pseudo scientific interpretations of fossil artifacts and timelines. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 5/1/2006 3:32:36 PM | The 6 day creation story of Genesis is not told in fundamentalist camps as a parable or metaphor, it's taught as a literal fact, with pseudo scientific interpretations of fossil artifacts and timelines. This is an example of a foolish attempt to reconcile science and religion. The underlying objective with persons who attempt that is usually to control their followers absolutely, without fear of being questioned, rather than to offer them guidance to ease their suffering. Many honorable Clergy do not seek to do this in any way.
One or the other will have to be discarded or adapted. I simply do not agree. It is this type of black and white statement that confuses many Christians into believing that their religious freedoms are in danger of being stripped from them by those espousing scientific theories such as evolution. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 5/2/2006 5:35:13 AM |
This is an example of a foolish attempt to reconcile science and religion. The underlying objective with persons who attempt that is usually to control their followers absolutely, without fear of being questioned, rather than to offer them guidance to ease their suffering. Many honorable Clergy do not seek to do this in any way.
I wouldn't say that fundamentalist clergy are all about control and fear, they genuinely believe the 6 day creation to be literal with theological arguments to go along with their interpretation.Most have no problem with it being taught in school, because they use the church to teach their kids their version.
It still boils down to one thing.If you believe in a 6 day creation, you MUST discard evolution.Moreover the very pincipals of evolution teach that life evolved from a simple single cell to complex life forms over a long period of time.This is diametrically opposed to fundamentalist teaching. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 5/2/2006 6:02:10 AM | Majestic
I would have to agree with Taurus. Actually religion is now being scrutinized more than ever with scientific means. It is incorrect to say that religion and science have their own spheres. They are now colliding over the historical authenticity of the bible.
The question here is can Creationism stand up to critical thinking as the theory of evolution more or less does? That which stands up to logical scrutiny obviously should be taught in the schools. Creationism does not fit the bill here. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 5/2/2006 9:37:18 AM |
They are now colliding over the historical authenticity of the bible
And I think this is the biggest stumbling block.
If Religion was just "Love thy Neigbour", "Feed the Poor" and "Respect the Lord" then, Yes there is no problem between science and religion. It is when the religious start talking of things that they have no Authority or Knowledge of that the problems crop up.
I.E. this thread........... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 5/2/2006 10:26:33 AM | I have one statement and faithful fact to offer up here:
All you need is the faith of a mustard seed. The proof is in the pudding. Have the faith, you'll be able to taste the pudding!! | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 3616 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 5/2/2006 11:03:43 AM | Some of us are more interested in studying the way taste evolved and the way different components in seeds have changed.
One good example for teaching in the classroom... chilies. Humans and other mammals can taste chili flavour because we happen to have a molecular receptor on our cells which opens some calcium channels when in contact with capsaicin (the molecule that gives the chili pain!). In contrast, frogs and birds do not have such receptors and can eat as much chili as they please without feeling a thing. It is just another green veg for them.
We can associate some interesting facts to such knowledge. For example, mammals tend to destroy the chili seeds during mastication, while birds and frogs do not... This is the kind of stuff we have to put in front of children. This makes them think.
Mind-openers, not faithlockers please.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 5/2/2006 11:41:38 AM | Robert:
Majestic
I would have to agree with Taurus. Actually religion is now being scrutinized more than ever with scientific means. It is incorrect to say that religion and science have their own spheres. They are now colliding over the historical authenticity of the bible.
The question here is can Creationism stand up to critical thinking as the theory of evolution more or less does? That which stands up to logical scrutiny obviously should be taught in the schools. Creationism does not fit the bill here. You obviously have not read this read or have any idea what my position is on this issue. I don't care who you agree with (see argument ad numerum). Religion IS NOT scrutinized by scientific means. You cannot scrutinize something that has as its basis an absolute such as faith.
Religion and science do belong in different spheres. There is no reconciling one with the other. Science does not concern faith or mythological fables, therefor it cannot prove or disprove any religious precept or parable. Religion cannot prove anything in a scientific sense as it depends on faith without evidence.
Religion has to do with emotions and theology. And just because some fool tries to mix the two together and calls it a "scientific theory" does not mean it actually is either science or a religion. Such theories are psuedo-science of the worst kind. This is why the US Constitution calls for a secular state, albeit one respecting religion. Political matters require actual solutions not magical ones or scape-goating of minorities.
Trewq:And I think this is the biggest stumbling block.
If Religion was just "Love thy Neigbour", "Feed the Poor" and "Respect the Lord" And thou shalt not kill, steal, covet thy neighbors wife....
then, Yes there is no problem between science and religion. It is when the religious start talking of things that they have no Authority or Knowledge of that the problems crop up. Or when those who espouse scientific views make statements that sound an awful lot like they are invested in destroying the basis of the layperson's religious beliefs. This often results in more political support of the religious you speak of who attempt make statements about science of which they have no authority and knowledge.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with your statement. But we have to be careful with our words and the respect we show to people's most treasured beliefs, or we pay the price with our freedom and sometimes our lives. History has shown this.
I wouldn't say that fundamentalist clergy are all about control and fear, they genuinely believe the 6 day creation to be literal with theological arguments to go along with their interpretation. You and I disagree on this issue. My experiences in life have taught me otherwise in most situations. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 5/3/2006 6:55:59 AM |
You and I disagree on this issue. My experiences in life have taught me otherwise in most situations.
Really?I grew up in a fundamentalist family in the deep south.The fundies I know believe the 6 days of creation to be 24 hour solar days with Adam and Eve literally being the first two people.They believe this is necessary to Christian theology as it involves the fall of man and shows how death entered the scene and the subsequent redemption offered by Christ's viacrious death and resurrection.
What type of fundamentalists did you deal with? | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 3619 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 5/3/2006 3:18:30 PM | taurus are you talking about "clergy" or just random folk?
I have never met a clergy christian person (from catholic, evangelic or presbyt) who was teaching the Genesis as an actual fact. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 5/3/2006 4:27:28 PM | What type of fundamentalists did you deal with? Have you ever seen the movie, "Carrie", based on the Stephen King novel? Do you remember the character of Carrie's mother? Not much different than one of the households I was raised in. I will not offer more detail than that.
I have never met a clergy christian person (from catholic, evangelic or presbyt) who was teaching the Genesis as an actual fact. Count yourself lucky. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 5/3/2006 6:07:42 PM | Majestic
"Religion IS NOT scrutinized by scientific means. You cannot scrutinize something that has as its basis an absolute such as faith."
Science does not infringe on faith but it can scrutinize what Religion claims as fact such events that turn out to be mythological. In this way you are wrong Majestic as the history of the bible and what is written can be proven or disproven to violate the natural laws....
Sorry but you have not convinced me of anything otherwise. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 5/3/2006 6:18:35 PM | You can't have it both ways. Its ridiculous to try to invalidate the mythological tapestry of a religion as though it were real natural phenomena. And who cares what you are convinced of? I certainly don't. I already made my point.
As a matter of law, religion should not enter into scientific courses in public schools. As a matter of common sense and sanity people who espouse science should not attack the religious views of others no matter how silly they may seem. You have the right to say whatever you please, but beware that those rights are given to us on a tenuous basis. I would personally rather not end up having my rights curtailed because of useless idealistic activism.
You will find the religious have in past, have in the present, and will have in the future, far more political power than those who strictly observe scientific explanations of natural phenomena. That doesn't make them right, but it does mean that if persons espousing scientific views f**k with them all such persons are going to do is set the clock backward in terms of seperation between church and state.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 5/3/2006 9:54:29 PM |
Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School?
Boy, do you have a LARGE thread. I'm jealous.
Creation shouldn't be taught in schools. The public system only holds you for about 18 years. Enlightenment lasts forever, and it seems so; Un-enlightenment.
Creation? Existance? As Pilate said unto Jesus before committing him to the cross; "What is truth?" Do we actually exist, or are we just the dream of a dreamer? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/7/2006 3:28:33 PM | | I want to say Who Cares!! but obviously a lot of people do..we all have our personal beliefs and we should not be attacking each other for them..I postulate that we are born with these beliefs or the tendency to have a faith or to be agnostic..or..it is in our genes... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/7/2006 10:16:19 PM | The religious see the justifications of thier belief disappearing ... darwinism is one cause ... so they attack it with lies and misinformation. In a few decades, I hope, Veritas Omnia Vingit. Religion will be no more. How many of our children, growing up with what we know could ever believe the B.S. the christians soout.
I maybe too much of an optomist. Bad ideas have a bad habit of sticking ... capri pants are an example of this ... lol. (I'm joking about the capris folks but the analogy is sound.) | |
|
|
| Page 145 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 
