First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Evolution and Creationism in School
Posted 3/22/10
^^^^ What...... the.... helll........ o_O ^^^^

Is anyone else on the verge of projectile vomiting?


Anyways, evolution is science so it should be taugh in science class, while creationism should be taught in religion classes. Intelligent design should not be taught in science class either because it's not an accepted theory.
Posted 3/22/10

RisingEchoe wrote:

^^^^ What...... the.... helll........ o_O ^^^^

Is anyone else on the verge of projectile vomiting?


Anyways, evolution is science so it should be taugh in science class, while creationism should be taught in religion classes. Intelligent design should not be taught in science class either because it's not an accepted theory.
I meant evolution as an intelligent design for it naturally favor life form to have biological intelligences.

And there's no need for religion, because it kept getting the nature of humanity wrong for the longest time. Due to its dogmatic philosophies and practices.
1814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/23/10 , edited 3/23/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


meezermex wrote:


LosingOrbit wrote:

Wouldn't the two views just clash with each other?


If taught objectively they should not clash at all. At least they shouldn't clash any more than teaching politics in Social Sciences or presenting the basic tenants of Communism and Capitalism in Economics. Certainly it is an inflamatory issue, but no more than many other subjects that present opposing ideologies.

It would be most fair to present all evidences for and against each and allow the student to decide. This puts a great burden of responsibility on the teacher and the school system to be truly objective which is the real reason why this is such a controversial issue. It is very difficult not to incorporate one's personal opinion into the facts -- it takes a great deal of ethical strength.



Dr. House "Rational arguments don't work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people"



Dr. House "Its not about whats fun, Its about the truth!"



It may reflect your opinion, but you're quoting from a television program for pity's sake!

Unfortunately, even if Dr. House were a real person, the facts of history would be against him. To deny the rationality of religious people would completely destroy the foundations of science.

Here are a few religious people who were so rational that their work is indispensible to science:

Isaac Newton -- the law of gravity
Dietrich von Frieberg -- the priest who discovered the secrets of the rainbow
Nicole Oresme -- inventor of scientific graphic techniques
Georgias Agricola -- founder of metallurgy
Johannes Kepler -- the laws of planetary motion
Johannes Baptista van Helmont -- founder of pneumatic chemistry and chemical physiology
Blaise Pascal -- mathematical prodigy and universal genius
Robert Boyle -- founder of modern chemistry
Isaac Barrow -- Newton's teacher
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek -- discoverer of bacteria
Niels Seno -- founder of geology
Carolus Linnaeus -- classifier of all living things
John Dalton -- founder of modern atomic theory
Augustin-Jean Fresnel -- the physicists of light waves
Michael Faraday -- giant of electrical research
John Frederick William Herschel -- cataloguer of the Southern Skies, discoverer of Uranus, composer
Matthew Fontaine Maury -- pathfinder of the seas (ocean currents)
Asa Gray -- influential botanist
James Dwight Dana -- systematizer of minerology
George Boole -- discoverer of pure mathematics
James Prescott Joule -- originator of Joule's Law
Gregor Mendel -- pioneer in genetics
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin -- physicist of thermodynammics
Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann -- the non-Euclidean geometer behind relativity theory
James Clerk Maxwell -- father of modern physics
Georges Lemaitre -- the priest who showed us the universe is expanding
George Washington Carver c. -- pioneer in chemurgy
Arthur Stanley Eddington -- the astronomer who ruled stellar theory
...to name a few

It would be mature to now retract those quotes 1) becuase they were not made by a real person, 2) because they are observably and proveably fallicious, 3) because they are bigotted. Imagine how scientists would react if I made this arguably true statement, "Rational arguments and proofs don't work on atheists and evolutionists, otherwise there would be no atheists and evolutionists."

As you quoted, "It's not about what's fun (i.e. -- pissing off a creationist and believer in God). It's about the truth! (that your first quote has been proven false)"
17958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 3/23/10 , edited 3/23/10

meezermex wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


meezermex wrote:


LosingOrbit wrote:

Wouldn't the two views just clash with each other?


If taught objectively they should not clash at all. At least they shouldn't clash any more than teaching politics in Social Sciences or presenting the basic tenants of Communism and Capitalism in Economics. Certainly it is an inflamatory issue, but no more than many other subjects that present opposing ideologies.

It would be most fair to present all evidences for and against each and allow the student to decide. This puts a great burden of responsibility on the teacher and the school system to be truly objective which is the real reason why this is such a controversial issue. It is very difficult not to incorporate one's personal opinion into the facts -- it takes a great deal of ethical strength.



Dr. House "Rational arguments don't work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people"



Dr. House "Its not about whats fun, Its about the truth!"



It may reflect your opinion, but you're quoting from a television program for pity's sake!

Unfortunately, even if Dr. House were a real person, the facts of history would be against him. To deny the rationality of religious people would completely destroy the foundations of science.

Here are a few religious people who were so rational that their work is indispensible to science:

Isaac Newton -- the law of gravity
Dietrich von Frieberg -- the priest who discovered the secrets of the rainbow
Nicole Oresme -- inventor of scientific graphic techniques
Georgias Agricola -- founder of metallurgy
Johannes Kepler -- the laws of planetary motion
Johannes Baptista van Helmont -- founder of pneumatic chemistry and chemical physiology
Blaise Pascal -- mathematical prodigy and universal genius
Robert Boyle -- founder of modern chemistry
Isaac Barrow -- Newton's teacher
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek -- discoverer of bacteria
Niels Seno -- founder of geology
Carolus Linnaeus -- classifier of all living things
John Dalton -- founder of modern atomic theory
Augustin-Jean Fresnel -- the physicists of light waves
Michael Faraday -- giant of electrical research
John Frederick William Herschel -- cataloguer of the Southern Skies, discoverer of Uranus, composer
Matthew Fontaine Maury -- pathfinder of the seas (ocean currents)
Asa Gray -- influential botanist
James Dwight Dana -- systematizer of minerology
George Boole -- discoverer of pure mathematics
James Prescott Joule -- originator of Joule's Law
Gregor Mendel -- pioneer in genetics
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin -- physicist of thermodynammics
Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann -- the non-Euclidean geometer behind relativity theory
James Clerk Maxwell -- father of modern physics
Georges Lemaitre -- the priest who showed us the universe is expanding
George Washington Carver c. -- pioneer in chemurgy
Arthur Stanley Eddington -- the astronomer who ruled stellar theory
...to name a few

It would be mature to now retract those quotes 1) becuase they were not made by a real person, 2) because they are observably and proveably fallicious, 3) because they are bigotted. Imagine how scientists would react if I made this arguably true statement, "Rational arguments and proofs don't work on atheists and evolutionists, otherwise there would be no atheists and evolutionists."

As you quoted, "It's not about what's fun (i.e. -- pissing off a creationist and believer in God). It's about the truth! (that your first quote has been proven false)"


Just how has it been shown false? The statement sticks because it matters not what they do, or who they are.. I have friends who are Scientist just like me, but they are religious. But in fact they shut off their brain wen it comes to their religion. 'Scientist who do not use their head wen it comes to religion. 'I don't blame them, most if not all of them was brainwashed as kids into their religion. An so they are unable to question it. Yes scientist can still be stupid, wen it does not deal with their expertise.
1814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/23/10

DomFortress wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


meezermex wrote:


LosingOrbit wrote:

Wouldn't the two views just clash with each other?


If taught objectively they should not clash at all. At least they shouldn't clash anymore than teaching politics in Social Sciences or presenting the basic tenants of Communism and Capitalism in Economics. Certainly it is an inflamatory issue, but no more than many other subjects that present opposing ideologies.

It would be most fair to present all evidences for and against each and allow the student to decide. This puts a great burden of responsibility on the teacher and the school system to be truly objective which is the real reason why this is such a controversial issue. It is very difficult not to incorporate one's personal opinion into the facts -- it takes a great deal of ethical strength.



Dr. House "Rational arguments don't work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people"



Dr. House "Its not about whats fun, Its about the truth!"

And now even science can explain moral and ethic values scientifically with facts. Which somehow rings true with my hypothesis about life at some points.

This subsequently means religions are loosing their value worth to the natural science's method of questioning dogmatic religious practices.

And when we're controlling evolution itself by a proactive approach with our technology and design, we will be rewriting humanity itself as our own epic story of evolution.


What a very grandiose statement. It's too bad that you're wrong. Unfortunately, macro-evolution (change from one kind of life form to another) upon which the hypothesis of evolution is based has never been observed or duplicated. Micro-evolution (adaptation to one's environment or variations within a species) is seen everywhere, but there are no transitional "links" from one species to another. Now, considering these obvious facts, I question natural science's methods of questioning dogmatic religious practices. Is not natural science dogmatic in it's faith that evolution and naturalism is the only way?

If you are referring to your abismal attempt to prove that chemical reactions cause faith when you speak of "science explaining ethic values scientifically with facts" allow me to remind you that your idea cannot be proven. If chemical reactions controlled all emotions then our mind would be driven by our body -- which is basically the case of animals. However, we see on a daily basis that the human mind is what drives the body not vice versa. Are you running because your legs are moving or are your legs moving because you wish to run? Science cannot quatify the human will, the controlling factor of the mind, because it is of a supernatural nature. To say that chemical reactions control our every thought and emotion is to totally deny the main tenant of humanism, atheism, and evolution -- that main tenant being the superiority of human reason. How are we any better or more intelligent than animals if we are controlled by chemical urges? If such things were so easy to explain then why has true artificial intelligence not yet been created? I answer you this, because the human soul/spirit cannot be understood much less explained in natural terms.

As to your final statement concerning when human history will be rewritten, it would be more truthful to say that it is already being rewritten without any proof of evolution (macro-evolution) much less any control over it.

Finally, yes, atheism and evolution are causing religions to loose their value and worth in modern society, but I would not say that this is an advancement. As ethics and moral values continue to slide the world is being thrown into moral chaos. The mentality of the strong protecting the weak is being replaced by the idea that the strong make the rules and may obliterate the weak should they so choose -- we already see this in the form of euthenasia and abortion. I would not proudly boast of the advancement and superiority of the human mind when the denial of it's Creator has led to such moral decay!
1814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/23/10 , edited 3/23/10
wrote:


meezermex wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


meezermex wrote:


LosingOrbit wrote:

Wouldn't the two views just clash with each other?


If taught objectively they should not clash at all. At least they shouldn't clash any more than teaching politics in Social Sciences or presenting the basic tenants of Communism and Capitalism in Economics. Certainly it is an inflamatory issue, but no more than many other subjects that present opposing ideologies.

It would be most fair to present all evidences for and against each and allow the student to decide. This puts a great burden of responsibility on the teacher and the school system to be truly objective which is the real reason why this is such a controversial issue. It is very difficult not to incorporate one's personal opinion into the facts -- it takes a great deal of ethical strength.



Dr. House "Rational arguments don't work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people"



Dr. House "Its not about whats fun, Its about the truth!"



It may reflect your opinion, but you're quoting from a television program for pity's sake!

Unfortunately, even if Dr. House were a real person, the facts of history would be against him. To deny the rationality of religious people would completely destroy the foundations of science.

Here are a few religious people who were so rational that their work is indispensible to science:

Isaac Newton -- the law of gravity
Dietrich von Frieberg -- the priest who discovered the secrets of the rainbow
Nicole Oresme -- inventor of scientific graphic techniques
Georgias Agricola -- founder of metallurgy
Johannes Kepler -- the laws of planetary motion
Johannes Baptista van Helmont -- founder of pneumatic chemistry and chemical physiology
Blaise Pascal -- mathematical prodigy and universal genius
Robert Boyle -- founder of modern chemistry
Isaac Barrow -- Newton's teacher
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek -- discoverer of bacteria
Niels Seno -- founder of geology
Carolus Linnaeus -- classifier of all living things
John Dalton -- founder of modern atomic theory
Augustin-Jean Fresnel -- the physicists of light waves
Michael Faraday -- giant of electrical research
John Frederick William Herschel -- cataloguer of the Southern Skies, discoverer of Uranus, composer
Matthew Fontaine Maury -- pathfinder of the seas (ocean currents)
Asa Gray -- influential botanist
James Dwight Dana -- systematizer of minerology
George Boole -- discoverer of pure mathematics
James Prescott Joule -- originator of Joule's Law
Gregor Mendel -- pioneer in genetics
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin -- physicist of thermodynammics
Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann -- the non-Euclidean geometer behind relativity theory
James Clerk Maxwell -- father of modern physics
Georges Lemaitre -- the priest who showed us the universe is expanding
George Washington Carver c. -- pioneer in chemurgy
Arthur Stanley Eddington -- the astronomer who ruled stellar theory
...to name a few

It would be mature to now retract those quotes 1) becuase they were not made by a real person, 2) because they are observably and proveably fallicious, 3) because they are bigotted. Imagine how scientists would react if I made this arguably true statement, "Rational arguments and proofs don't work on atheists and evolutionists, otherwise there would be no atheists and evolutionists."

As you quoted, "It's not about what's fun (i.e. -- pissing off a creationist and believer in God). It's about the truth! (that your first quote has been proven false)"



Just how has it been shown false? The statement sticks because it matters not what they do, or who they are.. I have friends who are Scientist just like me, but they are religious. But in fact they shut off their brain wen it comes to their religion. 'Scientist who do not use their head wen it comes to religion. 'I don't blame them, most if not all of them was brainwashed as kids into their religion. An so they are unable to question it. Yes scientist can still be stupid, wen it does not deal with their expertise.


It is merely your opinion that they shut off their brains because they believe in something that you cannot prove naturalistically. The same could be said of any who believe in macro-evolution since it has never been observed and there is no evidence that it has ever occurred.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
38052 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Online
Posted 3/23/10
I think the evolution/creationism in school debate is a prime example of propagandizing our children. They say the theory of evolution is proven fact, when truthfully it isn't. The only consensus within the naturalist's community is that evolution happened, as to how? They don't know. We teach our children a one sided view and fail to discuss the problems with the theory of evolution. Creationism is scientific, it's the belief that all things were designed by God in an orderly fashion (and observation supports this theory). It's not right to force feed one view, and only a positive image of one view into our children's minds. Many of the greatest scientists who ever lived held their personal scientific philosophy to be that they would study how God's creation functions, how God's creation is orderly, and understand the wisdom behind how God created things. The same philosophy can still apply today, it doesn't have to be "there is no God, all order derives from chaotic randomness, let's study how everything exists independent of a creator or any order."
Posted 3/23/10

meezermex wrote:



What a very grandiose statement. It's too bad that you're wrong. Unfortunately, macro-evolution (change from one kind of life form to another) upon which the hypothesis of evolution is based has never been observed or duplicated. Micro-evolution (adaptation to one's environment or variations within a species) is seen everywhere, but there are no transitional "links" from one species to another. Now, considering these obvious facts, I question natural science's methods of questioning dogmatic religious practices. Is not natural science dogmatic in it's faith that evolution and naturalism is the only way?

If you are referring to your abismal attempt to prove that chemical reactions cause faith when you speak of "science explaining ethic values scientifically with facts" allow me to remind you that your idea cannot be proven. If chemical reactions controlled all emotions then our mind would be driven by our body -- which is basically the case of animals. However, we see on a daily basis that the human mind is what drives the body not vice versa. Are you running because your legs are moving or are your legs moving because you wish to run? Science cannot quatify the human will, the controlling factor of the mind, because it is of a supernatural nature. To say that chemical reactions control our every thought and emotion is to totally deny the main tenant of humanism, atheism, and evolution -- that main tenant being the superiority of human reason. How are we any better or more intelligent than animals if we are controlled by chemical urges? If such things were so easy to explain then why has true artificial intelligence not yet been created? I answer you this, because the human soul/spirit cannot be understood much less explained in natural terms.

As to your final statement concerning when human history will be rewritten, it would be more truthful to say that it is already being rewritten without any proof of evolution (macro-evolution) much less any control over it.

Finally, yes, atheism and evolution are causing religions to loose their value and worth in modern society, but I would not say that this is an advancement. As ethics and moral values continue to slide the world is being thrown into moral chaos. The mentality of the strong protecting the weak is being replaced by the idea that the strong make the rules and may obliterate the weak should they so choose -- we already see this in the form of euthenasia and abortion. I would not proudly boast of the advancement and superiority of the human mind when the denial of it's Creator has led to such moral decay!
And are you such "strong" individual that you so proclaim? Because all I can see here is a pessimist who's helpless without her faith. When she doesn't even have the will nor courage to do the right thing, without her requiring any incentive.

And when you're not even an expert of humanity nor evolution, let along even an amateur in the field of natural and experimental science. What's to say that your criticism has any moral worth, when you're a none-believer of yourself.

Perhaps you're the one who needs to learn from nature itself, how naturally life even without God has a will to be strong and a desire to survive. But for the longest time, you're afraid of the fact that you had been wrong all along. So conquer your own fear, and you can learn anything. When failure is an option, while fear of failure is an excuse of not doing anything, which kills curiosity. Otherwise, you can continue to do what you love to do as an none-believer, and no excuses when you came face to face with yourself and your legacy; the human negativity of human desire to be helpless.

BTW, where's your God now? Is He well?
Posted 3/23/10 , edited 3/23/10

DomFortress wrote:


RisingEchoe wrote:

^^^^ What...... the.... helll........ o_O ^^^^

Is anyone else on the verge of projectile vomiting?


Anyways, evolution is science so it should be taugh in science class, while creationism should be taught in religion classes. Intelligent design should not be taught in science class either because it's not an accepted theory.
I meant evolution as an intelligent design for it naturally favor life form to have biological intelligences.

And there's no need for religion, because it kept getting the nature of humanity wrong for the longest time. Due to its dogmatic philosophies and practices.


I didn't respond to anything in your post, it was just so goddamn corny and full of random links no one will bother looking at.

"there's no need for religion, because it kept getting the nature of humanity wrong" - Well that's debatable, and a completely different issue, I said religion class. Creationism and ideas related to religion should just be taught and discussed in religion class only.
1814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/23/10 , edited 3/23/10

DomFortress wrote:


meezermex wrote:



What a very grandiose statement. It's too bad that you're wrong. Unfortunately, macro-evolution (change from one kind of life form to another) upon which the hypothesis of evolution is based has never been observed or duplicated. Micro-evolution (adaptation to one's environment or variations within a species) is seen everywhere, but there are no transitional "links" from one species to another. Now, considering these obvious facts, I question natural science's methods of questioning dogmatic religious practices. Is not natural science dogmatic in it's faith that evolution and naturalism is the only way?

If you are referring to your abismal attempt to prove that chemical reactions cause faith when you speak of "science explaining ethic values scientifically with facts" allow me to remind you that your idea cannot be proven. If chemical reactions controlled all emotions then our mind would be driven by our body -- which is basically the case of animals. However, we see on a daily basis that the human mind is what drives the body not vice versa. Are you running because your legs are moving or are your legs moving because you wish to run? Science cannot quatify the human will, the controlling factor of the mind, because it is of a supernatural nature. To say that chemical reactions control our every thought and emotion is to totally deny the main tenant of humanism, atheism, and evolution -- that main tenant being the superiority of human reason. How are we any better or more intelligent than animals if we are controlled by chemical urges? If such things were so easy to explain then why has true artificial intelligence not yet been created? I answer you this, because the human soul/spirit cannot be understood much less explained in natural terms.

As to your final statement concerning when human history will be rewritten, it would be more truthful to say that it is already being rewritten without any proof of evolution (macro-evolution) much less any control over it.

Finally, yes, atheism and evolution are causing religions to loose their value and worth in modern society, but I would not say that this is an advancement. As ethics and moral values continue to slide the world is being thrown into moral chaos. The mentality of the strong protecting the weak is being replaced by the idea that the strong make the rules and may obliterate the weak should they so choose -- we already see this in the form of euthenasia and abortion. I would not proudly boast of the advancement and superiority of the human mind when the denial of it's Creator has led to such moral decay!
And are you such "strong" individual that you so proclaim? Because all I can see here is a pessimist who's helpless without her faith. When she doesn't even have the will nor courage to do the right thing, without her requiring any incentive.

And when you're not even an expert of humanity nor evolution, let along even an amateur in the field of natural and experimental science. What's to say that your criticism has any moral worth, when you're a none-believer of yourself.

Perhaps you're the one who needs to learn from nature itself, how naturally life even without God has a will to be strong and a desire to survive. But for the longest time, you're afraid of the fact that you had been wrong all along. So conquer your own fear, and you can learn anything. When failure is an option, while fear of failure is an excuse of not doing anything, which kills curiosity. Otherwise, you can continue to do what you love to do as an none-believer, and no excuses when you came face to face with yourself and your legacy; the human negativity of human desire to be helpless.

BTW, where's your God now? Is He well?


You are so confusing. You take what you want of what an individual says and twist it around to mean whatever makes you look best.

Pessimistic? Helpless? No will, no courage? How ridiculous! To recognize one's weaknesses and limitations is not to be weak -- it is to know where one can begin to build strength. Do you look in a mirror and not admit the flaws you see and strive to improve what you can? What a silly thing to say, a none-believer of myself. pshaw. Please think of a better (perhaps more grammatically correct) insult next time -- you're just "trolling" again.

It is rather humorous that you should say that I have no courage to do the right thing without my faith. You don't seem to get the point. It's like you're criticizing a child for doing good in order to please their parents. Do you speak badly of their good behavior because they hold pleasing their parents as an incentive? Is not their good behavior a demonstration of their love for their parent? If I do not strive to please God whom I love above all else, then who should I be trying to please? Myself? That's ego-centric. Others? That's "brown-nosing".

Certainly life without God has a strong desire to survive because it fears death. Death in the naturalistic eye is oblivion, nothingness. What is done in the frantic scurry of years is all there is to life -- in that view. As to my alleged "fear" of being wrong, I'm rather confused as to from where that accusation came. What have I to lose if I am wrong? Absolutely nothing. Why then should I have any fear? If I am wrong, then I will have lived a full life helping others and defending and proclaiming my beliefs -- in other words I die doing what I love to do. What is so wrong about that? What is there to fear at the end of such a life? I am not comparing myself to her, but would you dare criticize Mother Teresa for her self-less efforts?

You challenge me to do what I love. I already do. Whatever fruit my efforts bear here on earth are just bonuses because doing what I love does not necessarily mean pleasing people or seeing temporal rewards. If anything I have less incentive than many to do what I do. I do what is right because, "to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

To live for something so pointless as a legacy is foolish; anything material that you pile up in life doesn't come with you into the grave or beyond. To at most make people think and consider opposing opinions is my loftiest goal ... and perhaps see some of those people in heaven some day.

Last I heard, God was still in Heaven reigning over the universe. The laws of nature continue to function, and you're still alive to have another discussion so ... it would appear that He is as well as He eternally is. Making such a statement may make me seem to you and others a brain-washed, stupid, religious, (fill-in-the-blank) zealot, but it really does not matter what you think in the long run. You have closed your mind to anything other than what your five senses can show you. You believe you have the power to deny the supernatural. Do you not grasp the sheer mathematical statistics for what it would take for even one step of evolution to occur (1 with 40,000 zeroes after it) -- much less for the trillions of changes necessary to go from a single-celled organism to a homo sapiens? My faith in God is weak compared to your faith in random chance. I see a watch and assume that there was a watchmaker -- you see a watch and try to tell me how it evolved over billions and billions of years. Do not presume to imply that this example is flawed because it refers to crude non-living material being changed to more intricate non-living material with intelligent intervention when evolution itself requires non-living material to miraculously without any help become living material.
1814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/23/10

digs wrote:

I think the evolution/creationism in school debate is a prime example of propagandizing our children. They say the theory of evolution is proven fact, when truthfully it isn't. The only consensus within the naturalist's community is that evolution happened, as to how? They don't know. We teach our children a one sided view and fail to discuss the problems with the theory of evolution. Creationism is scientific, it's the belief that all things were designed by God in an orderly fashion (and observation supports this theory). It's not right to force feed one view, and only a positive image of one view into our children's minds. Many of the greatest scientists who ever lived held their personal scientific philosophy to be that they would study how God's creation functions, how God's creation is orderly, and understand the wisdom behind how God created things. The same philosophy can still apply today, it doesn't have to be "there is no God, all order derives from chaotic randomness, let's study how everything exists independent of a creator or any order."


thank you digs
114160 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / in a world where...
Offline
Posted 3/23/10

digs wrote:

I think the evolution/creationism in school debate is a prime example of propagandizing our children. They say the theory of evolution is proven fact, when truthfully it isn't. The only consensus within the naturalist's community is that evolution happened, as to how? They don't know. We teach our children a one sided view and fail to discuss the problems with the theory of evolution. Creationism is scientific, it's the belief that all things were designed by God in an orderly fashion (and observation supports this theory). It's not right to force feed one view, and only a positive image of one view into our children's minds. Many of the greatest scientists who ever lived held their personal scientific philosophy to be that they would study how God's creation functions, how God's creation is orderly, and understand the wisdom behind how God created things. The same philosophy can still apply today, it doesn't have to be "there is no God, all order derives from chaotic randomness, let's study how everything exists independent of a creator or any order."


i cant help but feel the lies oozing through each sentence. As i read i get the feeling the u want an unscientific concept made in an attempt to combat evolution to be taught over something with more solid ground to the next generation. Schools r around to teach kids about the concepts and skills that our society needs in order to continue, no matter how much i think i cant see how teaching creationism or evolution is vital to the existance of our world. As for ur last line i laughed after saying all that about creationism u try to hit and run behind such a statement?

To answer the question of the OP i think both should b left out of schools simply to avoid complaints of "being one sided".

btw who is they who say evolution is proven? are you implying that creationism is proven?

blue:


Red:



personal opinion

You know i just had a thought, what do religions outside those that follow a deity known as God feel about creationism?
6717 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Earth
Offline
Posted 3/24/10

meezermex wrote:


You are so confusing. You take what you want of what an individual says and twist it around to mean whatever makes you look best.

Pessimistic? Helpless? No will, no courage? How ridiculous! To recognize one's weaknesses and limitations is not to be weak -- it is to know where one can begin to build strength. Do you look in a mirror and not admit the flaws you see and strive to improve what you can? What a silly thing to say, a none-believer of myself. pshaw. Please think of a better (perhaps more grammatically correct) insult next time -- you're just "trolling" again.

It is rather humorous that you should say that I have no courage to do the right thing without my faith. You don't seem to get the point. It's like you're criticizing a child for doing good in order to please their parents. Do you speak badly of their good behavior because they hold pleasing their parents as an incentive? Is not their good behavior a demonstration of their love for their parent? If I do not strive to please God whom I love above all else, then who should I be trying to please? Myself? That's ego-centric. Others? That's "brown-nosing".

Certainly life without God has a strong desire to survive because it fears death. Death in the naturalistic eye is oblivion, nothingness. What is done in the frantic scurry of years is all there is to life -- in that view. As to my alleged "fear" of being wrong, I'm rather confused as to from where that accusation came. What have I to lose if I am wrong? Absolutely nothing. Why then should I have any fear? If I am wrong, then I will have lived a full life helping others and defending and proclaiming my beliefs -- in other words I die doing what I love to do. What is so wrong about that? What is there to fear at the end of such a life? I am not comparing myself to her, but would you dare criticize Mother Teresa for her self-less efforts?

You challenge me to do what I love. I already do. Whatever fruit my efforts bear here on earth are just bonuses because doing what I love does not necessarily mean pleasing people or seeing temporal rewards. If anything I have less incentive than many to do what I do. I do what is right because, "to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

To live for something so pointless as a legacy is foolish; anything material that you pile up in life doesn't come with you into the grave or beyond. To at most make people think and consider opposing opinions is my loftiest goal ... and perhaps see some of those people in heaven some day.

Last I heard, God was still in Heaven reigning over the universe. The laws of nature continue to function, and you're still alive to have another discussion so ... it would appear that He is as well as He eternally is. Making such a statement may make me seem to you and others a brain-washed, stupid, religious, (fill-in-the-blank) zealot, but it really does not matter what you think in the long run. You have closed your mind to anything other than what your five senses can show you. You believe you have the power to deny the supernatural. Do you not grasp the sheer mathematical statistics for what it would take for even one step of evolution to occur (1 with 40,000 zeroes after it) -- much less for the trillions of changes necessary to go from a single-celled organism to a homo sapiens? My faith in God is weak compared to your faith in random chance. I see a watch and assume that there was a watchmaker -- you see a watch and try to tell me how it evolved over billions and billions of years. Do not presume to imply that this example is flawed because it refers to crude non-living material being changed to more intricate non-living material with intelligent intervention when evolution itself requires non-living material to miraculously without any help become living material.


I label myself as an agnostic. However, I commend you for putting such a clear and precise argument. I love every single sentence of it.

On-topic:

I'm confused. If I am in America or in any Christian country, Creationism exist because of God. If I am in any Muslim countries, Creationism exist because of Allah. If children are taught differently in each country, would there be inconsistency?

I'm also confused in Evolution, does evolution have the capacity to define how the world was created? I thought that evolution can only trace where did a certain specie came from.

Not regarding the dates and other possible source of confusion, could evolution and creationism be both true?
1814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/25/10 , edited 3/25/10



I label myself as an agnostic. However, I commend you for putting such a clear and precise argument. I love every single sentence of it.

On-topic:

I'm confused. If I am in America or in any Christian country, Creationism exist because of God. If I am in any Muslim countries, Creationism exist because of Allah. If children are taught differently in each country, would there be inconsistency?

I'm also confused in Evolution, does evolution have the capacity to define how the world was created? I thought that evolution can only trace where did a certain specie came from.

Not regarding the dates and other possible source of confusion, could evolution and creationism be both true?


I wish that I could clearly answer your first questions in a short and concise manner. Unfortunately it is not possible since it requires that we delve at length into a study of religion and deity. The simplest answer I can give you now is that both religions believe in a monotheistic God merely by different names -- the problem being that the gods that appear to be similar revealed dramatically different teachings. I agree that it is severely problematic from a consistency point of view, but it will take minds far greater than mine to figure out a solution to that particular problem.

Your questions concerning evolution are the same as mine; therefore, I cannot answer them either.

To answer your last question concerning both being true: Honestly, it appears that they cannot since they are both mutually exclusive. I'm sure that you understand my opinion on the subject. But somehow, historically speaking, it isn't unusual for two mutually exclusive truths to be taught simultaneously -- consider quantum physics and the theory of relativity. This example isn't quite right since both of these have a great deal of empirical proof while neither evolution nor creationism have much in the way of evidence (although my personal opinion is that there is more logical proof for creation, but I digress).

"Even with the defining postulates of both Einstein's theory of general relativity and quantum theory being indisputably supported by rigorous and repeated empirical evidence and while they do not directly contradict each other theoretically (at least with regard to primary claims), they are resistant to being incorporated within one cohesive model." ["There is as yet no logically consistent and complete relativistic quantum field theory.", p. 4. — V. B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshitz, L P Pitaevskii (1971). J. B. Sykes, J. S. Bell (translators). Relativistic Quantum Theory 4, part I. Course of Theoretical Physics (Landau and Lifshitz) ISBN 0 08 016025 5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

EDIT: Similar to quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity, Evolution and Creationsim actually do both have the same primary claims. They both claim that something came from nothing -- it is the mechanism of change that is the source of division.
Posted 3/25/10 , edited 3/25/10

meezermex wrote:




I label myself as an agnostic. However, I commend you for putting such a clear and precise argument. I love every single sentence of it.

On-topic:

I'm confused. If I am in America or in any Christian country, Creationism exist because of God. If I am in any Muslim countries, Creationism exist because of Allah. If children are taught differently in each country, would there be inconsistency?

I'm also confused in Evolution, does evolution have the capacity to define how the world was created? I thought that evolution can only trace where did a certain specie came from.

Not regarding the dates and other possible source of confusion, could evolution and creationism be both true?


I wish that I could clearly answer your first questions in a short and concise manner. Unfortunately it is not possible since it requires that we delve at length into a study of religion and deity. The simplest answer I can give you now is that both religions believe in a monotheistic God merely by different names -- the problem being that the gods that appear to be similar revealed dramatically different teachings. I agree that it is severely problematic from a consistency point of view, but it will take minds far greater than mine to figure out a solution to that particular problem.

Your questions concerning evolution are the same as mine; therefore, I cannot answer them either.

To answer your last question concerning both being true: Honestly, it appears that they cannot since they are both mutually exclusive. I'm sure that you understand my opinion on the subject. But somehow, historically speaking, it isn't unusual for two mutually exclusive truths to be taught simultaneously -- consider quantum physics and the theory of relativity. This example isn't quite right since both of these have a great deal of empirical proof while neither evolution nor creationism have much in the way of evidence (although my personal opinion is that there is more logical proof for creation, but I digress).

"Even with the defining postulates of both Einstein's theory of general relativity and quantum theory being indisputably supported by rigorous and repeated empirical evidence and while they do not directly contradict each other theoretically (at least with regard to primary claims), they are resistant to being incorporated within one cohesive model."["There is as yet no logically consistent and complete relativistic quantum field theory.", p. 4. — V. B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshitz, L P Pitaevskii (1971). J. B. Sykes, J. S. Bell (translators). Relativistic Quantum Theory 4, part I. Course of Theoretical Physics (Landau and Lifshitz) ISBN 0 08 016025 5]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

EDIT: Similar to quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity, Evolution and Creationsim actually do both have the same primary claims. They both claim that something came from nothing -- it is the mechanism of change that is the source of division.
From a biological point of view, evolution theory only concerns itself about the origin of species. Whereas creationism OTOH is a "one-tool-fits-all" entitlement, without natural evidence of an existing and working supernatural being.

Furthermore, once you begin to see time and events as none-linear, aka as paralleled and segmented existences at the same time. That's how you can derive the theory of parallel universes and quantum computation, by incorporating both quantum theory and general relativity theory. This also means that a whole parallel universe can simply just exist solely due to satisfying the conditions of both theories.

And finally, there's absolutely no contradiction between quantum physics and special relativity theory. When the former was based on the latter, while general relativity theory only concerns itself with the observation of events relating with time.

You can lie about the nature of your motives all you want, but don't you dare think you can publicly misinform scientific facts whenever I'm around.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.