I say the only good thing that has come from religion is Christmas and Chanukah, because they make good specials of T.V. series.
Last edited by Superior Mind (2007-07-26 23:08:54)
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6682
I don't care what religion you want to believe in. You can believe the tooth fairy created the universe for all I care.SGT.Mays wrote:
Fuck evolutuion, till you can prove that cromagnum man wasnt just a retard that fell into a tarpit while the smarter humans didnt.
I love people that are atheists if you dont care or believe in a God why does it bug you so much when someone else does?
You feel threatened by the fact you may be wrong or are you just trying to save our souls?
Unless you claim it to be a scientific fact, clam the science of evolution is wrong and try to teach it to kids as scientific fact. Then, as with all science, it is open to being falsified, ripped in to tiny little illogical peices and mocked all the way back home.
Oh and to your first question, how about the complete lack of any fossil remains of any 'modern' humans that date back to over 100,00o years.
And writing. Can't forget writingSuperior Mind wrote:
I say the only good thing that has come from religion is Christmas and Chanukah, because they make good specials of T.V. series.
Erm, religion didn't invent writing.doctastrangelove1964 wrote:
And writing. Can't forget writingSuperior Mind wrote:
I say the only good thing that has come from religion is Christmas and Chanukah, because they make good specials of T.V. series.
I think he means stories...PureFodder wrote:
Erm, religion didn't invent writing.doctastrangelove1964 wrote:
And writing. Can't forget writingSuperior Mind wrote:
I say the only good thing that has come from religion is Christmas and Chanukah, because they make good specials of T.V. series.
and the dont forget the Flying Spaghetti MonsterSuperior Mind wrote:
I say the only good thing that has come from religion is Christmas and Chanukah, because they make good specials of T.V. series.
BBC - Horizon - A War On Science (God Vs Science)
[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6485580088897217945[/google]
Last edited by elstonieo (2007-07-27 02:32:06)
An internal server error has occurred.jetxburned wrote:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/25/texas-doomed/
A search engine error has occurred.jetxburned wrote:
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqc … C_TEXT=YES
Great argument! I just think that evolution is taught in science class and some believe it to be fact... shouldn't creationism be at least mentioned as some believe it is fact? And where else should it be mentioned?PureFodder wrote:
That's absolutely fine, just not in a science class. There is no current scientific theory of creation. The supposed theory of creation the religious extremists try to use only fails on the null hypothesis, fitting the available data, making varifiable predictions and disprovability and any plausability of a mechanism of action. Ie. pretty much every standard used to verify a scientific theory.spacebandit72 wrote:
Well, just because one thinks evolution is the answer on how we got here does not mean another thinks that. There is no real way to know without a shadow of doubt who is correct so, I think it's fare to teach the theory of evolution while throwing in the idea that other people believe something else.Evolution is backed by VAST amounts of proof, people just don't think it is. From the most obvious things like bacteria and viruses becoming resistant to drugs and changing which species they can infect. We can watch species evolve! Then there's the other things like Darwin accurately predicting fossils that weren't found till over a hundred years after he died (pretty damned impressive!). We can trace DNA and rNA between species as they evolve. We can see creatures having genetic mutations and altering in both large and tiny ways. We can trace the spread of different DNA strands through the human race as the world became globalised and people from different areas breed. The list of proof really does go on and on and on.spacebandit72 wrote:
Both evolution and religion are flawed by lack of proof.
And the proof for creation is bugger all unless you're stupid enough to believe the grand canyon was formed in a week.
This is why we should teach kids evolution and as many of the intricate and wonderful details that acompany it and its proofs.
It's not even very smart conversation to say that one theory or religion has better proof. As I said... both have very big flaws.
I don't think we should make a law saying we have to teach creationism however, it should not be against the law for the teacher to mention it if he feels so inclined.
Thanks for the responses on the constitution in regards to separation of church and state. You did great.
It's not really defined other than the government not being able to make laws... you know the rest.
It was to make sure the government didn't make a national religion not to ban religion from the people.
In the case of public schools (which suck... just do a spell check on this post. LOL) I agree there should be no laws making any religion part of the curriculum. The 2ND amendment should however protect those who wish to mention them.
How can you explain matter from nothing? (notice: rhetorical) We can hardly comprehend absolute nothingness. Think about it: nothing. Not even darkness. No space; nothing. Infinitely. Then what? Boom! There's matter out of absolute nothing. I dunno. Either way you look at it, it's amazing. Miraculous! I, for one, believe in science and evolution (read on); I believe that things can evolve and adapt. *BUT* I believe in a creator; one who created everything: science, evolution, matter, everything. Yes, I believe in God. Though, don't get me wrong. I don't claim to understand it all; that would be rather foolish. I must say, though, that "religion" often gives the wrong idea. Some "religious" people I've known have been the worst people I've ever known. And many atrocities have been committed in the name of "religion." I understand that. I understand how very tainted it is: both peoples' views of "religion" and "religion" in itself, but, regardless of "religion", I believe in God and can see no reason not to. I see no reason why it should be harder to believe that God exists than to believe that matter came from absolute nothingness.
I'm not sure anyone will read through all of that. If you did, then thanks for listening (regardless of whether you completely disagreed or not). I know that many will probably disagree with me. That's fine. Any questions that I posed above were entirely rhetorical and I'd appreciate it if you didn't flame me for my beliefs. I just felt that I would share.
Anyway, have a great night all... er morning.
I'm not sure anyone will read through all of that. If you did, then thanks for listening (regardless of whether you completely disagreed or not). I know that many will probably disagree with me. That's fine. Any questions that I posed above were entirely rhetorical and I'd appreciate it if you didn't flame me for my beliefs. I just felt that I would share.
Anyway, have a great night all... er morning.
I agree. I think It should most certainly be a choice on the part of the student what they choose to believe and I feel that they should be given both sides so that they can make of it what they will.spacebandit72 wrote:
Great argument! I just think that evolution is taught in science class and some believe it to be fact... shouldn't creationism be at least mentioned as some believe it is fact? And where else should it be mentioned?
It's not even very smart conversation to say that one theory or religion has better proof. As I said... both have very big flaws.
I don't think we should make a law saying we have to teach creationism however, it should not be against the law for the teacher to mention it if he feels so inclined.
Thanks for the responses on the constitution in regards to separation of church and state. You did great.
It's not really defined other than the government not being able to make laws... you know the rest.
It was to make sure the government didn't make a national religion not to ban religion from the people.
In the case of public schools (which suck... just do a spell check on this post. LOL) I agree there should be no laws making any religion part of the curriculum. The 2ND amendment should however protect those who wish to mention them.
Some people believe Elvis is God, should we teach that in class. Should all medical student be taught if someone has a headache that they should drill a hole in their skull to release the evil spirits, people believe that as a fact. Whether one scientific theory has more proof is a DAMNED GOOD REASON to teach one over the other, especially when one has unfathomably massive amounts of proof and one has nothing to back it up. The whole point of science is to ditch the incorrect theories and move on when they are disproved. Creation as a science is a historical relic that is only perpetuated my a minority of religious people who find it hard to console the fact that the science doesn't follow their religious beliefs. We could teach kids that you can find out if they're going to be a criminal by measuring the bumps in their head, but it would be a pointless waste of time. If you allow creation into the classroom, there are vast number of equally wrong scientific theories that would have equal justification to be taught. If people really want to teach kids unscientific beliefs that are held by various groups, campaign to have schools include unscientific beliefs that are held by various groups classes, just don't cut down the science classes to fit it in.spacebandit72 wrote:
Great argument! I just think that evolution is taught in science class and some believe it to be fact... shouldn't creationism be at least mentioned as some believe it is fact? And where else should it be mentioned?
It's not even very smart conversation to say that one theory or religion has better proof. As I said... both have very big flaws.
I don't think we should make a law saying we have to teach creationism however, it should not be against the law for the teacher to mention it if he feels so inclined.
Thanks for the responses on the constitution in regards to separation of church and state. You did great.
It's not really defined other than the government not being able to make laws... you know the rest.
It was to make sure the government didn't make a national religion not to ban religion from the people.
In the case of public schools (which suck... just do a spell check on this post. LOL) I agree there should be no laws making any religion part of the curriculum. The 2ND amendment should however protect those who wish to mention them.
How can you explain God from nothing? (notice: rhetorical)theDunadan wrote:
How can you explain matter from nothing? (notice: rhetorical) We can hardly comprehend absolute nothingness. Think about it: nothing. Not even darkness. No space; nothing. Infinitely. Then what? Boom! There's matter out of absolute nothing. I dunno. Either way you look at it, it's amazing. Miraculous! I, for one, believe in science and evolution (read on); I believe that things can evolve and adapt. *BUT* I believe in a creator; one who created everything: science, evolution, matter, everything. Yes, I believe in God. Though, don't get me wrong. I don't claim to understand it all; that would be rather foolish. I must say, though, that "religion" often gives the wrong idea. Some "religious" people I've known have been the worst people I've ever known. And many atrocities have been committed in the name of "religion." I understand that. I understand how very tainted it is: both peoples' views of "religion" and "religion" in itself, but, regardless of "religion", I believe in God and can see no reason not to. I see no reason why it should be harder to believe that God exists than to believe that matter came from absolute nothingness.
I'm not sure anyone will read through all of that. If you did, then thanks for listening (regardless of whether you completely disagreed or not). I know that many will probably disagree with me. That's fine. Any questions that I posed above were entirely rhetorical and I'd appreciate it if you didn't flame me for my beliefs. I just felt that I would share.
Anyway, have a great night all... er morning.
Evolution is often attacked because it can't explain the beginings, how the first cell appeared, hoe the big bang occured. The creationists have an even worse problem, how does an all powerful God appear out of nothingness? Surely that's just making the problem worse! If you can offer evidence that God could have existed forever or evidence that God could be created I'll personally campaign for you to recieve a Nobel prize (which by the way comes with a cash prize of about $1.5 million)
Creationism should not be mentioned. It's as simple as that. Creationism has a time and place to be taught: In a church on sunday. And by placing a religious doctrine on the same level as a scientific theory is just absurd. Religion's aim is not to understand the nature of the universe. That's the goal of science. The "flaws" in both are due to two different methodologies in their research. Like I said in my previous post:spacebandit72 wrote:
Great argument! I just think that evolution is taught in science class and some believe it to be fact... shouldn't creationism be at least mentioned as some believe it is fact? And where else should it be mentioned?
It's not even very smart conversation to say that one theory or religion has better proof. As I said... both have very big flaws.
I don't think we should make a law saying we have to teach creationism however, it should not be against the law for the teacher to mention it if he feels so inclined.
People that suppose evolution is just a "theory" use the first definition, not understanding that scientists have much more rigorous standards. It is that fallacy that makes them think that creationism, which is NOT a testable model, is on the same level of validity as evolution. It is not.SenorToenails wrote:
Pick your definition of theory:
In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation, and general relativity.
This discrepancy causes quite the problem when a non-scientist talks to a scientist about theories.
Should we "force" them to believe that 2 + 2 = 4 too? or is that not fair?Mitch wrote:
Its wrong firstly because forcing kids to believe something (whether right or wrong) is not fair to them.
Pretty sad. Evolution is going to wake up later with a bad headache.Skruples wrote:
Ahhh, science (evolution) vs creationism. It's like watching Muhammad Ali beat up a 3rd grader.
I am glad you understand now.BraddockWHAT? wrote:
Creationism is a FACT? It is a FACT that God created the universe and all the creatures therein? ....I've heard it all now.
Creationism should not be taught - anywhere (IMO). Not in the classroom. Not in a church. Not at Sunday school. Not in a theological seminar. Not anywhere.SenorToenails wrote:
... Creationism has a time and place to be taught: In a church on sunday....
Creationism is the false reading of a myth - taught as a literal happening. It is as false to teach it in this manner in a Church; as it is equally false to teach it in public school. There is not a single conceivable argument (I cannot deconstruct and demonstrate as being false) or reason that it should even be taught in a Church. Allegory & myth does not equal - invalid spiritual knowledge or teaching - until someone; anyone; has the foolish audacity to call it it (creationism): science, history, fact, etc.
Any Church, pastor, preacher, teacher, needs to grow up - and rethink their theological position on the word: "myth." It is an accurate, healthy word full of vitality that can actually influence a greater sense of the very thing people (i.e. the religious) practice: atonement with the source of being (all being) and a sense that there is a relationship therein to compassion (altruism) together with how both those ideas & feelings influence the desire to have community (in the spiritual sense & in external real world sense).
Edit:
*Creationism: by this I mean the current poorly constructed (poorly thought out) forms of: old Earth, literalistic, young Earth & I.D. Theory.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-27 08:21:17)
I didn't know beating up kids gave you a headache. I actually learned something from an evolution vs. idiocy creation threadjamestx10 wrote:
Pretty sad. Evolution is going to wake up later with a bad headache.Skruples wrote:
Ahhh, science (evolution) vs creationism. It's like watching Muhammad Ali beat up a 3rd grader.
I think you might be onto something here. I take Genesis literally but I do know that things "evolve". I think that God created the world in a way that it could grow and adapt.Turquoise wrote:
Another point for evolution is that it DOES NOT rule out God. God could quite possibly be the initiator of the evolutionary process. Being a Christian yourself, you may want to consider that mindset. It certainly makes more logical sense than taking Genesis literally.
Actually it would have to be further removed than that.jamestx10 wrote:
I think you might be onto something here. I take Genesis literally but I do know that things "evolve". I think that God created the world in a way that it could grow and adapt.Turquoise wrote:
Another point for evolution is that it DOES NOT rule out God. God could quite possibly be the initiator of the evolutionary process. Being a Christian yourself, you may want to consider that mindset. It certainly makes more logical sense than taking Genesis literally.
A God (deity, greater being or force) does not create a world either (nor need to, if natural forces will cause it to form). That (world forming:genesis) is subject to a naturalistic explanation as well.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-27 08:42:31)
So what creation story are we going to use? There are a number of them to choose from, so which will it be? So do we waste time covering all of them, or the top 10, or 5, or 3? Oh that's right, it's obviously going to be the christian version. See, here's the problem with offering fairy tails in science class. You see, no matter where you go on this planet, math, chemistry, geology, etc., are going to be the same. However, that cannot be said of creationism, as that can vary wildly.theDunadan wrote:
I agree. I think It should most certainly be a choice on the part of the student what they choose to believe and I feel that they should be given both sides so that they can make of it what they will.spacebandit72 wrote:
Great argument! I just think that evolution is taught in science class and some believe it to be fact... shouldn't creationism be at least mentioned as some believe it is fact? And where else should it be mentioned?
It's not even very smart conversation to say that one theory or religion has better proof. As I said... both have very big flaws.
I don't think we should make a law saying we have to teach creationism however, it should not be against the law for the teacher to mention it if he feels so inclined.
Thanks for the responses on the constitution in regards to separation of church and state. You did great.
It's not really defined other than the government not being able to make laws... you know the rest.
It was to make sure the government didn't make a national religion not to ban religion from the people.
In the case of public schools (which suck... just do a spell check on this post. LOL) I agree there should be no laws making any religion part of the curriculum. The 2ND amendment should however protect those who wish to mention them.
Until you are prepared to cover them all with equal plausibility, then keep that shit out of the science classes.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6682
I wonder what would happen if a student started chanting "Allah u Akbar" during a creationism lesson in class.
I like how the Bible say that it will kill of ALL animals on earth with a huge flood. When infact a lot of the animals would be able to live in the water without big problems.
The biggest problem with the Flood is that there is NO EVIDENCE of it actually happening. If water covered the whole earth for what was it like 150 days? or something.
That would have been enough time to make layers with salt on mountains and where ever thing else that don't have so much of salt on them.
There would also be caves filled with water instead of being almost empty.
Animals that died would have roughly been at the same level and we would fine billions of animals that would lie within some layers of rocks BUT they don't.
But I like how Eddie Izzard said how it happened.
For example with the flood.
Noah(Played by Sean Connery XD): Ok, we got two sheep go over there, two cats inside the boat(this is explained later in the show). Two ducks
Ducks: We are not coming.
Noah: Well there is going to be an enormous(big then) flunk of flood.
Ducks: SO? What's the big problem?
Eddie Izzard: There's a huge hole in the flood story as everything that floats and swim would pretty much survive.
It's Eddie Izzard - Glorious and it's pretty fun one. :3
Also normally I don't see the need to try to prove them wrong because in the start they thought the earth was FLAT because they couldn't understand how gravity work.
Also the bible is so full holes with the major stories and this is the book of GOD but still it's so wrong in so many ways it can't be classed as an Gift from God.
The biggest problem with the Flood is that there is NO EVIDENCE of it actually happening. If water covered the whole earth for what was it like 150 days? or something.
That would have been enough time to make layers with salt on mountains and where ever thing else that don't have so much of salt on them.
There would also be caves filled with water instead of being almost empty.
Animals that died would have roughly been at the same level and we would fine billions of animals that would lie within some layers of rocks BUT they don't.
But I like how Eddie Izzard said how it happened.
For example with the flood.
Noah(Played by Sean Connery XD): Ok, we got two sheep go over there, two cats inside the boat(this is explained later in the show). Two ducks
Ducks: We are not coming.
Noah: Well there is going to be an enormous(big then) flunk of flood.
Ducks: SO? What's the big problem?
Eddie Izzard: There's a huge hole in the flood story as everything that floats and swim would pretty much survive.
It's Eddie Izzard - Glorious and it's pretty fun one. :3
Also normally I don't see the need to try to prove them wrong because in the start they thought the earth was FLAT because they couldn't understand how gravity work.
Also the bible is so full holes with the major stories and this is the book of GOD but still it's so wrong in so many ways it can't be classed as an Gift from God.
While I 100% agree that creationism (especially as you define it) should not be taught in any form, I am wary to tell someone what they can't believe. The problem is not that creationism is taught to certain religious groups, the problem is making it public policy to teach it. I don't have any right what-so-ever to tell another person what they can't believe in. That is a harsh form of censorship and it should not be allowed. I don't want anyone telling me what I can/can't do, study, believe, etc... so why would I ever think I have the right to do it to another?topal63 wrote:
Creationism should not be taught - anywhere (IMO). Not in the classroom. Not in a church. Not at Sunday school. Not in a theological seminar. Not anywhere.SenorToenails wrote:
... Creationism has a time and place to be taught: In a church on sunday....
Creationism is the false reading of a myth - taught as a literal happening. It is as false to teach it in this manner in a Church; as it is equally false to teach it in public school. There is not a single conceivable argument (I cannot deconstruct and demonstrate as being false) or reason that it should even be taught in a Church. Allegory & myth does not equal - invalid spiritual knowledge or teaching - until someone; anyone; has the foolish audacity to call it it (creationism): science, history, fact, etc.
Any Church, pastor, preacher, teacher, needs to grow up - and rethink their theological position on the word: "myth." It is an accurate, healthy word full of vitality that can actually influence a greater sense of the very thing people (i.e. the religious) practice: atonement with the source of being (all being) and a sense that there is a relationship therein to compassion (altruism) together with how both those ideas & feelings influence the desire to have community (in the spiritual sense & in external real world sense).
Edit:
*Creationism: by this I mean the current poorly constructed (poorly thought out) forms of: old Earth, literalistic, young Earth & I.D. Theory.
The issue is when people try to make the government teach and by proxy, endorse, a set of religious beliefs when it is legally bound to not do so.
To summarize, I don't care what people do in church. I care when people try to put any religion or religious beliefs into a science class. In the same light, I doubt that any church would teach plasma physics in sunday school. It just doesn't belong.
Last edited by SenorToenails (2007-07-27 13:15:24)
Only if it forgets to drink lots of fluids afterwards. Unfortunately, the doctors say creationism may have suffered permanent brain damage due to the incident, but they can't be sure it wasn't a pre-existing condition.jamestx10 wrote:
Pretty sad. Evolution is going to wake up later with a bad headache.Skruples wrote:
Ahhh, science (evolution) vs creationism. It's like watching Muhammad Ali beat up a 3rd grader.
But enough of that.
In all seriousness, would you, or any of the other creationists in this thread, care to put forth a cogent argument for why creationism is more valid than evolution, or even valid enough that it should be allowed anywhere near a science classroom? Everyone espousing creationism in this thread has stopped in long enough to land a one or two line quip and then scurried off without even trying to debate. I haven't exactly helped matters in that regard, but, then, there has been little in the way of real debate going on in this thread, hence my earlier snide remark about lopsided fights.
Come on creationists. Bring your A game, and let's see why you think creationism is a valid scientific theory.