NationStates Jolt Archive

its just plain screwd up come on, and its not taught as a concept or a threoy its taught as fact, also chruch means the chruch body I think becasue rember the foundng fathers were afraid of a second roman-cathollic control =massacre as was last demonstrated during the crusades they weren't doing it to stop some religous belifes being taught in school (which didn't actually exist for quite awhile) but to protect the people from murder in the name of god, so naturally so many years after they're dead and unable to testify :( .

atheist decide to teach concepts in school instead of doing something smart like just studing facts

because you have no idea what you are talknig about, thats why


scientific theory is not the same thing as "my religion says this"

Because observation of the universe implies that it began with the 'big bang.'

To teach anything else would be dishonest, equivalent to teaching kids that Ben Franklin was the 1st president of the United States.

new grande list three sites with profe and I will research my sides profe.

I'm not sure I believe in either theory. I hold philosophy in higher esteem than science or religion. I should be complaining about them not teaching that in school.

atheist decide to teach concepts in school instead of teaching students some shit some guy made upFixed.

Fixed.
no I mean since bablyion or something more feasible.

Pay attention. If a school says that God created Adam and Eve, and a Muslim goes to that school, (s)he might be offended by that, and have a lawer talking to the school board the next day, threatening legal action. So they go the way that says there is no God, and thus it can't offend anyone, except the people with religion of course, but in the Court of Law, religion doesn't mean sh*t. I always wondered, if a Muslim went to Court, would they have to swear on the Quran?

new grande list three sites with profe and I will research my sides profe.

I'm sorry but you have to retype that in english before I'll acknowledge it.

1: its taught in science class.
2: if there are any problems with it, scientists try to figure out why. They don't pause for a second and say 'cos god made it'
3: The idea evolves as more evidence comes to hand
4: Its not taught as fact, at least it wasn't to me. It was taught as the most commonly agreed on scientific theory.
5: By 'creationism' you probably mean 'christian creationism'. Its no more valid than the hundreds of other religious views on how the universe was created, which are passed down without question or any real evidence.

Pay attention. If a school says that God created Adam and Eve, and a Muslim goes to that school, (s)he might be offended by that, and have a lawer talking to the school board the next day, threatening legal action. So they go the way that says there is no God, and thus it can't offend anyone, except the people with religion of course, but in the Court of Law, religion doesn't mean sh*t. I always wondered, if a Muslim went to Court, would they have to swear on the Quran?
no why are we teaching anything from that period um well period, also muslims belive I think that god created adam and eve.

its just plain screwd up come on, and its not taught as a concept or a threoy its taught as fact, also chruch means the chruch body I think becasue rember the foundng fathers were afraid of a second roman-cathollic control =massacre as was last demonstrated during the crusades they weren't doing it to stop some religous belifes being taught in school (which didn't actually exist for quite awhile) but to protect the people from murder in the name of god, so naturally so many years after they're dead and unable to testify :( .
1) What is chruch?

2) Founding fathers didn't establish freedom of religion because of the Roman Catholic crusades dipshit. The established because of the Church of England.

The big bang and creation are concepts for two seperate events.

Big bang = the creation of the universe.
Creation = the creation of Earth and everything on it

Besides, the big bang is taught as a theory, not as a fact.

Creation isn't taught because it has no scientific proof.

no why are we teaching anything from that period um well period, also muslims belive I think that god created adam and eve.
Their creation story is different. Besides, what if a Buddhist, Hinduist, or whatever was offended by the creationist story that has zero scientific backing?

1: its taught in science class.
Blah I don't know what I write down blah.
bah if you butt your religon out of school so will I, oh and check the dictonary.

Science gets people jobs. Philosophy does not.
Therefore, those who determine the curriculum for
public pre-graduate education -- people with sadly
diminished expectations of what should be provided
to intellectually equip the upcoming generation --
consider science to be useful, and philosophy not to be.

The Big Bang theory, right or wrong, is based on science.
So it gets taught.
(Presuming you're not from one of those
backwards parts of North America.)

Creationist theory, right or wrong, is based on philosophy.
So it doesn't.
The bean-counter paradigm sees no profit in it.

Meaning ah hell just forget them both and teach something with evidence, (yes christanity doesn't have evidence but neither does we are all the descendants of bastard monkeys threoy.)

I'm not sure I believe in either theory. I hold philosophy in higher esteem than science or religion. I should be complaining about them not teaching that in school.


Perhaps once schools do a competent job of teaching science they can teach philosophy. Most people, mind you, would not comprehend what philosophers are talking about.

This is of course deliberate on the part of epistemologists, whose profession is crafting pointless unintelligable arguments for and against things which have no practical relevence.

If something requires such a convoluted, ludicrous maze of logic, it 'Kant' be worth knowing. :)

For all your questions regarding atheism, christianity and the big bang theory. And everything else inbetween you should check out the forums at "www.mwillett.org" all of your answers will be questioned.

:D

Almost all the regulars are athiests, they will learn you right.
I stumbled on this website a few months ago. The people there are very intelligent free thinking people who are not afraid to debate.

That's why the website is called debates unlimited.

bah if you butt your religon out of school so will I, oh and check the dictonary.

what..? that made no sense. I don't have a religion, so how could I butt it out of school? If I did, why would I want to? and what am I checking in the 'dictonary'? I looked up science in the dictionary and couldn't find anything out of the ordinary....

re·li·gion P Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The dictionary doesn't agree with the idea that science is religion either..

what..? that made no sense. I don't have a religion, so how could I butt it out of school? If I did, why would I want to? and what am I checking in the 'dictonary'? I looked up science in the dictionary and couldn't find anything out of the ordinary....
no religon mine has part of its defintion "a group of people with same belifes... who organize into a group."

no religon mine has part of its defintion "a group of people with same belifes... who organize into a group."

I thought that might have been it, so I looked it up and edited my post.

Meaning ah hell just forget them both and teach something with evidence, (yes christanity doesn't have evidence but neither does we are all the descendants of bastard monkeys threoy.)

Actully,

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Actully,

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
and time maxine had an atrical about old testament evidence it won't cahnge anything.

and time maxine had an atrical about old testament evidence it won't cahnge anything.

WOW. :confused:

That made absolutely no sense. You need some grammar lessons before you move onto evolution. Or maybe it's just spelling. But I don't see at all what you were trying to say.

WOW. :confused:

That made absolutely no sense. You need some grammar lessons before you move onto evolution. Or maybe it's just spelling. But I don't see at all what you were trying to say.

After reading it a few times, the grammar was ok (check your spelling of that word :P)oh you just did but the spelling obviously wasn't and I don't think what was said was even a proper arguement.

Just because schools teach the Big Bang or evolution theories doesn't mean that Christian students cannot believe that God started it. There's just too much evidence against the Christian creationism theory to even come close to justifying teaching it. And I go to a Catholic school.
And Star Shadow, honey, please stop living in the 1920's. We do have proof for the bastard monkeys theory...they're called evolutionary links. We have proof of evolution happening still today in many different species that we can observe.

After reading it a few times, the grammar was ok (check your spelling of that word :P)oh you just did but the spelling obviously wasn't and I don't think what was said was even a proper arguement.

If this isn't an argument for previous knowledge entering interpretation of text, I don't know what is.

I've read it several times now, and I STILL don't get it. If you do, could you write a real version?

its just plain screwd up come on, and its not taught as a concept or a threoy its taught as fact, also chruch means the chruch body I think becasue rember the foundng fathers were afraid of a second roman-cathollic control =massacre as was last demonstrated during the crusades they weren't doing it to stop some religous belifes being taught in school (which didn't actually exist for quite awhile) but to protect the people from murder in the name of god, so naturally so many years after they're dead and unable to testify :( .

The reason why it's taught as fact is because, for all intents and purposes, it is fact. Here are a few reasons (incomplete listing) why:

1) It is predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity. General relativity has had extraordinary explanatory power since it was introduced, giving us the tools to describe such observable phenomena as the cosmic red and blue-shifts, neutron stars, black holes, and a better understanding of gravitational attraction. Given the fact that every single time we've found some way of testing Einstein's theory, the observable phenomena exactly coincides with what was predicted of it, it stands to reason that any other theoretical fallouts of the theory are also accurate. One of those things is expansion of the universe. . .and it's kind of assumed that if the universe is expanding, then at one point in the very far past, physical objects that are now far apart were once close together. So close, in fact, that they were formed into a singularity (i.e. Big Bang).

2) Observable phenomena of what should be there had a Big Bang actually occurred is there. Had a Big Bang happened, there would be residual energy traces of such an explosion at the very edge of the universe. There is such a trace, in the form of the cosmological background radiation that comes from all directions. Had a Big Bang happened, the universe would be expanding. Observable data from the cosmos suggests that this is in fact true: all very distant objects from us are generally getting further and further away from us all the time. This goes on and on.

So, on the one hand, you have a theory presented by mathematical analysis, in which every theoretical construct that is predicted by it except for the Big Bang itself has been observed, and on the other hand you have empirical study, which shows that every conceivable trace of such a Big Bang that we could conjecture actually appears on our instruments. On the other, you have a book in which an explanation is simply fiated by our belief in divinity. All empirical or rational attempts to explicate it have failed. You tell me which one is more reasonable to teach people as being "true."

no religon mine has part of its defintion "a group of people with same belifes... who organize into a group."


The thing that seperates a "group of people with same beliefs"
that is a "club" from a group of people that is a "religion" is that "religion" only refers to something that involves belief in a god or supernatural forces.

Maybe you should clarify. Creationism is, infact, taught in public schools. However, it is not taught in science classess, but in philosophy or religious study classess. I know my school had a nice study of varying creation mythos from a wide variety of cultures in our Mythology class, which included the Adam and Eve story. The issue comes when people try to take religion out of the churches and put it into the science lab. You then fail to grasp that the idea of the science lab is not the reinforcement of the status quo, but to leap beyond it, to question it, to study it and dissect it, and even at times to destroy it. This is not the place for Creationism, because the very nature of Creationism is to not to study, not to examine, and not to put it at risk of being proven wrong. As such, to put Creationism into a science curriculum would also take the science out of it. Instead of teaching students how to question, it would teach them NOT to question, and as a result close the minds off that could otherwise create cures for cancer, solve the puzzles of the universe, or even solve erectile dysfunction.

If this isn't an argument for previous knowledge entering interpretation of text, I don't know what is.

I've read it several times now, and I STILL don't get it. If you do, could you write a real version?

"and time maxine had an atrical about old testament evidence it won't cahnge anything."

Possibly:

"and time magazine had an article about old testament evidence it won't change anything"

I'm not sure about 'maxine' as that seems completely out of it, although because of 'time' and 'article' I'm making an assumption. It kinda makes it hard to debate Star Shadow- because like I said before, they don't actually post a proper arguement, they don't write it coherently either.

Look up the phenomenon known as red shift, pretty much all you need to know on the subject.

The Big Bang teaches how the universe first began, all the way back to a fraction of a second after the first particles "appeared". After that, you get into String Theory (which I personally haven't read up on, yet). The thing with the Big Bang though is that it's what all the observable evidence points to. If there was observable evidence that pointed to a creator, than THAT would be taught in the science labs. But since there is none, it will remain as a belief, and not a fact.

Science doesn't look to disprove religious beliefs, it looks to understand the world around us. It studies the natural world, not the supernatural.

big bang has a higher probability then creationism

Plus there are many creationism beliefs.
Some tribe in Africa thought/thinks there was a "God" who married his right hand, made love to it and so created the earth. Would you believe this theory? That we're all divine cum? I'd go for the science, even if not proven completely true.

Creationism is taught in schools. Or some schools at least. But not in Science class, since it isn't science. Its religion, or possibly philosophy, or possibly what-some-dude-wrote-in-a-book-200-years-ago-and-got-translated-5-times. While there are religion and philosophy classes in a great many schools, there are very few what-some-dude-wrote-in-a-book-200-years-ago-and-got-translated-5-times classes.

Schools are supposed to teach critical thinking and empiricism. Trusting whats written in a book is neither. In fact, its the antithesis of both.

Well lets say they do let creationisim into public schools, what other relgious belifes do you think they will allow next?

How about that the dinosaurs where wiped out because god wouldnt let them on the ark?

Or fossiles where placed on the earth to test ones faith?

And how about where the center of the universe....

Creationism is taught in schools. Or some schools at least. But not in Science class, since it isn't science. Its religion, or possibly philosophy, or possibly what-some-dude-wrote-in-a-book-200-years-ago-and-got-translated-5-times. While there are religion and philosophy classes in a great many schools, there are very few what-some-dude-wrote-in-a-book-200-years-ago-and-got-translated-5-times classes.

Schools are supposed to teach critical thinking and empiricism. Trusting whats written in a book is neither. In fact, its the antithesis of both.
the bible's 200 years old? :eek:

I don't see a necessary conflict here. Science is based on what can be observed, therefore in a science class that is what we discuss. Since methods and findings change over time, we understand theories are just the best idea based on these things. You can still believe in a Creator and enjoy exploring your universe with scientific observation. Darwin for example, and especially his wife were devout Christians. We are all familiar with the arguments using Darwin as a centerpiece for or against Creationism. Both sides are wrong.

the bible's 200 years old? :eek:
Well I meant to write 2000. But I think the King James version is about 200 years old, so I was sort-of correct anyhow. :p

no religon mine has part of its defintion "a group of people with same belifes... who organize into a group."
1) How does a group...organize...into a group...?

2) Is Americanism a religion?

3) How about humanism, is that a religion?

Where I come from ( Holland) it is outlawed to teach Creationism on public schools.
If you want to teach that, go teach on a Christian school.


Some tribe in Africa thought/thinks there was a "God" who married his right hand, made love to it and so created the earth.

He didn't marry his hand..he doesn't need to, since sex before marriage is pretty normal over there.(And over here too.)
And making love to your hand? I call that wanking.

I always wondered, if a Muslim went to Court, would they have to swear on the Quran?
FYI, Muslims do swear on the Quran and not the Bible. And Athiests don't have to swear on any book.

I always wondered, if a Muslim went to Court, would they have to swear on the Quran?

In the UK anyone can choose to swear on the Koran if they want. And they can swear on nothing if they want.

He didn't marry his hand..he doesn't need to, since sex before marriage is pretty normal over there.(And over here too.)
And making love to your hand? I call that wanking.
It's how the story goes. I can't help that

Well I meant to write 2000. But I think the King James version is about 200 years old, so I was sort-of correct anyhow. :p

But some of the old testament is a lot older than that.

atheist decide to teach concepts in school instead of doing something smart like just studing facts:Cough: We atheists are more common in the sciences than in the population at large, but we do not control them, nor the curricula. Concepts are taught in school because the pupose of a school is (ideally) to provide an education, and there is far more to being educated than knowing a bunch of facts. If you want to evicerate education so that your sect is not embaressed, I dare say you'll find more than just atheists objecting.

So they go the way that says there is no GodNo. Not in the schools I went to at least. Now implicit in the teachings of science was the idea of naturalism, the idea that phenomenon can be explained by natural laws. But that's not incompatible with a belief in God. The philosophy of science got its start in muslim universitities (as much as it can be considered to have a start at all), not exactly hotbeds of atheism. And flourished during the enlightenment; and while the practitioners may have had hostility towards the power of the church, they generally weren't atheists either. Now somewhere people are getting the idea that science says that all phenomenon can be explained by natural laws. And if you object to that being taught, I would agree: teach it in philosophy, as one philosophy among many. But if you are objecting to the creation of the earth in 4004 BC not geting equal time with the Big Bang, tough cookies: The idea that the earth was created recently does not deserve to be taught in science classrooms.

In the UK anyone can choose to swear on the Koran if they want. And they can swear on nothing if they want.
Ohhhh...I beat you by 1 minute!!! :p

i don't understand why Creationists want their theory taught in science class to begin with; they have completely disregarded scientific method, evidence, and reasoning in arriving a their Creation myth, so why would they suddenly want that theory filed under "science" in school curriculums?

I'm not sure I believe in either theory. I hold philosophy in higher esteem than science or religion. I should be complaining about them not teaching that in school.

Man, you need a better school. Our school just introduced philosophy for year 11 and 12 students (introduced at the beginning of the year). And we also have a program where you can take a first year university course in philosophy (amongst other things).

Feel free to move over here to Australia (unless you're here already, in which case you should make a bee-line for University High in Victoria).

Because we are a secular country and anything remotely religious is anathema to some. While it is funny to see some pull their hair out over it, the majority of people do not have a problem with both being taught. I sure don't as neither can be proven as fact or disproven as false. In the end it does not matter how the universe was created, we are here.

i don't understand why Creationists want their theory taught in science class to begin with; they have completely disregarded scientific method, evidence, and reasoning in arriving a their Creation myth, so why would they suddenly want that theory filed under "science" in school curriculums?
because the militant christians run this nation and get whatever the fuck they want, and they think that their religiopus beliefs constitutes and sucedes science

Man, you need a better school. Our school just introduced philosophy for year 11 and 12 students (introduced at the beginning of the year). And we also have a program where you can take a first year university course in philosophy (amongst other things).

Feel free to move over here to Australia (unless you're here already, in which case you should make a bee-line for University High in Victoria).
hell, my inner-city public school had philosophy available by grade 10. i guess it's just a matter of where you go and what teachers they have at their disposal. my American History class became more of a political philosophy course than a history course, because we were lucky enough to have a teacher who held a doctorate in the field.

because the militant christians run this nation and get whatever the fuck they want, and they think that their religiopus beliefs constitutes and sucedes science
but is it just a matter of the proverbial pissing contest? i mean, if they think science is so worthless that they will reject any use of it in constructing their theory, then why would they want to dirty that theory by listing it as "scientific"? why would they WANT to get their way on that? if science isn't good enough for them, why would they push to have their theory accepted in science classes?

But some of the old testament is a lot older than that. Yes. Is this in any way relevant to the conversation, or can we agree that 'the Bible' per se, which equals the Old Testament and the New Testament taken together, was written and collated approximatly 2000 years ago by various individuals (even if some parts were older and were merely transcribed into the new collection we call 'the Bible') in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin, was later translated completely to Latin and then to English? Or shall I just call you a pedantic nitpicker and ignore your complaints over my typo?

Meaning ah hell just forget them both and teach something with evidence, (yes christanity doesn't have evidence but neither does we are all the descendants of bastard monkeys threoy.)

That's NOT the Big Bang theory.

See, this is why you should have PAID ATTENTION.

Ranting like this just makes you seem uneducated. Don't protest something unless you know what it is.

Big Bang theory does not equal the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution does not state that we come from monkeys (merely that we come from the same thing monkeys came from... a common ancestor)

Man there is a lot of ignorance going on around here. The bible, the Koran the sanskrit texts you name it they are all hearsay. The accounts of people who lived either at that time or even some 100 years later or more. How can you possibly then say that ideas based on these accounts should be taught as fact over the reasoned conclusions of science based on the evidence available. It is not taught as fact and there is a large volume of the evidence to support it, ever heard of 'red shift'????????

What does a teacher say to a 8 year old when they ask, "Where does the Universe come from/How was it made?"? I'm sure the teacher wouldn't say, "I can't tell you Jimmy, because I might offend your religion," as Jimmy (or someone else) here would keep asking. Also, the teacher wouldn't talk about a different theory for 3 days due to it's complex nature. Plus, would the kid understand that one? The simplest (Occam's Razor anybody?) and most widely known theory is the Big Bang.

What does a teacher say to a 8 year old when they ask, "Where does the Universe come from/How was it made?"? I'm sure the teacher wouldn't say, "I can't tell you Jimmy, because I might offend your religion," as Jimmy (or someone else) here would keep asking. Also, the teacher wouldn't talk about a different theory for 3 days due to it's complex nature. Plus, would the kid understand that one? The simplest (Occam's Razor anybody?) and most widely known theory is the Big Bang.
it would be very easy for teacher to simply tell Jimmy that science has a theory called the Big Bang, and give a brief explanation of it, and then also tell Jimmy that there are lots of stories about how the world was created that don't necessarily agree with science. there's a great book called "In The Beginning" that has a collection of creation myths, and i think it would be a wonderful book to keep in classrooms or school libraries...even if you don't buy any of the myths, some of them are really amazing and beautiful stories.

Because the bible story of the Creation is total bollocks.

Even I can accept that, and I'm an Anglican.

The "Big Bang" theory is more plausible. Creationism doesn't really make sense.

why would religion ever be taught in science class?

if their are problems with the big bang theory, and i suppose there are some, then those problems need to be discussed in a scientific context, not a religious one.

if you want you children to be taught a certain religious viewpoint i suggest you send your children to a private school that does just that.

The Big Bang Theory is taught because it actually has proof to back it up, and not just blind faith that disregards all other views besides their own.

The Big Bang Theory is taught because it actually has proof to back it up, and not just blind faith that disregards all other views besides their own.

not proof, evidence. but that is a lot more than what creationism has going for it.

Because the Big Bang theory is a credible scientific theory and creationism is a load of pseudoscience rubbish made up to fool people into thinking that biblical genesis can compete.

not proof, evidence. but that is a lot more than what creationism has going for it.
They have evidence and the theory tries to connect the dots the most plausible way.

Of course, the theory by itself doesn't explain anything before the 10^-43 second marker ie. not the actual causes or the effects leading to the Big Bang.

The "Big Bang" theory is more plausible. Creationism doesn't really make sense.

plausiblity per se doesn't really have much to do with it. creationism, in so far as it is testable, fails utterly. it doesn't just fail to explain the facts; the predictions it makes of what we should see are wrong, we often actually see the opposite. it is flatly contradicted by all of the evidence we have ever seen. now if only we could get american schools and textbooks to deal with this fact.

(you see, i'm all in favor of fair and unbiased teaching of creationism. because any fair dealing with it must conclude with the statement "the parts of creationism that are scientific have been soundly refuted, the parts of it that can't be refuted aren't science.")

why not just say that god created the big bang? I like that idea. If you've read a copy of 'calculating god' by robert sawyer, it expresses that it is scientifically likely that god exists.

The reason why it's taught as fact is because, for all intents and purposes, it is fact. Here are a few reasons (incomplete listing) why:

1) It is predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity. General relativity has had extraordinary explanatory power since it was introduced, giving us the tools to describe such observable phenomena as the cosmic red and blue-shifts, neutron stars, black holes, and a better understanding of gravitational attraction. Given the fact that every single time we've found some way of testing Einstein's theory, the observable phenomena exactly coincides with what was predicted of it, it stands to reason that any other theoretical fallouts of the theory are also accurate. One of those things is expansion of the universe. . .and it's kind of assumed that if the universe is expanding, then at one point in the very far past, physical objects that are now far apart were once close together. So close, in fact, that they were formed into a singularity (i.e. Big Bang).

2) Observable phenomena of what should be there had a Big Bang actually occurred is there. Had a Big Bang happened, there would be residual energy traces of such an explosion at the very edge of the universe. There is such a trace, in the form of the cosmological background radiation that comes from all directions. Had a Big Bang happened, the universe would be expanding. Observable data from the cosmos suggests that this is in fact true: all very distant objects from us are generally getting further and further away from us all the time. This goes on and on.

So, on the one hand, you have a theory presented by mathematical analysis, in which every theoretical construct that is predicted by it except for the Big Bang itself has been observed, and on the other hand you have empirical study, which shows that every conceivable trace of such a Big Bang that we could conjecture actually appears on our instruments. On the other, you have a book in which an explanation is simply fiated by our belief in divinity. All empirical or rational attempts to explicate it have failed. You tell me which one is more reasonable to teach people as being "true."
Please research and explain the following.
The orbital velocities of stars at the outer rim of galaxies??
Where is all of the matter (mass) required to form a quantum singularity??
Why does (according to the Hubble red shift) the entire obserable universe appear to be expanding in every direction??
There actually is a serious scientific theory that explians all this and more.
look up Eric J. Lerner
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Plasma_cosmology
Plasma cosmology is the real deal.
As a side note, I studied Greek Mythology in high school; wasn't that a religion?
Is it possible to study the Bible as a piece of literature?
Arguably, regardless of your theological veiws, the bible has been one of the most influential books ever written.

Is it possible to study the Bible as a piece of literature?
Arguably, regardless of your theological veiws, the bible has been one of the most influential books ever written.
Yes, and I have. Unfortunately the class in which I did there where zealots who wanted to talk about it religously whose beliefs we had to respect so we (those who read the course description and where there to look at a highly influential text as a text) couldn't yell "Shut the fuck up, if you wanted bible study go to church!" so the class was often bogged down. But it is possible, and recomended.

plausiblity per se doesn't really have much to do with it. creationism, in so far as it is testable, fails utterly. it doesn't just fail to explain the facts; the predictions it makes of what we should see are wrong, we often actually see the opposite. it is flatly contradicted by all of the evidence we have ever seen. now if only we could get american schools and textbooks to deal with this fact.

(you see, i'm all in favor of fair and unbiased teaching of creationism. because any fair dealing with it must conclude with the statement "the parts of creationism that are scientific have been soundly refuted, the parts of it that can't be refuted aren't science.")

Just wondering.....
Why have literally thousands of experiments failed to produce living matter from even very dubious pre-biotic molcules??
After decades of experimentation, evolulionary scientists have uniformly failed to produce life from pre-biotic molecules.
In real science, the failure of a theory to predict experimental results refutes its validity.
Just for giggles check this out
http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html?http%3A//www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/scien_eviden_creatn.html
:p

What is the big bang theory exactly?

Well, there was this energy that contained everything in the universe, yet it itself took up no space and preceeded time.

Sounds like God to me.

What is the big bang theory exactly?

Well, there was this energy that contained everything in the universe, yet it itself took up no space and preceeded time.

Sounds like God to me.


Except that God generally means a supernatural governor of the universe.

Which has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the big bang theory.

Just wondering.....
Why have literally thousands of experiments failed to produce living matter from even very dubious pre-biotic molcules??
After decades of experimentation, evolulionary scientists have uniformly failed to produce life from pre-biotic molecules.
In real science, the failure of a theory to predict experimental results refutes its validity.
Just for giggles check this out
http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html?http%3A//www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/scien_eviden_creatn.html
:p
Err...life is extremely complex to produce, so give it time, and we have made the building blocks of life from elements and simple compounds...

As a side note, I studied Greek Mythology in high school; wasn't that a religion?
Is it possible to study the Bible as a piece of literature?
Arguably, regardless of your theological veiws, the bible has been one of the most influential books ever written.

Point 1: Greeks don't parade around claiming their gods exist.
Point 2: The Bible could be considered a 'Book of Lies' as it were. Even as a piece of literature, what would be the point? I am sure somewhere there is a college level course dedicated to it, but it would not belong in Social Studies (I'd rather the truth), English, (What could it give us, that Shakespeare could not, and without that annoying religious twist) or Science. (Duh.)
And obviously not Math.

Whereas Greek Mythology is 'History' and it is partly the study of Greece itself. The Bible is not 'History', it is both offensive, and annoying. (IMO).

http://blackies-blog.blogspot.com/2004/09/jon-blackwolf-and.html

Creationism and Evolutionism/Big Bang are not mutually exclusive.

http://blackies-blog.blogspot.com/2004/09/jon-blackwolf-and.html

Creationism and Evolutionism/Big Bang are not mutually exclusive.


Fundementalist christian creationism and evolution/big bang are mutually exclusive.

Fundementalist christian creationism holds as immutable truth that the earth is less than 20,000 years old and that human beings were created by god in the garden of eden, ate from the tree and were banished. This is held to be Literal Truth.

Fundementalist christian creationism and evolution/big bang are mutually exclusive.

Fundementalist christian creationism holds as immutable truth that the earth is less than 20,000 years old and that human beings were created by god in the garden of eden, ate from the tree and were banished. This is held to be Literal Truth.

Fundementalist christian creationism also holds that three 24 hour days passed before the sun existed.

I demand they teach creationism is schools. But none of this crazy 7 days with God crap. The world was created by a giant turtle, who is the master of all things. He also strikes people with lightning is they kill a turtle or fart in church.

I demand they teach creationism is schools. But none of this crazy 7 days with God crap. The world was created by a giant turtle, who is the master of all things. He also strikes people with lightning is they kill a turtle or fart in church.
Didn't he fight Godzilla once??

I'll just say that in the 70s & 80s I was explicitly taught in Religious Education the Creationist position. In Physics classes the Big Bang wasn't directly part of the syllabus (hey, you know its kind of complex maths for 15 year olds), but it was assumed within the subject as it was taught to us that it was the most likely hypothesis.

Point 1: Greeks don't parade around claiming their gods exist.
Point 2: The Bible could be considered a 'Book of Lies' as it were. Even as a piece of literature, what would be the point? I am sure somewhere there is a college level course dedicated to it, but it would not belong in Social Studies (I'd rather the truth), English, (What could it give us, that Shakespeare could not, and without that annoying religious twist) or Science. (Duh.)
And obviously not Math.

Whereas Greek Mythology is 'History' and it is partly the study of Greece itself. The Bible is not 'History', it is both offensive, and annoying. (IMO).
Why do find the Bible offensive?? Guilty concience??
Actually many of the figures who are detailed in the Bible have been unarguably proven to have really lived through archealogy. Of couse, you would have already known that. We have the mummy of Ramesis the 2nd for crying out loud, everyone knows that...oh....wait a sec.... maybe you haven't actually READ the bible.....that would explain alot.:headbang:

Please research and explain the following.
The orbital velocities of stars at the outer rim of galaxies??
Where is all of the matter (mass) required to form a quantum singularity??
Why does (according to the Hubble red shift) the entire obserable universe appear to be expanding in every direction??
There actually is a serious scientific theory that explians all this and more.
look up Eric J. Lerner
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Plasma_cosmology
Plasma cosmology is the real deal.
As a side note, I studied Greek Mythology in high school; wasn't that a religion?
Is it possible to study the Bible as a piece of literature?
Arguably, regardless of your theological veiws, the bible has been one of the most influential books ever written.

1) The orbital velocities of stars anywhere can be explained as the summation of their gravitational attractions to various objects as expressed by relativistic mathematics. If there are irregularities, then it's probably because there are matter forms (dark matter, for example, or possibly a cluster of brown dwarfs) that we aren't seeing that are making said irregularity.

2) It doesn't require a whole lot of mass to form a singularity, G. According to the Chandressakhaur (sp?) limit, you only need about three solar masses of material to form a singularity (defined loosely as the result of unlimited implosion of an object because the amount of gravitational attraction within it outweighs the force of all other atomic forces within said mass. If you described it as the place where the universe divided by zero, you wouldn't be far off). Does the universe have more than three solar masses of material in it? (Hint: Yes!). If so, then the idea of a Big Bang isn't all that dodgy a proposition.

3) . . .Because the explosion of the Big Bang was outwards in all directions, and as we don't have an extra-universe perspective (indeed, that would be logically impossible, because the idea of conceiving of things like space and physical measure in a true void would be impossible--you can't have length and width without a universe to encapsulate such notions), we would of course see the universe as expanding in all possible directions.

-snip-
Because the Big Bang is a theory which is not based in something as subjective as religion (although the Vatican did advocate the Big Bang once), which (due to its subjectivity) could offend somebody.

1) The orbital velocities of stars anywhere can be explained as the summation of their gravitational attractions to various objects as expressed by relativistic mathematics. If there are irregularities, then it's probably because there are matter forms (dark matter, for example, or possibly a cluster of brown dwarfs) that we aren't seeing that are making said irregularity.

2) It doesn't require a whole lot of mass to form a singularity, G. According to the Chandressakhaur (sp?) limit, you only need about three solar masses of material to form a singularity (defined loosely as the result of unlimited implosion of an object because the amount of gravitational attraction within it outweighs the force of all other atomic forces within said mass. If you described it as the place where the universe divided by zero, you wouldn't be far off). Does the universe have more than three solar masses of material in it? (Hint: Yes!). If so, then the idea of a Big Bang isn't all that dodgy a proposition.

3) . . .Because the explosion of the Big Bang was outwards in all directions, and as we don't have an extra-universe perspective (indeed, that would be logically impossible, because the idea of conceiving of things like space and physical measure in a true void would be impossible--you can't have length and width without a universe to encapsulate such notions), we would of course see the universe as expanding in all possible directions.
1) The observable orbital veloceties of stars at the rim of galaxies are far too fast to be described by gravity
2) Guess you got me there, should have given a more specific definition of a singularity as one whose total mass is enough for the sub-atomic forces to overcome gravitational forces and actually cause a "Big Bang"
3) If that were so then shouldn't there be some objects in the universe that are tracking more or less with us?
Could careful observation yeild a direction towards the center of the universe?
Unless of course we are AT the center of the universe (somehow I doubt that)
I keep imagining a massive blast that throws stuff in every direction (like a big firework display) if we were on one of those objects shouldn't we be able to work out a direction?? We are going this way, we came from that way??
Curios.... has anyone tried? I don't know.

1) The observable orbital veloceties of stars at the rim of galaxies are far too fast to be described by gravity

Could you be more specific?

3) If that were so then shouldn't there be some objects in the universe that are tracking more or less with us?

How would they? If space is expanding in all directions at once, there would be no part going parrallel with us.

1) The observable orbital veloceties of stars at the rim of galaxies are far too fast to be described by gravity

This one can be easily refuted by creationists btw, ie, when the universe was created, it wasnt created with planets/stars being motionless, like how Adam was created with a impression of age, ie he liiked 25 when he was in fact 5 minutes old.

There is also the issue of forces caused by objects that so far havent been observed or were once there but aren't anymore.

Btw don't confuse this with simply pointing out opposing arguments.


Whereas Greek Mythology is 'History' and it is partly the study of Greece itself. The Bible is not 'History', it is both offensive, and annoying. (IMO).

Heh it is the history of the Jews, now if you don't like the Jews, i could imagine how learning about their history might feel inconsequential *laugh* (no I'm not pulling out anti semitism, it's meant as sarcasm)
And so far the actual history has proved correct (history as in "We did this, we went here, we killed these people", not "God did this, God did that" etc)

Because the Big Bang is a theory which is not based in something as subjective as religion (although the Vatican did advocate the Big Bang once), which (due to its subjectivity) could offend somebody.

Really I don't see a problem, but I think when it comes to evolution, the big bang etc, the parents of the children should be informed before the topic is covered so they can ask to have their children removed from those classes. I know when i went to school, they did this, and a cpl kids from my class were excused. (Really the big bang is sort of irrelevant unless you were going to be a cosmologist or something similar)

As a side note, I studied Greek Mythology in high school; wasn't that a religion?
Is it possible to study the Bible as a piece of literature?

There was a Bible Studies course in the English department of my (public) high school. So yes. And, incidentally, my high school was one of the most liberal/left-wing in the country.

I had two classes in the scool I went to thatrelate to this topic.
1. Science class-Where we learned about the Big Bang Theory
2. Religion-where we learned about Creation.
They were taught to us completely seperate.
I formed my own opinion.
That if I was to continue to believe in an omnipotent deity, then the Big Bang or evolution were not outside of his realm of capabilities.
This abandons the Fundamentalism and embraces Faith.
I accept science as giving us the eyes to see the glory of the Lords work, and I accept that God is totally capable of handling science.
I mean if you are religious then it should please you every time scientists find more order in the universe- I take that as proof of God, not against God.
I do not understand how someone could be so opposed to the idea that God did all these things.
Science doesnt try to say he didnt, it just shows the facts. Facts.
If you have faith in a God that cant handle facts from MIT or CalTech you need to seriously re-evaluate your faith.

I had two classes in the scool I went to thatrelate to this topic.
1. Science class-Where we learned about the Big Bang Theory
2. Religion-where we learned about Creation.
They were taught to us completely seperate.
I formed my own opinion.
That if I was to continue to believe in an omnipotent deity, then the Big Bang or evolution were not outside of his realm of capabilities.
This abandons the Fundamentalism and embraces Faith.
I accept science as giving us the eyes to see the glory of the Lords work, and I accept that God is totally capable of handling science.
I mean if you are religious then it should please you every time scientists find more order in the universe- I take that as proof of God, not against God.
I do not understand how someone could be so opposed to the idea that God did all these things.
Science doesnt try to say he didnt, it just shows the facts. Facts.
If you have faith in a God that cant handle facts from MIT or CalTech you need to seriously re-evaluate your faith.

That is possibly the most sensible statement I've ever heard from a religious person about this subject. Bravo. *Claps.*

(Personally, so nobody accuses me of just being a mindless applauder in this thread, I would like to note that I alternate between focusing on the scientific origins of life, and occasionally just believing that this reality is nothing more than some really sick day-/dream/nightmare created by a supergenius entity's mind by accident while they sleep. I like to keep myself on my toes.)

Educate yourself. You were born with a brain, use it.

Big bang theory : a THEORY that has been postulated by intellectual human beings in the recent past, based on scientific methods (i.e. postulate, confirm postulation). It hasn't been proven yet because duh, it's hard to test, unless you have access to a private universe to try it out.

Creationism : a FAITH that has been postulated by human beings in the distant past, none of who posted their methods, ridden with value judgements instead of actual testing methods. It hasn't been proven yet because duh, it's faith you know, and if anyone dares to disprove it they're heathens and will be cast into the fires of hell !!!11111oneone

Given the choice between the likelihood of proving Big Bang and that of proving Creationism, I'd put my bet on the former.

Just wondering.....
Why have literally thousands of experiments failed to produce living matter from even very dubious pre-biotic molcules??
After decades of experimentation, evolulionary scientists have uniformly failed to produce life from pre-biotic molecules.
In real science, the failure of a theory to predict experimental results refutes its validity.

because it is extremely likely that we are missing two key steps - make a small ocean's worth of this chemical mixture and let simmer for 50 million years.

nobody holds a theory that predicts that it should be trivially easy to recreate early life in the lab. they were genuinely surprised at just how easy it was to make the basic chemical building blocks of life under a wide variety of conditions. frankly, we don't know enough about the actual process to do anything but make educated guesses and run some shot-in-the dark tests yet. but we are learning more and more. give it time, eventually we'll have a solid explanation of the exact chemical reactions involved.

Just wondering.....
Why have literally thousands of experiments failed to produce living matter from even very dubious pre-biotic molcules??
After decades of experimentation, evolulionary scientists have uniformly failed to produce life from pre-biotic molecules.
In real science, the failure of a theory to predict experimental results refutes its validity.

What you are talking about is abiogenesis, not evolution.

You also don't understand what abiogenesis is. It does not state that cells came from inorganic matter. Abiogenesis states that organic matter came from inorganic matter and self-replicating molecules came from organic matter.

Cells came much later, evolving from self-repelicating molecules.

By recreating the conditions found on the early Earth, organic molecules have been formed from inorganic molecules. Recently, scientists have gone even further and manage to produce prions, with are scraps of protein that also are the simplest self-replicating molecules known.

Edited to retract claim that scientists have replicated abiogenesis. I wrong about how they formed prions. They have reproduced the first part of abiogenesis, not the final part. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.

They managed to make prions? I missed that!

When/where?

They managed to make prions? I missed that!

When/where?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040323070139.htm

They managed to make prions? I missed that!

When/where?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5550836/

Apparently I was wrong about how they created them. They formed them from bits of protein in bacteria, not how I said they were formed.

Simple.

The Big Bang is a falsifiable hypothesis.

Creationism is not.

Thus, the two have entirely different credibilities, from an impartial observer's perspective.

1) What is chruch?

A support for those unable to stand by themselves. Or is that a church?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5550836/

Apparently I was wrong about how they created them. They formed them from bits of protein in bacteria, not how I said they were formed.
Well forming self-replicating organism from self-replicating organisms isn't quite the same thing... :) But its a step on the road I suppose.

A support for those unable to stand by themselves. Or is that a church?
No, thats a crutch.

in the words of lewis black (whose show i just got back from)

"fossils. fossils, fossils, fossils. i win."

Well forming self-replicating organism from self-replicating organisms isn't quite the same thing... :) But its a step on the road I suppose.
The proteins, however, were not self-replicating.

in the words of lewis black (whose show i just got back from)

"fossils. fossils, fossils, fossils. i win."
Lewis black is my god.

Creationism is taught, just as the ideas are taught that the earth is the center of the universe and that it is flat. They just aren't taken seriously. Nobody's actually proven any of it, it's all taken on faith. This is because some things are more consistent with the evidence we have, and other things aren't.

Kind of like French then? :P

i don't understand why Creationists want their theory taught in science class to begin with; they have completely disregarded scientific method, evidence, and reasoning in arriving a their Creation myth, so why would they suddenly want that theory filed under "science" in school curriculums?
can any Creationist answer this for me? i realize that it is possible to have a Creation theory that doesn't conflict with evolution or the Big Bang (you could just say God was behind those things), but the fact still remains that your decision to credit GOD with such acts is totally beyond the realm of science. if you, therefore, are making a non-scientific theory, then why are you interested in having it taught in science classes? if science is not good enough to be used to develop your theory, then why are you so interested in making scientists teach children that theory in science classes?

Why do find the Bible offensive?? Guilty concience??
Actually many of the figures who are detailed in the Bible have been unarguably proven to have really lived through archealogy. Of couse, you would have already known that. We have the mummy of Ramesis the 2nd for crying out loud, everyone knows that...oh....wait a sec.... maybe you haven't actually READ the bible.....that would explain alot.:headbang:

Maybe you haven't READ any other books. Historical figures are mentioned in MANY fictional books, but no one holds them to truth! Guess where the city of Troy is mentioned? Go ahead, I'll give you a chance to think about it. After that, guess where it's not mentioned?

the big bang:
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

can any Creationist answer this for me? i realize that it is possible to have a Creation theory that doesn't conflict with evolution or the Big Bang (you could just say God was behind those things), but the fact still remains that your decision to credit GOD with such acts is totally beyond the realm of science. if you, therefore, are making a non-scientific theory, then why are you interested in having it taught in science classes? if science is not good enough to be used to develop your theory, then why are you so interested in making scientists teach children that theory in science classes?

Because they realise that it isn't up to the same critical standard, so they want to get it 'conditioned' into the children under the aegis of science... knowing it cannot stand up to the true rigours of scientific analysis.

Why do find the Bible offensive?? Guilty concience??
Actually many of the figures who are detailed in the Bible have been unarguably proven to have really lived through archealogy. Of couse, you would have already known that. We have the mummy of Ramesis the 2nd for crying out loud, everyone knows that...oh....wait a sec.... maybe you haven't actually READ the bible.....that would explain alot.:headbang:

What is your point?

We also have the remains of Karl Marx, don't we... but wait!!!! He's not in the bible... does that mean he doesn't exist?

What is the relevence of Rameses II anyway? Having read the bible many many times, I recall reference to the place called Rameses (which I assume means Pi-Ramses... in Exodus 12:37), to the Pharaoh Rameses (in Genesis 47:11)... but not to Rameses II... maybe you haven't read your bible enough?

On the other hand, of course.... archeological study has revealed the truth of Ramses II existence... but not that of Adam, Eve, Cain, Abraham, Moses, John the Baptist, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, or any of the apostles...

Sorry, what was your point?

Jesus - supported by Roman documents.
Mary - Everyone has a mother.
Moses - wrote the first 5 books of the bible, his existence is also supported by stories passed down among very distant Arab tribes that Mohammad travelled to about the "Jew zerg" that passed through at the time he was claimed to, the name Moses was the one given to their leader (They would have had no other way to have known this without having seen it with their own eyes)
John the Baptist and the apostles - Roman documents and having written books, of course next you'll be telling us Plato, Aristotle and Alexander never existed because their graves can't be found (Alexander was exhumed by Emperor Augustus btw)

Jesus - supported by Roman documents.
Mary - Everyone has a mother.
Moses - wrote the first 5 books of the bible, his existence is also supported by stories passed down among very distant Arab tribes that Mohammad travelled to about the "Jew zerg" that passed through at the time he was claimed to, the name Moses was the one given to their leader (They would have had no other way to have known this without having seen it with their own eyes)
John the Baptist and the apostles - Roman documents and having written books, of course next you'll be telling us Plato, Aristotle and Alexander never existed because their graves can't be found (Alexander was exhumed by Emperor Augustus btw)

A person called 'jesus' may, or may not have, a record on file, of criminal charges. That is hardly the same as proof that Jesus, son of Joseph, called Christ by some, and often believed to be the Son of God... was any of those things, or even existed.

Since we cannot prove the identity of the one specific jesus, we have even less evidence to prove the existence of one specific mary.

'Moses' is the name given to the supposed author of 5 biblical books.
First: there is no evidence that they were actually written by one person;
Second: there is no evidence that anyone called Moses was involved in their writing AT ALL;
Third: Since the stories were passed around as oral traditions for a thousand years before they were commited to paper, it is very unlikely that Moses wrote any of them, since he is IN them;
Fourth: Deuteronomy 34:5 "So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD." How did Moses write the book which recorded his own death????
Fifth: Since Islam is derived from Judaism, and wasn't canonised until about 600AD, it is vaguely possible that their story of Moses may have small elements of doubt as to it's complete authenticity.

Which Roman documents are you claiming for John the Baptist and the Apostles? And being the name on a book doesn't ACTUALLY mean that that person wrote it, now does it?

its just plain screwd up come on, and its not taught as a concept or a threoy its taught as fact, also chruch means the chruch body I think becasue rember the foundng fathers were afraid of a second roman-cathollic control =massacre as was last demonstrated during the crusades they weren't doing it to stop some religous belifes being taught in school (which didn't actually exist for quite awhile) but to protect the people from murder in the name of god, so naturally so many years after they're dead and unable to testify :( .

The PUBLIC have a RIGHT to KNOW:

Why is the Big Bang taught in schools, and not Creationism???

AND:

Why is Biology taught in schools, but not the fact that the Pope is made of Monkeys????

the dead sea scrolls contain much of the material and are much older than the canonisation period.

the person considered by Jesus is the one described in minor amounts by the historian Josephus in Antiquities (although the church greatly exaggerated what Josephus originally had to say, ie Josephus claimed that his followers considered him the messiah, unlike the christian adaption which calls him the messiah objectively).

Of course, I suppose you'd probably say the historian was lying. which as I said, could allow you to also say "Plato and Aristotle never existed", it's a bit a conspiracist, even for a true skeptic.

Fifth: Since Islam is derived from Judaism, and wasn't canonised until about 600AD, it is vaguely possible that their story of Moses may have small elements of doubt as to it's complete authenticity.

It was the story that convinced Mohammad of Moses' existence not vice versa.

As for the writers, since I'm not christian, I've never really looked into who wrote it, you're probably right, he didn't write it, but at the same time, why would they just make his name up, it could have been Bob, or John, or Charles, they had a leader and unless you can provide evidence otherwise both their documents and the historical stories of the arabs confirm that it was Moses.

The other thing that you're bring up that is very conspiracist is the names of the apostles and that, one of them was on that greek isle when he wrote revelations, others were throughout the roman empire.

Realistically, even if you were going to make up a story about a God, why wouldn't you just use the real names of yourselves and co conspirators, the Christian religion spawned from these people, not from future generations, future generations just made it more mainstream, why would you go through an elaborate hoax of making up names knowing full well that you could be called out on it?

Nobody's actually proven any of it, it's all taken on faith.

even worse, it has all been soundly disproven over and over again. and a faith that leads a person to believe in things that have been shown to be absolutely false isn't faith. it's idiocy. or willfull ignorance at best. faith is not and can never be about believing objectively untrue things.

Moses - wrote the first 5 books of the bible

no, he didn't. the first five books of the bible have at least 4 different authors, who wrote at various different times - some rather late in the game, and an editor or two who added some more lines when he compiled everything.

Why do find the Bible offensive?? Guilty concience??
i am generally offended by all books that promote racism, murder, rape, incest, child abuse, spousal abuse, slavery, and deliberate stupidity. the Bible is practically an instruction manual for violent offenders, and promises eternal rewards to those who visit some of the most hideous possible abuses upon their fellow humans. it describes how those who pursue learing and understanding are punished and killed.

how can any compassionate, intelligent person NOT be deeply offended by the Bible?

Moses - wrote the first 5 books of the bible, his existence is also supported by stories passed down among very distant Arab tribes that Mohammad travelled to about the "Jew zerg" that passed through at the time he was claimed to, the name Moses was the one given to their leader (They would have had no other way to have known this without having seen it with their own eyes)

Moses could only have written the first 5 books of the Bible if he did part of it post mortem. Besides, religious scholars have found that the first five books were, in fact, written by two different authors. One is referred to as the Yahwist and the other as the Priestly author. Much like the four Gospels, both of these authors had different views of God and wanted to convey different aspects. However, over the years these two points of view were merged, rather than leaving them as separate books. It is easy to see that there are two different styles (as well as two different Creation stories) in the Torah.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with Creationism, which is religion trying to masquerade as science.

Creationism isn't science... It's just what some people claim.
Some people claim the holocaust never happened, and you don't hear anyone whining that "both sides" aren't represented on that issue.

the dead sea scrolls contain much of the material and are much older than the canonisation period.

the person considered by Jesus is the one described in minor amounts by the historian Josephus in Antiquities (although the church greatly exaggerated what Josephus originally had to say, ie Josephus claimed that his followers considered him the messiah, unlike the christian adaption which calls him the messiah objectively).

Of course, I suppose you'd probably say the historian was lying. which as I said, could allow you to also say "Plato and Aristotle never existed", it's a bit a conspiracist, even for a true skeptic.


I'm not sure what you think the point is that you are making with the Dead Sea Scrolls... most of the Scrolls contain instructions for those living in the Qumran community, and others are predominantly histories of Jewish mythology (like the Book of Hanukh), which were considered unacceptably divergent from the 'mainstream' canon, or further discussion on Penatatauchal texts. None of this makes the Pentatauchal texts any more reliable (since the scrolls were written 'within' the faith, and so are not independent), or add any validity to who wrote them.

As I have already demonstrated, Moses CANNOT have written all of the Mosaic texts (not that they are all of the same style anyway), just as Enoch is unlikely to have ACTUALLY written the Enochian texts.

The thing about Josephus is, he was born something like 40 years AFTER the supposed death of Jesus, and wouldn't have reached his maturity until long after ALL those present during the alleged events were long dead.

This makes his histories (while a valuable insight into a historical tradition) a secondary source, at best. It is hard to claim much reliability at all for histories written by a man living in Rome, based on what he remebered from his youth in Jerusalem, when the history coming to him was in an oral tradition to start with.


It was the story that convinced Mohammad of Moses' existence not vice versa.

As for the writers, since I'm not christian, I've never really looked into who wrote it, you're probably right, he didn't write it, but at the same time, why would they just make his name up, it could have been Bob, or John, or Charles, they had a leader and unless you can provide evidence otherwise both their documents and the historical stories of the arabs confirm that it was Moses.

The other thing that you're bring up that is very conspiracist is the names of the apostles and that, one of them was on that greek isle when he wrote revelations, others were throughout the roman empire.

Realistically, even if you were going to make up a story about a God, why wouldn't you just use the real names of yourselves and co conspirators, the Christian religion spawned from these people, not from future generations, future generations just made it more mainstream, why would you go through an elaborate hoax of making up names knowing full well that you could be called out on it?

You are missing a key detail. The Hebrew scholars probably DID make up names for some of their prophetic texts. Or they chose a historical figure, and added their names to 'prophecy' in order to make it sound more believable.

It's not a matter of a hoax, or a conspiracy. It is more a matter of people trying to add credence to a few thousand years of dislocated texts, by spicing it with 'historical' authors, editing it to fit their own ends, excising any texts they didn't like, and plagiarising things that were popular from other faiths... e.g. The obvious thefts from the babylonian Code of Laws, or the bastardisation of Mithraic revelation.

Just so everyone knows,

Dempublicents = Grave_n_idle = Bottle

They are all one person

Just so everyone knows,

Dempublicents = Grave_n_idle = Bottle

They are all one person
Care to back that up?

Care to back that up?

Ignore it, maybe it will go away.

He has already been warned to quit in the "Abortionists: Explain Yourself" thread, and is trying to avoid a ban by jumping threads.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7233421&posted=1#post7233421

Post: #227

Just so everyone knows,

Dempublicents = Grave_n_idle = Bottle

They are all one person
aww, we have an admirer! careful though, you're about to feel the wrath of Mod for this continued nonsense. i wouldn't want to lose a fan!

Why do find the Bible offensive?? Guilty concience??
Actually many of the figures who are detailed in the Bible have been unarguably proven to have really lived through archealogy. Of couse, you would have already known that. We have the mummy of Ramesis the 2nd for crying out loud, everyone knows that...oh....wait a sec.... maybe you haven't actually READ the bible.....that would explain alot.:headbang:

Let's say I were to write a book about god making a personal appearance in modern day Iraq, in the the middle of the war.
I can picture your great-great-great grandchildren thumping that book and claiming that since the Iraq war happened, god must have been there like it says in the book.

Care to back that up?

Be happy to:

Simply search through the posts of Dempublicents, Bottle, or Grave_n_idle. You'll notice that they consistently post together. Upon further investigation, you'll notice in long posts that they just "happen" to show up together on the same page of posts, within a few minutes of each other.

Their explanation of this is that they are in the same time zone. Not hard to believe, as the majority of Nationstates forum users are within 6 time zones. However, they just "happen" to show up independently in different threads at the same time? Not likely. The chances of 2 people consistently posting within minutes of each other is rare. For 3 people to keep doing it is near impossible. Add to the fact that every one of their posts when the other does show up is to re-iterate the other's point, you can plainly see they are either:
1. The same person
2. People who are sitting in the same room on different IP's who are communicating with each other outside the internet.

Now, I would have weighed the second to be correct; however, I find it hard to believe that 3 people would have such bad perspectives on the world.

Therefore, I believe the answer to be obvious.

And to address their claim that I am jumping threads.....I am simply warning others about their un-truthfulness. I freely admit to my presence in two nations; I just wish others were so telling.

And I was warned to stop flame-baiting; which I have done. I am now just telling the fact and warning others of your puppet nations.

I know how you find an answer to this. Pretty simple.
1) Got to Google.com and search for 'scientific method'
2) Read that document.
3) Now you know why science is based on logic, and not on 'belief', 'assumptions' etc.

Be happy to:

Simply search through the posts of Dempublicents, Bottle, or Grave_n_idle. You'll notice that they consistently post together. Upon further investigation, you'll notice in long posts that they just "happen" to show up together on the same page of posts, within a few minutes of each other.

Their explanation of this is that they are in the same time zone. Not hard to believe, as the majority of Nationstates forum users are within 6 time zones. However, they just "happen" to show up independently in different threads at the same time? Not likely. The chances of 2 people consistently posting within minutes of each other is rare. For 3 people to keep doing it is near impossible. Add to the fact that every one of their posts when the other does show up is to re-iterate the other's point, you can plainly see they are either:
1. The same person
2. People who are sitting in the same room on different IP's who are communicating with each other outside the internet.

Now, I would have weighed the second to be correct; however, I find it hard to believe that 3 people would have such bad perspectives on the world.

Therefore, I believe the answer to be obvious.

And to address their claim that I am jumping threads.....I am simply warning others about their un-truthfulness. I freely admit to my presence in two nations; I just wish others were so telling.

And I was warned to stop flame-baiting; which I have done. I am now just telling the fact and warning others of your puppet nations.



Actually-and I could be wrong about this-but posting as puppet nations isn't allowed.

Honestly, wouldn't one quick IP scan do it?

Plus, groups of people post together all the time. Why? Because like you said, some people live in the same area code, and I'm willing to bet a large portion of them are at home during somewhat similer hours of the day.



Sorry, but you have no evidence. Case closed, as far as I'm concerned.

its just plain screwd up come on, and its not taught as a concept or a threoy its taught as fact, also chruch means the chruch body I think becasue rember the foundng fathers were afraid of a second roman-cathollic control =massacre as was last demonstrated during the crusades they weren't doing it to stop some religous belifes being taught in school (which didn't actually exist for quite awhile) but to protect the people from murder in the name of god, so naturally so many years after they're dead and unable to testify :( .

Because it's more fun.

'Because God made it like that for some cosmic reason' sucks all the fun out of actually trying to understand anything.

1) The observable orbital veloceties of stars at the rim of galaxies are far too fast to be described by gravity
Could you be more specific?I can. If you assume circular orbits (that is, the galaxy isn't growing or shrinking much), and you know the velocities of the stars, you can work out their accelerations:
a = v / r where a = (radial) acceleration, v = velocity, and r = distance to galactic center
If you know the distribution of matter in the galaxy, you can work out what the acceleration on any star due to gravity should be:
a = (sum over masses) G mass_i r_i / ( r_i ** 3) where G is the gravitational constant, r_i is the vector from the star you're calculating the acceleration of to mass_i, and ** indicates exponentiation.

Anywho, as gravity should be the dominant force on stars, the acceleration calculated the two ways should be about equal. But it's not; the acceleration calculated from the velocities tend to be 1.5 to 2 times (IIRC) the predicted acceleration. The conventional explanation for this is that there is some matter in the galaxy we don't know about ("dark matter", 'cause we can't see it). This may seem something like an ad hoc explanation, but not just any pattern of orbital velocities could be explained by dark matter, and my (limited) understanding is that evidence for dark matter has been growing.

There is a vaguely similar problem in cosmology; from the dynamics of the universe there should be more matter around than that inferred from galactic motions. There is ongoing theoretical and observational work to predict just what this unobserved matter should be like (it tends to be more "exotic" than the ordinary dark matter hanging around galaxies). So some of the details of the big bang have yet to be nailed down. Welcome to science.

Be happy to:

Simply search through the posts of Dempublicents, Bottle, or Grave_n_idle. You'll notice that they consistently post together. Upon further investigation, you'll notice in long posts that they just "happen" to show up together on the same page of posts, within a few minutes of each other.

You do realize that long posts usually take a while to type, and often our long posts are posted at nearly the same time? This alone is evidence *against* the idea that we are all the same person.

Their explanation of this is that they are in the same time zone. Not hard to believe, as the majority of Nationstates forum users are within 6 time zones. However, they just "happen" to show up independently in different threads at the same time? Not likely.

Has it ever occurred to you that we might all have interests in the same areas? Thus, being on the page at the same time, when we see a topic that interests us come up, we go into it. If all three of us happen to be interested in that topic, then all three of us will probably post there. Does that make sense to you, or are you too much of a conspiracy theorist?

The chances of 2 people consistently posting within minutes of each other is rare. For 3 people to keep doing it is near impossible. Add to the fact that every one of their posts when the other does show up is to re-iterate the other's point, you can plainly see they are either:

Wow, apparently you can't read. While the three of us may often agree on things in the large scale, we tend to disagree quite a bit on the details. And if we were all the same person, we would have to be pretty schizophrenic, considering that we post in very different styles. We'd also have to be super intelligent, since Bottle is getting a Ph.D. in um...philosophy??, sociology?? or something like that, I am getting a Ph.D. in bioengineering, and Graven is, well, I don't know - but seems college educated to me.

And I was warned to stop flame-baiting; which I have done. I am now just telling the fact and warning others of your puppet nations.

Have you, by chance, looked at what our combined post count would be? Puppet nations indeed.

You do realize that long posts usually take a while to type, and often our long posts are posted at nearly the same time? This alone is evidence *against* the idea that we are all the same person.



Has it ever occurred to you that we might all have interests in the same areas? Thus, being on the page at the same time, when we see a topic that interests us come up, we go into it. If all three of us happen to be interested in that topic, then all three of us will probably post there. Does that make sense to you, or are you too much of a conspiracy theorist?



Wow, apparently you can't read. While the three of us may often agree on things in the large scale, we tend to disagree quite a bit on the details. And if we were all the same person, we would have to be pretty schizophrenic, considering that we post in very different styles. We'd also have to be super intelligent, since Bottle is getting a Ph.D. in um...philosophy??, sociology?? or something like that, I am getting a Ph.D. in bioengineering, and Graven is, well, I don't know - but seems college educated to me.



Have you, by chance, looked at what our combined post count would be? Puppet nations indeed.

Heh, I've done that before on another forum.
It was fun.

frankly, we don't know enough about the actual process to do anything but make educated guesses and run some shot-in-the dark tests yet. but we are learning more and more. give it time, eventually we'll have a solid explanation of the exact chemical reactions involved.Yeah, I recon so. But at the moment abiogenesis is a pretty roomy gap for God to be in.

The proteins, however, were not self-replicating.They weren't? I thought they were. Or more precisely, the folding patterns were self-replicating. Not only that but prions tend to come in varietities of folding pattern. Imperfect replication is entirely plausible, and natural selection comes for free. So I find it quite plausible that prions undergo evolution through natural selection.

Now, as a model for the first life forms, prions are, um, problematic. Prions need a very special environment to reproduce.

Yeah, I recon so. But at the moment abiogenesis is a pretty roomy gap for God to be in.

given the proper amount of tweaking and there is always room for god. i assume that at some point we'll have solid enough explanations for pretty much everything that the major conceptions of god will be:
god made the rules
god is the rules
everything is god/spirit (in either pantheist or animist varieties)
and laplace's "i have no need for that hypothesis"

Wow, apparently you can't read

Uh-Oh....flamebaiting....
You might want to watch yourself. I would hate to have to run to the mods like one of you did previously.

Uh-Oh....flamebaiting....
You might want to watch yourself. I would hate to have to run to the mods like one of you did previously.

I do believe it is against the rules to misquote people.

I do believe it is against the rules to misquote people.
i believe that the entire line of conspiracy theorizing that he is pursuing qualifies as serious flamebait, and i would really appreciate a mod stepping in to set him straight on the matter.

it's interesting that he takes our being online at the same time as evidence that we are the same person, when that's actually the best evidence that we aren't.

i also think it's cute that he persists in saying we must be the same person because we have identical views, when we are actually extremely different and have vocally disagreed on other threads. the common thread for all of us is that we all see what's wrong with his own posts...and i guess since three people all see the same flaws in his material then the logical explanation cannot possibly be that he is mistaken or using flawed reasoning, and must instead be some combination of conspiracy and schizophrenia.

makes me want to tickle him under the chin, it does.

EDIT: oh, and you are correct, Demi...misquoting is a warnable offense.

Just so everyone knows,

Dempublicents = Grave_n_idle = Bottle

They are all one person

Wrong.

Uh-Oh....flamebaiting....
You might want to watch yourself. I would hate to have to run to the mods like one of you did previously.

You should have watched yourself. We're not stupid. Consider this an official warning, if you keep it up, your NationStates account will be terminated.



http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/EyeOfMyrth.jpg
Myrth
The Eye of Myrth is upon thee
Forum Moderator

You should have watched yourself. We're not stupid. Consider this an official warning, if you keep it up, your NationStates account will be terminated.

:upyours: Blow Me :upyours:

If you don't have the decency to look into the situation properly then you can kiss my ass.

You should have watched yourself. We're not stupid. Consider this an official warning, if you keep it up, your NationStates account will be terminated.

:upyours: Blow Me :upyours:
Bye :)

You should have watched yourself. We're not stupid. Consider this an official warning, if you keep it up, your NationStates account will be terminated.

:upyours: Blow Me :upyours:


I smell a deletion coming up.

Back on topic...

...Star Shadow, after observing various other posts and threads you have made, I've come to the conclusion that you are so biased, that if religious beliefs didn't exist, you'd die. Seriously.

Do you know how stupid you sound when you said schools should teach facts and not concepts? Since when could anyone prove that creationalism was a fact? Anyway, that's just another concept. Get the picture?

And please, people might, just might, take you seriously if you thinks things over and use correct grammer and punc.

Okay, fine people will never take you seriously. I admit it :D ....

Someone's about to get...

http://koti.mbnet.fi/mazgurth/pics/pictures/calzowned.jpg


(Yeah, I really just wanted to use that image for something :p)

Wow, apparently you can't read. While the three of us may often agree on things in the large scale, we tend to disagree quite a bit on the details. And if we were all the same person, we would have to be pretty schizophrenic, considering that we post in very different styles. We'd also have to be super intelligent, since Bottle is getting a Ph.D. in um...philosophy??, sociology?? or something like that, I am getting a Ph.D. in bioengineering, and Graven is, well, I don't know - but seems college educated to me.

Have you, by chance, looked at what our combined post count would be? Puppet nations indeed.

I have 4 years of Chemistry and Business at University behind me, plus a little of a correspondence course towards an English degree.... plus a fair few years of less 'structured' education...

By the way, if we WERE the same person, we'd have posted somewhere in the ballpark of 12,000 posts!!!! :)

:upyours: Blow Me :upyours:

If you don't have the decency to look into the situation properly then you can kiss my ass.
Not even the King of Controversy, Eminem, could've handled that situation better.


You know, I've been officially warned before, big deal? None of the mods care any more because I'm not an idiot like you. I don't go out of my way to piss people off. People just get pissed off because I'm right and that makes them mad...or some thing like that, but now I'm off topic...

Not even the King of Controversy, Eminem, could've handled that situation better.


You know, I've been officially warned before, big deal? None of the mods care any more because I'm not an idiot like you. I don't go out of my way to piss people off. People just get pissed off because I'm right and that makes them mad...or some thing like that, but now I'm off topic...

I don't think you should be encouraging the poor fellow. He has enough trouble with conspiracy theories and being able to control his 'output', without any extra help... yeah... giving the Mods 'the finger'... THAT'LL make them see your side of the case for SURE.... *sigh*

Im not sure why no one has mentioned this, and Im sure its not the same in all countries, but in the U.S, its becuase of the Separation of Church and State.
Its illegal to teach religion in public schools, as its often discriminatory to all other religions.

If you start to teach creationism, which version do you teach?
Catholic?
Protestant?
Jewish?
Muslim?

If you teach one, you leave the others behind, and quite possibly offend whomever recieves that treatment.

More importantly,
Its becuase there is no scientific basis behind Creationism, and school is for learning facts.

Or maybe, its not the schools job to verse your child in religious dogma...thats the parents job.

i know this has probably been said before, but:

if you want creationism, enroll in a class on world religions. if you want scientific theories, enroll in a science class.

and also, in highschool, we never actually had any cosmology. i did a project on the big bang once, but that was one of those "choose anything you want to reserach and go at it" things. they taught the theory of evolution, as a theory that is supported by a rediclous amount of fossil evidence.

but again, if you want to hear creationism or other religious dogma, don't enroll in a science class.

Meaning ah hell just forget them both and teach something with evidence, (yes christanity doesn't have evidence but neither does we are all the descendants of bastard monkeys threoy.)

other than a fossil record of course...

yeah, no evidence whatsoever... that's it... *rolls eyes*

and what's with the monkey hate? love your fellow primates for the adorable, feces flinging, social animals they are.

Because we are a secular country and anything remotely religious is anathema to some. While it is funny to see some pull their hair out over it, the majority of people do not have a problem with both being taught. I sure don't as neither can be proven as fact or disproven as false. In the end it does not matter how the universe was created, we are here.

creationism still has no place in a science class.

and if you were to say "oh, well let's teach creationism in science" then you'd spend the whole year going over every creation myth and not even get to the actual science.

no, creationism of any sort should not be taught in science for the same reason we dont' teach quantum mechanics in a class in english literature.

Meaning ah hell just forget them both and teach something with evidence, (yes christanity doesn't have evidence but neither does we are all the descendants of bastard monkeys threoy.)

Actually... evolution has a mountain of evidence supporting it. Just learn a bit about genetics, and it will be clear.

Just wondering.....
Why have literally thousands of experiments failed to produce living matter from even very dubious pre-biotic molcules??
After decades of experimentation, evolulionary scientists have uniformly failed to produce life from pre-biotic molecules.
In real science, the failure of a theory to predict experimental results refutes its validity.
Just for giggles check this out
http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html?http%3A//www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/scien_eviden_creatn.html
:p

umm... actually, they've produced ademine and guanine, two of the dna base pairs in the lab from inorganic molecules in what they consider to be the equivalent of ancient ocean water.
theoretically it would take an aquarium the size of los angeles to produce life.

if you want to donate an aquarium filled with primordial seawater the size of los angeles, i'm sure there will be plenty of scientists willing to zap it with lightening bolts until there's primitive life in it.

I can. If you assume circular orbits (that is, the galaxy isn't growing or shrinking much), and you know the velocities of the stars, you can work out their accelerations:
a = v / r where a = (radial) acceleration, v = velocity, and r = distance to galactic center
If you know the distribution of matter in the galaxy, you can work out what the acceleration on any star due to gravity should be:
a = (sum over masses) G mass_i r_i / ( r_i ** 3) where G is the gravitational constant, r_i is the vector from the star you're calculating the acceleration of to mass_i, and ** indicates exponentiation.

Anywho, as gravity should be the dominant force on stars, the acceleration calculated the two ways should be about equal. But it's not; the acceleration calculated from the velocities tend to be 1.5 to 2 times (IIRC) the predicted acceleration. The conventional explanation for this is that there is some matter in the galaxy we don't know about ("dark matter", 'cause we can't see it). This may seem something like an ad hoc explanation, but not just any pattern of orbital velocities could be explained by dark matter, and my (limited) understanding is that evidence for dark matter has been growing.

There is a vaguely similar problem in cosmology; from the dynamics of the universe there should be more matter around than that inferred from galactic motions. There is ongoing theoretical and observational work to predict just what this unobserved matter should be like (it tends to be more "exotic" than the ordinary dark matter hanging around galaxies). So some of the details of the big bang have yet to be nailed down. Welcome to science.

Thanks. I wish I had pursued a career in physics though, so I might have understood this even better. ^_^;
It does seem to imply dark matter though, which I don't find at all unlikely.

There is also the separation between church and state. I beleive there is a god, and i beleive the universe may have been formed by a gigantic explosion of immense proportions. But the fact is, there is no way we will ever know until science or the second comming can prove either.

Let's not forget that Science does not seek to disprove Creationism. Science merely tries to explain our surroundings through means that are repeatable and measurable. If Science should eventually prove the existence of God and Creation, scientists would not be disappointed. Their mission is to find truth whatever it may be. Their mission in NOT to "kill" God.

Just another attack against Christian people!

Another bullshit thread

ok warning... the following "2 cents" are the "2 cents" of a wackjob and should be taken with a grain of salt....


Why does Science and Religion have to be incompatable?

In highschool I heard it explained best... Religion is our hunt for questions, Phillosophy is the asking of those questions, and Science is the answering of those questions.

That was my science teach of course.

Once apon a time.. you would die at from minor infections, influenza, you were often sick or otherwise ill, and the thought of flying in the sky, was reserved only for gods. To do otherwise, was a miracle.

Today, we survive even MAJOR infections, influenza? whens the last time someone died from it? humans are rarely sick anymore, our lifespan and health vastly improved. And whats that flying in the sky like a god? Oh its just a jet.

The point is, we live many things today that were once a part of religious and spiritual beliefs.

Why is it so hard for people to put 2 and 2 together: Religion is a beleif without proof, Science is a defination of the beleif.

You CANNOT have science without some sort of religion. The same is true in reverse.


Lets get to a lil modern day application. The Soul.
Scientists acknowledge that the human brain functions via electrical impulses. Our entire nerve system does. It is widely known that any form of electricity generates a magnetic field.. even if its minor. Scientists HAVE measured, studies, and concluded that humans have a very minor magnetic field around ourselves.

Whats to prevent one person from "percieving" the magnetic field of another? Nothing. Magnets interact all the time. So to do magnetic fields. There is NO reason why the soul cannot be this magnetic field, percieved by ancient peoples and given a mystical name and purpose.

Of course, the IMMORTAL Soul? Debatable still.


But why is it... MANY religious people chose to beleive, but DONT want to understand (and even hate those who try), whereas many scientists want to avoid understanding the science behind the religions?

Just a lil brain food... since I'm likely not to check back here...
Anyone interested in talking more.. can message me in the game via my profiles listed homepage.. or by the instant messangers listed in my profile here on the forum.

Because if they taught creationism, they'd have to teach every single version of it from every single major religion to prevent claims of discrimination.

And if it makes you happy, when I was taught the big bang in high school, the teacher made it clear this is just a theory of what happened (same thing when I learned evolution).

Don't forget that there are two creationist stories in Genesis, too, so that's a lot more teaching time needed.

I'm sick and tired of you protestants blaming the catholics for every single massacre in the name of christianity. Don't forget that it is you people who burned the innocents in Salem. It is you who nuked civilian cities in Japan. Some may say that Japan was nuked because it was war, but that doesn't change that it was protestants who ordered it, and i'm sure they felt they were doing God's work. Most evil men believe they are. And don't forget that it is you who started the 30 years war.

I think Blaming the Hiroshima bombing on protestants is A bit of A stretch. Just because the catholics allied with the other side XD

Besides, I blame Catholics for every massacre in history and Im not protestant :D

I'm sick and tired of you protestants blaming the catholics for every single massacre in the name of christianity. Don't forget that it is you people who burned the innocents in Salem. It is you who nuked civilian cities in Japan. Some may say that Japan was nuked because it was war, but that doesn't change that it was protestants who ordered it, and i'm sure they felt they were doing God's work. Most evil men believe they are. And don't forget that it is you who started the 30 years war.


Not that your statement has anything to do with anything in this thread, but lets count...

Crusades.....Catholic.
Inquisitions...Catholic.
Genocides of islander natives.....catholic.
Persecution of countless minorites....all catholic.
Mass numbers of sexual abuse among clergy.....Catholic.

Should I keep going?

Not that your statement has anything to do with anything in this thread, but lets count...

Crusades.....Catholic.
Inquisitions...Catholic.
Genocides of islander natives.....catholic.
Persecution of countless minorites....all catholic.
Mass numbers of sexual abuse among clergy.....Catholic.

Should I keep going?

See this kind of thing pisses me off, no wonder the enemy of the Christian people has such power, this stupid fighting within ourselves leaves us open to attack by such evil anti-God people.

Also the Crusades were not evil, but they were to defend Greece - a friend of the Christian nations.

And also don't try to use the fact that they are Catholic to lay the blame, these people are not Christian!

Geesh, there are some serious fruitcakes on this forum.

PEOPLE DID IT!! IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER THEY WERE CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT (which by the way, is more than one thing), HINDI, MUSLIM, BUDDHIST, JEDI... WHO GIVES A SHIT WHERE THEY PRAYED AND WHO THEY PRAYED TO - THEY WERE FUCKING PEOPLE - THEIR RELIGION DIDN'T DEFINE THEM, THEIR ACTIONS DID! IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT!!

See this kind of thing pisses me off, no wonder the enemy of the Christian people has such power, this stupid fighting within ourselves leaves us open to attack by such evil anti-God people.

Also the Crusades were not evil, but they were to defend Greece - a friend of the Christian nations.

And also don't try to use the fact that they are Catholic to lay the blame, these people are not Christian!


No...the Crusades were to reclaim the Holy Land from the infidel Muslims.

That worked well didnt it?

And also don't try to use the fact that they are Catholic to lay the blame, these people are not Christian!

Lol. Yeah. Because they arent protestant.

No...the Crusades were to reclaim the Holy Land from the infidel Muslims.

That worked well didnt it?

In 1094 the Greek Emperor Alexius 1 asked Pope Urban 2 for aid.

Turkish Armies had overrun the Eastern Provinces of the Greek Empire and were getting close to the capital, Constantinople. The Pope appealed to Western European Knights to put their differences and petty squabbles aside and help the Greeks to the East.

He summoned them together to take part in a Holy War that would also serve as a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

The first Crusade would soon begin -

so as you can see, the original intent was all good.

But how is that much better than wanting to drive muslims out of the "Holy lands"

I think its important to remember that once, the christians were the rampaging backwards religious Wacko's. :D

Funny how things never change. :D

But how is that much better than wanting to drive muslims out of the "Holy lands"

I think its important to remember that once, the christians were the rampaging backwards religious Wacko's. :D

Gee let me think...how about defending your Allies. Greece was under attack, Europe couldn't just sit back. The reason they first continued on was to drive the Muslim armies as far south as possible, then it becamse about retaking the Holy Lands...which they did and held it for quite a while.

Tired of being criticised for being a Catholic?

Why not come over to Agnostics Unite?

We cater for allsorts, and welcome anyone through our doors who is tolerant of others.

These people all joined and now look what have to say about it:

"I'm really, really, really, really pleased I joined Agnostics Unite. It's really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really good."
Alan

"I joined Agnostics Unite and then I fell over."
Vera

"I went along, but I didn't think much of the decor."
Linda Barker

"I tell you what, old bean, they're a real bunch of bally good chaps, what-what!"
Colonel Abrams


And I'm going to keep posting it till you all grow up.

You know you can get in trouble for posting those thread ads.

And since when wasn't grece and turkey part of europe? They wanna join the EU dont they? :D

You know you can get in trouble for posting those thread ads.

And since when wasn't grece and turkey part of europe? They wanna join the EU dont they? :D

Greece asked for help, the European Armies marched

You know you can get in trouble for posting those thread ads.

Yeah, but you gotta admit, it's relevant. The point of the thread was that there are all these threads for people to air their bigoted views and corrupted "facts" without reading anyone else's opinions properly or conceding any points, so I created one for nice tolerant people, who actually admit that they might sometimes, just sometimes, be wrong and listen to what other people have to say. The fact that within a couple of pages it turned into some rather silly backslapping can only be a good thing in my opinion.

You know you can get in trouble for posting those thread ads.

And since when wasn't grece and turkey part of europe? They wanna join the EU dont they? :D

Oh, and Turkey didn't own any land in Europe at that time - note that Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul) was in the Greek Empire, as stated earlier.

But, yes, of course it had everything to do with religion.

What is wrong with you people?! Now I go to church but I'm certainly not the most religious person out there. I believe that Big Bang happened, but I gotta think that there has to be some great being out there who had a hand in our creation. But why do you people feel the need to argue about it and lash out at eachother? Can't you just respect the fact that someone else has a different opinion than you? Sheesh.

What is wrong with you people?! Now I go to church but I'm certainly not the most religious person out there. I believe that Big Bang happened, but I gotta think that there has to be some great being out there who had a hand in our creation. But why do you people feel the need to argue about it and lash out at eachother? Can't you just respect the fact that someone else has a different opinion than you? Sheesh.

Welcome to Agnostics Unite!

I never got taught big bang theory at school. And from what little I've read about it, mainly from "A Brief History Of Time", by Stephen Hawking, it seems why to complex to teach at school level. The large question remains how something is created from nothing, and I don't think that can be understood without an understanding of quantum mechanics, because it totally defies day to day observation. "A Brief History Of Time" attempts to justify it, and it kind of makes sense, but it also sounds like a lot of hand waving. However "A Brief History Of Time" is quite brief, and handwaves in a lot of places due to the large number of topics covered in a relatively short book (big font, many pictures).

Anyone that teaches school age children that there was a big bang and thats fact is a religious zealot. Its only a scientific theory, and a hazy one in that, as it can't be easily directly tested.

Schools should teach science, science being the creation of models that attempt to predict what we observe in the world. Science doesn't try to determine what is true, it just makes up a model that seems to work.

Science doesn't say there was a big bang, it simply says that the big bang model seems to model the universe we see today. God may of created the universe 6000 years ago, but the fact remains that the universe seems like it was created from a big bang billions of years ago. To science, the truth doesn't matter, and in fact, science has no way of determining the truth. Theories can only be falsified, they can never be proven true.

And this is why science should be taught in schools. It teaches children to question, and not blindly accept what seems the most obvious at the time, but to explore. Saying "There is a big bang" or "There is a god" has the opposite effect, it closes their minds.

To science, the truth doesn't matter, and in fact, science has no way of determining the truth.

Hmmm...

But you're right that children should make up their own mind. However, scientific evidence points to the big bang theory, and teaching in schools should reflect that. It doesn't mean there is no god.

This is one of the rather silly debates in this country.

The big bang theory is taught because there is ample evidence through the scientific method that this is how the Universe was created.

Now the people who want creationism taught in PUBLIC schools (rather than Sunday schools) are people who want to FORCE their religion on others, and in my opinion, thet is unconstitutional. Yes, you are free to believe it if you want, but since there is NO credible evidence to back it up, it has NO place in the public school systems. I mean, c'mon, our school systems are turning out enough badly educated children without telling them that the Universe and everything was created in 7 days.

I know, some people get offended. Don't. I don't mean to attack your beliefs. What I AM saying is that the government (constitutionally) can NOT push one religion's beliefs over any other, or push those beliefs on anyone else. Since there is NO credible evidence in the creationism theory, and it is ONLY through belief that this theory takes any credibility at all, then it has NO PLACE, costitutionally speaking, in our schools.

This is one of the rather silly debates in this country.

The big bang theory is taught because there is ample evidence through the scientific method that this is how the Universe was created.

Now the people who want creationism taught in PUBLIC schools (rather than Sunday schools) are people who want to FORCE their religion on others, and in my opinion, thet is unconstitutional. Yes, you are free to believe it if you want, but since there is NO credible evidence to back it up, it has NO place in the public school systems. I mean, c'mon, our school systems are turning out enough badly educated children without telling them that the Universe and everything was created in 7 days.

I know, some people get offended. Don't. I don't mean to attack your beliefs. What I AM saying is that the government (constitutionally) can NOT push one religion's beliefs over any other, or push those beliefs on anyone else. Since there is NO credible evidence in the creationism theory, and it is ONLY through belief that this theory takes any credibility at all, then it has NO PLACE, costitutionally speaking, in our schools.

I'm agnostic, but I think it's very healthy to teach about religion in schools. It doesn't have to be forced on them, like you say, it just needs to be handled sensitively. Why not talk about what different people believe - there's a lot to learn from all the religions of the present and the past.

Actually There are ways to test the big bang theory. Thats what particle accelerators are all about. The thing about cosmology is that its one of the least ambiguous sciences. They've pretty much gotten everything they can figured out, now they are branching out into new scientific fields to fix the holes and mebbe one day come up with a theory for everything.

You just need to be able to understand physics to know precisely what physicists are on about. Its a language of its own. When they explian the big bang and the special theory of relativity and all that What we hear are poor translations of their mathematic language. Simplified to terms that arent realistically comperable, but are the closest common frame of reference we have.

And the problem with creation science in schools is that its lobbyists are slippery. They avoid mentioning christianity and merely insist that evolution shouldn't be taught as fact since there are holes, and so to teach childeren to discriminate the good science from the bad, "Alternatives" should be taught. Its a very gradual process but with the ultimate aim of forcing christian dogma on childeren.

You cant teach a child to discriminate between two different theories. As far as they're concerned if its in school its gotta be true. You see the way it would work is that evolution would be taken down a peg, and creation science legitimsed by being tauted as a legitimate scientifc alternative.
Fuck, its A good time to be A crackpot scientist. This shits better than lysenkoism (http://skepdic.com/lysenko.html).

They can escape being discredited by not advocating religion as the only alternative. Even though theres A hell of a lot more Born again christians advocating this than raelians As far as they care Extra dimensional beings, or Aliens or "A holy" being or beings could have created life on earth.

I'm agnostic, but I think it's very healthy to teach about religion in schools. It doesn't have to be forced on them, like you say, it just needs to be handled sensitively. Why not talk about what different people believe - there's a lot to learn from all the religions of the present and the past.I'm in the UK, and we had R.E. (Religious Education) classes, and we had Science classes (later broken down to Physics, Chemistry, Biology and another type for those who really didn't have the aptitude/inclanation for full-blown Science in that 'strand' of the schedule).

I never noticed any tendency for my Science teachers to teach anything religious to us and, apart from the R.E. teacher also having taken us for Geogeraphy (and a useful source of information for all things geologic he was, too), the R.E. lesson was basically a matter of learning the stories of the Bible that we all know and love(!). I never really noticed if there were hints, either way, that the Bible was fact or fiction. I suppose there was a tendency to say "<such and such> did happen", we all got a small pocket bible from some society or other (maybe Gideons, maybe just similar, either way it was just the NT, and thus lacked all the juicy stuff) and we once had a visit from some creationist-types who formed into discussion groups and (being contrary teenagers) then had to defend themselves against our innate opposition to anything an adult tries to tell us. This latter thing was, I believe, probably initiated by the visitors, rather than something activly sought by the school staff, but it's hard to say.

I never came out of any of those experiences any more religious than when I went in, as far as I can tell, though I can't really speak for any of my fellow classmates (except one whose family was overtly very devout in the first place)... We did cover other religions (Geogerahy/R.E. teacher having previously been a teacher in Bradford, famously multicultural in some parts and very Christian-minority in others) but as we were all 'white' and of generic Anglo-Saxon stock (together with whatever Celtic, Norman and Scandinavean bloodlines may have also been involved over the last millenia or two) there wasn't an imperative to cater for diversity as intensively.

We also had a weekly Assembly (daily at one point, but I'm not sure when the switch occured) where hymns were sung with the normal enthusiasm of people our age (i.e. very little) and I was 'officially' Church of England in my local Cubs/Scouts/Ventures group (because you had to have a religion, especially with the devoutly Christian leaders, but at least it wasn't as bad as the Boys Brigade :)).

On the whole, we got a grounding in the 'common heritage' of Christianity and the stories, but none of it infringed upon Science. Each sub-set of Science didn't even infringe upon the others, either, at that age, and only in college did I find Physics and Chemistry and Biology sharing a lot of commonality (and no religion involved at all, save that the lecturer was God :)).

I'm in the UK, and we had R.E. (Religious Education) classes, and we had Science classes (later broken down to Physics, Chemistry, Biology and another type for those who really didn't have the aptitude/inclanation for full-blown Science in that 'strand' of the schedule).

I never noticed any tendency for my Science teachers to teach anything religious to us and, apart from the R.E. teacher also having taken us for Geogeraphy (and a useful source of information for all things geologic he was, too), the R.E. lesson was basically a matter of learning the stories of the Bible that we all know and love(!). I never really noticed if there were hints, either way, that the Bible was fact or fiction. I suppose there was a tendency to say "<such and such> did happen", we all got a small pocket bible from some society or other (maybe Gideons, maybe just similar, either way it was just the NT, and thus lacked all the juicy stuff) and we once had a visit from some creationist-types who formed into discussion groups and (being contrary teenagers) then had to defend themselves against our innate opposition to anything an adult tries to tell us. This latter thing was, I believe, probably initiated by the visitors, rather than something activly sought by the school staff, but it's hard to say.

I never came out of any of those experiences any more religious than when I went in, as far as I can tell, though I can't really speak for any of my fellow classmates (except one whose family was overtly very devout in the first place)... We did cover other religions (Geogerahy/R.E. teacher having previously been a teacher in Bradford, famously multicultural in some parts and very Christian-minority in others) but as we were all 'white' and of generic Anglo-Saxon stock (together with whatever Celtic, Norman and Scandinavean bloodlines may have also been involved over the last millenia or two) there wasn't an imperative to cater for diversity as intensively.

We also had a weekly Assembly (daily at one point, but I'm not sure when the switch occured) where hymns were sung with the normal enthusiasm of people our age (i.e. very little) and I was 'officially' Church of England in my local Cubs/Scouts/Ventures group (because you had to have a religion, especially with the devoutly Christian leaders, but at least it wasn't as bad as the Boys Brigade :)).

On the whole, we got a grounding in the 'common heritage' of Christianity and the stories, but none of it infringed upon Science. Each sub-set of Science didn't even infringe upon the others, either, at that age, and only in college did I find Physics and Chemistry and Biology sharing a lot of commonality (and no religion involved at all, save that the lecturer was God :)).

Yeah, I'm British too.

Religion is a fascinating social topic and to ban it from schools is ludicrous. How does that promote understanding and tolerance? (btw, not directed at you, E B Guvegrra)

I was in the boys brigade for a little while. I got fed up with being preached to.

Discussing christianity and other religion is fine. In fact its important for social studies and to understand its effect on histroy. I would rather enjoy it. But teaching it as fact, as an alternative to science, is dead wrong.

Because then it doesnt need to be taught does it. You can just read it in the bible.

:upyours: BLOW ME :upyours:

If you don't have the decency to look into the situation properly then you can kiss my ass.Not even the King of Controversy, Eminem, could've handled that situation better.


You know, I've been officially warned before, big deal? None of the mods care any more because I'm not an idiot like you. I don't go out of my way to piss people off. People just get pissed off because I'm right and that makes them mad...or some thing like that, but now I'm off topic...

Oh well, I'm sure he can probably just create a new log in as someone else anyway.....;)

Oh well, I'm sure he can probably just create a new log in as someone else anyway.....;)

Yah....you're probably right :p

:o

I was in the boys brigade for a little while. I got fed up with being preached to.Luckily, even with the churchgoing leaders of the Cub pack and Scout troop (in the Ventures the leaders and ourselves, not more than a few years difference in age by that time, were all publicly agnostic) the most we ever got was learning the Lords Prayer (which is fairly useful to know to blend) and semi-compulsary attendance of at least some members of the pack/troop at the Christmas Carol service, St George's Day parade/service and the Rememberence Day parage/service. As Ventures, we mutually agreed that Rememberence Day was still 'sacred' (I still try to attend, even as a 'civilian'), but if we happened to organise a hiking trip or something on the weekends of the others then never mind...

Oh well, I'm sure he can probably just create a new log in as someone else anyway.....;)

Although why someone who obviously dislikes the debate format so much, and who has posted nothing constructive, and has spent all of their time, apparently, attacking others.... would bother going to the effort of making a new screen-name.... I don't know...

:upyours: Blow Me :upyours:

If you don't have the decency to look into the situation properly then you can kiss my ass.


Having trouble with Myrth? How strange. Me too. She accused me of cheating and using puppets in a series of rather unpleasant posts.

If you think she is too aggressive, indolent and personal to be a Mod, why not post in this thread:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=365663

Having trouble with Myrth? How strange. Me too. She accused me of cheating and using puppets in a series of rather unpleasant posts.

If you think she is too aggressive, indolent and personal to be a Mod, why not post in this thread:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=365663

I think you should probably look over the 'claims' that this individual made... and assess the validity of their accusations against Myrth, before you jump in to side with him/her.

If you really have a genuine complaint with Myrth, that is one thing... but this individual carried out a rather silly campaign of baiting and flaming, then got miffy when confronted by moderation. This would not be a good case for you to cite in defence of a legitimate claim.

Just out of interest... were you using puppets? This person has used puppets - apparently to try to avoid their 'main' nation getting banned.

Which of course leads to the next question, has Voyeurism been banned yet? Has Myrth been made aware of his little comment?

Which of course leads to the next question, has Voyeurism been banned yet? Has Myrth been made aware of his little comment?
A post with a direct link to the "up yours" post was made in Moderation subforum..

I just love tattle-tales.
Dodging a ban is a bad offence voyuer.

In the US, Creationism is not taught because of the Bill of Rights and its speficic prohibiton of the State establishing a religion and the general freedom of religion right.

Creationism is primarily espoused by Christians who have the view that the Bible is the literal word of God. Therefore, teaching it would be the state (which funds the schools and operates them)(state being in this case local governments but you get the idea) espousing a specific view of religion.

Then there is the question of merit. The overwhelming objective evidence (aberations aside) is that the planet is 5 billion years old, the universe far older than that and it is measurable simply by looking at the movement of stars, as well as analyzing the composition of the planet itself.

Personally, my own personal faith allows me to find a place for both.

The Universe began in a gigantic burst of energy (a flash of light if you will)

which seems to me to fit very well with

"And the Lord said, Let there be Light."

:eek:
:eek:

What are they gonna do? Ban me again?

Dude, I've been banned 5 times already
wow, you must really really really really love these forums, if you spend this much time dodging bans! i guess we should be flattered that you are willing to put so much of your time and energy into ducking the mods in order to spend time with us :).

wow, you must really really really really love these forums, if you spend this much time dodging bans! i guess we should be flattered that you are willing to put so much of your time and energy into ducking the mods in order to spend time with us :).

Or maybe he is in lurve.... he does keep following certain people around the forum, you notice.

Ah well, I guess we just can't help being desirable.... even through our words....

;)

Creationism = Unsupported crap

Big Bang = Tenatively supported scientific theory.

Therefor your problem is your own. It's quite obvious why one is taught and not the other.

Nah, nah Shiron. You have to read up on some creation science writings. They have a poorly calculated answer for everything.

I dont even know whay they bother. Wouldn't A purist christian just answer "God made the universe how he wanted it? It doesn't have to make sense"

Pay attention. If a school says that God created Adam and Eve, and a Muslim goes to that school, (s)he might be offended by that,
Unlikely - as I understand it, Muslims have much the same beliefs in that area.

I on other hand would be furious. I'd rather my children weren't contaminated with the make-believe of religion.

atheist decide to teach concepts in school instead of doing something smart like just studing facts
the Big Bang has been scientifically proven. Therefore it is widely considered fact. As you say, we should study facts.

Personally, my own personal faith allows me to find a place for both.
My sentiments exactly, but I put a different spin one it. I believe in the basic concepts/teachings/moral principles that the Bible presents, but, being Jewish, and following Jewish tradition, I question the written word.

I also take into account that the New Testament's Gospels were written to draw converts, and that there are five or six different versions. That being said, at least four or five of those versions have to be wrong by default.

So, to answer the question proposed by the founder of this thread, yes the Big Bang/Evolution should be taught because it is the best theory and closest to proof at this time.

the Big Bang has been scientifically proven. Therefore it is widely considered fact. As you say, we should study facts.

Wheee! Futurama!

"I'm at the end of my rope, I can't live another minute without pure sweet Nibbler." - Bender
"Too bad he wasn't an alligator, you know when you flush those they stay alive in the sewers." - Fry
"Really???" - Bender
"My friend's cousin's case worker seen one once, it is a widely believed fact."

the Big Bang has been scientifically proven. Therefore it is widely considered fact. As you say, we should study facts.
Round and round the mulberry bush.....this has been already answered. Repeatedly. And why it should be taught despite being theory rather than theorum - when the evidence is so substantial (even if not being complete) it's what should be taught.

I am surprised that no one has pointed out that there is not one, but two creation stories in Genesis. We could ask God which one is literal, but as he refer to a 3rd while boasting of skewering Tiamat, I'm guessing the Creationists wouldn't like the answer.

If Creationism is the literal interpretation of Genesis, why aren't the Jews (who presumably read the text in the original Hebrew) loud supporters of Creationism?

Their religion is far senior to christianity. And they have their own country so they can make noise about it in there..
They just dont make a big deal about it. And they aren't aggressively expansionist like christianity. They got over it ages ago.