NationStates Jolt Archive

There have been debates as to whether or not Creationism should be allowed to be taught in schools. Basically, Creationism states that a God created everything. I am an atheist and have many problems with this.

First, Creationism has no scientific basis at all. Yes, I know that I cant disprove it because I cant prove that God doesnt exist. But it should not be taught in school.

Second, If the government supports this action of teaching Creationism, it means that they would be breaking the principle of Separation of church and state. Also by supporting this, it means that the government is supporting the principle that there is a god and that is offensive, biased and unfair.

Please, I do not mean to offend anyone. I merely want to hear others opinion in this. So if I have offended you or your religion, I sincerely apologize.

I didnt mean to be repetitive. I didnt see the other thread about creationism

If you are mad feel free to ignore me

Should the Theory of Creation be taught in schools?

Always an interesting topic. No good answers, but sometimes good debates.

In my opinion, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution should get the same treatment. Both or neither. Science shouldn't play favorites.

Creation Theory only states that some Power created the Universe by design. Not necessarily God.

By the way, dig out a copy of the US Constitution. No Separation clause. Never was, probably never will be.

It only states that Congress shall pass no laws abridging the free practice of religion. Whether that is Christian, Hindu, Wiccan, or Athiest. Again, it should be all or nothing. It would be no better if Congress mandated Atheism than any other. The Founding Fathers wanted to keep the government from starting and forcing one, not that one's religious belief should become a criminal offense.

Might as well teach that the entire Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure.

Should the Theory of Creation be taught in schools?

Always an interesting topic. No good answers, but sometimes good debates.

In my opinion, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution should get the same treatment. Both or neither. Science shouldn't play favorites.

Creation Theory only states that some Power created the Universe by design. Not necessarily God.

By the way, dig out a copy of the US Constitution. No Separation clause. Never was, probably never will be.

It only states that Congress shall pass no laws abridging the free practice of religion. Whether that is Christian, Hindu, Wiccan, or Athiest. Again, it should be all or nothing. It would be no better if Congress mandated Atheism than any other. The Founding Fathers wanted to keep the government from starting and forcing one, not that one's religious belief should become a criminal offense.

Good points and all, but this has gone around and around and around these forums, with never a resolve.

People like you generally stay sane, while fringers from both sides hurl un-definable absolutes about what the "right" way is - while clearly making it plain that anyone who does not agree with them is surely not right, either.

It's pointless.

Should the Theory of Creation be taught in schools?

Always an interesting topic. No good answers, but sometimes good debates.

In my opinion, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution should get the same treatment. Both or neither. Science shouldn't play favorites.

Creation Theory only states that some Power created the Universe by design. Not necessarily God.

By the way, dig out a copy of the US Constitution. No Separation clause. Never was, probably never will be.

It only states that Congress shall pass no laws abridging the free practice of religion. Whether that is Christian, Hindu, Wiccan, or Athiest. Again, it should be all or nothing. It would be no better if Congress mandated Atheism than any other. The Founding Fathers wanted to keep the government from starting and forcing one, not that one's religious belief should become a criminal offense.
Science requires that a theory be testable. Creationism is not. Everytime they run into a problem they can invoke god's supernatural powers and cling to their faith. Therefore creationism isn't science, it's faith and has no place in a science class.

By the way, dig out a copy of the US Constitution. No Separation clause. Never was, probably never will be.

It only states that Congress shall pass no laws abridging the free practice of religion. Whether that is Christian, Hindu, Wiccan, or Athiest. Again, it should be all or nothing. It would be no better if Congress mandated Atheism than any other. The Founding Fathers wanted to keep the government from starting and forcing one, not that one's religious belief should become a criminal offense.

actually the exact quote is as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

200 years of court cases, especially in the last 60 years have been very strict in looking at the exact wording... and the general pattern has been that any teaching that has a specific religious foundation and is required to be tought in schools is considered an establishment of religion.

just as school prayer and similar religious observances that used to be held in schools have been so ruled.

Well, I agree that it should not be taught in school, unless of course that school was established to allow its students to immerse themselves in their religion as well as accademics (though this might taint their science program, which would harm the students in the long run), but I would like to poke one hole in your argument (BTW, I too am athiest, but I think you really need to build up support for your side):

The concept of the Separation of Church and State isn't supported in any government document in Canada, Britain or the US (you might be from another country however). There is no amendment to the US constitution that forbids the government from taking actions based on a religous belief, nor is there a clause in the Canadian constitution or Charter of Right and Freedoms to the same effect. Seeing that Britain still relied heavily on their sovereign until the early part of the 20th century for government affairs, I think it's safe to assume they also have no such law or proclimation.

This argument would have to be supported by points under your first statement. While I, nor any one else, cannot prove that God does not exist, it is also impossible to prove that He does, and so those two arguments essentially eliminate one another. Those taking the side of science, however, do have countless research projects ranging from the fields of Biology to Chemestry to Physics. Despite these supporting fields of research, I would urge my fellow non-believers not to be too hastey in their dismissal of the thiest arument. Their evidence may not currently exist, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. I for one believe in science, but try to keep an open mind to the other side.

Good points and all, but this has gone around and around and around these forums, with never a resolve.

People like you generally stay sane, while fringers from both sides hurl un-definable absolutes about what the "right" way is - while clearly making it plain that anyone who does not agree with them is surely not right, either.

It's pointless.
Lousy points. He's comparing a religious beleif to a scientific theory (which has been confirmed to the point that it's almost certainly fact). Religion doesn't belong in a science classroom.

I said separation of church and state was a principle. i know it isnt a clause or anything but it has been one of those precedents that just has not been broken yet. And yes I try to keep an open mind always except I tend to prefer to stick with science then just mere faith.

There have been debates as to whether or not Creationism should be allowed to be taught in schools. Basically, Creationism states that a God created everything. I am an atheist and have many problems with this.

First, Creationism has no scientific basis at all. Yes, I know that I cant disprove it because I cant prove that God doesnt exist. But it should not be taught in school.

Second, If the government supports this action of teaching Creationism, it means that they would be breaking the principle of Separation of church and state. Also by supporting this, it means that the government is supporting the principle that there is a god and that is offensive, biased and unfair.

Please, I do not mean to offend anyone. I merely want to hear others opinion in this. So if I have offended you or your religion, I sincerely apologize.
Well I'm a VERY strong Christian and I think that God and all of it should be teached in school. I mean (in my religion) God create EVRYTHING. And that he is alive. So everything doesn't have to have a scientic reason. I mean do you think that the desiples in the Bible just made up stuff? So if they are telling the truth then God made the world. And so peole should know the truth! And if I have offended some people I'm sorry but that's what I think.

Well I'm a VERY strong Christian and I think that God and all of it should be teached in school. I mean (in my religion) God create EVRYTHING. And that he is alive. So everything doesn't have to have a scientic reason. I mean do you think that the desiples in the Bible just made up stuff? So if they are telling the truth then God made the world. And so peole should know the truth! And if I have offended some people I'm sorry but that's what I think.
Drunk Commies? That you? Didn't you get banned for trolling last time?

In my opinion, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution should get the same treatment. Both or neither. Science shouldn't play favorites.

Science doesn't play favorites. It tries to find the truth, and once it finds what it thinks to be true, it tests it, finds evidence to support it and tries to prove it wrong just to be sure. Does religion do this? No. And why is it so wrong to teach something that contradicts religion when we know it to be true? Man, I hope we never have this problem with Geography class and the Flat Earth Society...

Well I'm a VERY strong Christian and I think that God and all of it should be teached in school. I mean (in my religion) God create EVRYTHING. And that he is alive. So everything doesn't have to have a scientic reason. I mean do you think that the desiples in the Bible just made up stuff? So if they are telling the truth then God made the world. And so peole should know the truth! And if I have offended some people I'm sorry but that's what I think.

Why can't they just teach Creationism in church? That's where people should go if they want to be taught christianity. It shouldn't be taught in science lessons.

Well I'm a VERY strong Christian and I think that God and all of it should be teached in school. I mean (in my religion) God create EVRYTHING. And that he is alive. So everything doesn't have to have a scientic reason. I mean do you think that the desiples in the Bible just made up stuff? So if they are telling the truth then God made the world. And so peole should know the truth! And if I have offended some people I'm sorry but that's what I think.

with all respect, not everyone agrees with you. Not even all Christians agree completely with you. Remember, the bible was written nearly entirely by men (some Christians believe they were divinely inspired, some Christians believe they were writing based on Gods direct quotes, but you get the idea).

And in the United States, the US Constitution spells out that the government is to stay out of religious matters, and the governments (local and state) run the schools.

If you want God in your classroom, or your childrens classroom, than that is what Christian or other religious schools are for. If you are a Christian, then you know God is there anyway and you don't need to hammer the point. If your not, then you certainly don't want somebody else telling you how superior their religion is compared to your own.

However, not everyone is Christian and not everyone believes that god exists, so for them it is not the truth. And for creationism to be taught in school it would offend many such as myself. And not to be offensive, but there is no evidence supporting the truth of the bible.

I think you need to go back to school. If you can't even use real words in your post (what the hell is teached, scientic, and desiples?), have such lousy grammar, and no concept of providing evidence to back up your argument I dont' think it's your place to comment on the educational system. Oh sorry TEACHER! Even though I'm not the best speller I do know what I'm talking about!!!!!!!!!

Drunk Commies, i would appreciate it if you wouldnt berate people for having a different opinion. I started this thread to talk about this subject not insult people for their grammar.

Grace and Peace everyone!

Also a Christian :D don't want to offend anyone either! Have to be so careful these days... don't see why there should problem with creationism being taught as a belief, although I consider it a fact, forcing it on someone else is wrong. But then shouldn't evolution etc. be taught as a theory? And who's to say that both the scientific theories and the creationist views are not compatible? Just some thoughts...

Drunk Commies, i would appreciate it if you wouldnt berate people for having a different opinion. I started this thread to talk about this subject not insult people for their grammar.
Sorry. And sorry to Amber 12. I'll delete the posts myself.

Grace and Peace everyone!

Also a Christian :D don't want to offend anyone either! Have to be so careful these days... don't see why there should problem with creationism being taught as a belief, although I consider it a fact, forcing it on someone else is wrong. But then shouldn't evolution etc. be taught as a theory? And who's to say that both the scientific theories and the creationist views are not compatible? Just some thoughts... Thank you Silicia. You're absulutly right a Christian doesn't want to offend anyone that doesn't have the same religion.

Sorry. And sorry to Amber 12. I'll delete the posts myself. THank you. Anyways I suck at spelling so I forgive you.

Well I'm a VERY strong Christian and I think that God and all of it should be teached in school. I mean (in my religion) God create EVRYTHING. And that he is alive. So everything doesn't have to have a scientic reason. I mean do you think that the desiples in the Bible just made up stuff? So if they are telling the truth then God made the world. And so peole should know the truth! And if I have offended some people I'm sorry but that's what I think.
1 You are a christian, but what about those who don't share your faith? What if you lived in a muslim country? Would you accept the school board teaching your kids Islam?

2 Do I think the disciples in the bible made stuff up? Probably, but that's moot because none of the disciples actually wrote anything in the bible. The gospels were written long after Jesus' death by people who never knew him. Yep, there's plenty of made up stuff in the bible.

3 You claim that creationism is truth, but the evidence available says it's a lie. I think I'll trust the evidence, not your story.

(Manetheren II, Hmm? Wheel of Time fan, perhaps?)

And I must say, I've seen so many debates over this that it makes my stomach turn, and not many things do that. In any case, I can sum up my answer in two words: Absolutely not. However, I enjoy being verbose, so let me expound upon that.

Religion is entirely different from science. Creationism is a belief, not a theory - in order for something to be a theory, especially a scientific one, it must be both testable, and if believed, must be able to be used to predict future events, or the outcome of further experiments and tests using the theory as a basis. At the very least, there must be some evidence that such a theory is logical and realistic. Creationism, however, is an idea that possesses neither quality - it is illogical, and utterly unrealistic. There is no evidence to support creationism, except for the rantings of religious groups. Some might tell you, when asked for evidence of creationism, "well, you can't explain why the Earth is here." Debatable, for one. But even if I can't, they still can't prove the existence of God. And they've cited a mystery as their only evidence; mysteries, however, are not evidence. Simply because we do not know why the Earth is her does not mean that we're free to force our assumptions upon people - if anything on the subject must be taught in schools, why not teach an entire course on the various theories of how Earth and life came to be? At least that would provide a slightly less biased education, though I don't see why knowledge in such a useless area is even necessary.

As well, while there may be no clause stating separation of Church and State, I'd feel too much like I was in support of Pat Robertson, who happens to be my least favorite person in existence, if I allowed the two to be tied together without fighting it.

Should the Theory of Creation be taught in schools?

Always an interesting topic. No good answers, but sometimes good debates.

In my opinion, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution should get the same treatment. Both or neither. Science shouldn't play favorites.

Creation Theory only states that some Power created the Universe by design. Not necessarily God.


Most creation theory follows the 7 days principle, and strictly adheres to biblical precedent. It has in fact been theorized by creationists that stars are not, in fact, billions of lightyears away, but are instead just small specks of light at most a few thousand lightyears away. There is very little evidence or proof for creationism, and it is only taught because it coincides with some people's religious beliefs.

By the way, dig out a copy of the US Constitution. No Separation clause. Never was, probably never will be.


It only states that Congress shall pass no laws abridging the free practice of religion. Whether that is Christian, Hindu, Wiccan, or Athiest. Again, it should be all or nothing. It would be no better if Congress mandated Atheism than any other. The Founding Fathers wanted to keep the government from starting and forcing one, not that one's religious belief should become a criminal offense.
no law respecting an establishment of religion. Jefferson, who helped pen the constitution, is the one who came up with the phrase "Seperation of church and state." A policy stating that creationism should be taught in schools would directly violate this, as a creationism class is an establishment of religion.


Well I'm a VERY strong Christian and I think that God and all of it should be teached in school. I mean (in my religion) God create EVRYTHING. And that he is alive. So everything doesn't have to have a scientic reason. I mean do you think that the desiples in the Bible just made up stuff? So if they are telling the truth then God made the world. And so peole should know the truth! And if I have offended some people I'm sorry but that's what I think.
IN YOUR RELIGION! 30% (or more) of Americans do not share your religion.
Also, do you think that mohammed, who wrote the Qoran, just made it up? Do you think that the vedas was just made up? Was "A critique of pure reason" just made up?

Are the hundred plus years of science backing the theory of evolution just made up? I think not.

By the way, how would you feel if your school taught your children that the world was made from the bodies of the titans, slain by Zeus?

I doubt you would like it.?

1 You are a christian, but what about those who don't share your faith? What if you lived in a muslim country? Would you accept the school board teaching your kids Islam?

2 Do I think the disciples in the bible made stuff up? Probably, but that's moot because none of the disciples actually wrote anything in the bible. The gospels were written long after Jesus' death by people who never knew him. Yep, there's plenty of made up stuff in the bible.

3 You claim that creationism is truth, but the evidence available says it's a lie. I think I'll trust the evidence, not your story. I said I DIDN'T want to offend anyone. I just said that is what I believe in. I mean there are other religions to but that what I believe in. Oh and to the Muslim question well I would just homeschool my kids. I planning to do that anyway.

I am a wheel of time fan, even fanatic perhaps. Right, so creationism, I tend to believe in evolution and the big bang theory because of the science behind them.

I said I DIDN'T want to offend anyone. I just said that is what I believe in. I mean there are other religions to but that what I believe in. Oh and to the Muslim question well I would just homeschool my kids. I planning to do that anyway.
Are you planning to teach spelling and grammar? :eek:

Just a joke, no offense intended. :)

Most creation theory follows the 7 days principle, and strictly adheres to biblical precedent. It has in fact been theorized by creationists that stars are not, in fact, billions of lightyears away, but are instead just small specks of light at most a few thousand lightyears away. There is very little evidence or proof for creationism, and it is only taught because it coincides with some people's religious beliefs.

no law respecting an establishment of religion. Jefferson, who helped pen the constitution, is the one who came up with the phrase "Seperation of church and state." A policy stating that creationism should be taught in schools would directly violate this, as a creationism class is an establishment of religion.


IN YOUR RELIGION! 30% (or more) of Americans do not share your religion.
Also, do you think that mohammed, who wrote the Qoran, just made it up? Do you think that the vedas was just made up? Was "A critique of pure reason" just made up?

Are the hundred plus years of science backing the theory of evolution just made up? I think not.

By the way, how would you feel if your school taught your children that the world was made from the bodies of the titans, slain by Zeus?

I doubt you would like it.? No I wouldn't like tht but I have read it. I just don't believe it that's all I'm saying. I just don't believe in that evolution stuff. And again as I say I'm NOT trying to offend anyone.

I'm at risk of offending devout Christians, but I must ask: What about attending religious schools if you are very passionate about Creatism and can't bear to learn about evolution? It's just an idea and I understand if people don't want to banish themselves to a new school over one disagreement. I personally don't have an issue with Creatism. I think it's a fascinating story, thus far. I haven't made up my mind as to whether I think it's entirely true or false. The Bible, or any religous text, is open to interruptation.
ALSO, I don't see why Creatism can't be taught in public schools as an elective. At my school, Bible as Literature is offered and I'm sure they discuss Creatism in that class (though I do not know if they discuss it as absolute truth).
And I have a thought concerning the origin of the universe. We started as an infinitesimal speck in the middle of nothing. What was that nothing? What caused that nothing to expand into the universe? These are just some thoughts and I'm sure both sides can come up with their own concrete answers of their own. I'm oppen to anything, however.

I'm sorry, but I see a few people saying that the establishment clause does not provide for separation of church and state, unless "separation" is being defined in some odd way here, it most certainly does.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

By establishment, this means no religion should be looked upon as preferred in the eyes of the government, as such to establish a "state religion." It also states that a person has the right to practice any religion (and by inference, none at all).

it seems under these terms, the workings of church and state are quite separated, even if the actual word doesn't appear.

Should the Theory of Creation be taught in schools?

Always an interesting topic. No good answers, but sometimes good debates.

In my opinion, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution should get the same treatment. Both or neither. Science shouldn't play favorites.

What kind of a silly idea is that? Science most certainly should play favorites. Namely, it should favor that which is evidentially supported.

Evolution is. Creationism isn't.

You might as well say science shouldn't play favorites between the Germ Theory of Disease and the "theory" that illness is caused by evil spirits.

Creation Theory only states that some Power created the Universe by design. Not necessarily God.

There is no such thing as "Creation Theory". Saying "Some power created the universe by design" isn't a theory. It's an unsubstantiated declaration.

I would not mind at all if it was taught as an elective. And maybe have evolution as an elective to be fair to all.

In my opinion, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution should get the same treatment. Both or neither. Science shouldn't play favorites.

That's fine, as long as you think Flat-Earthers should get the same treatment by science, despite having no evidence, as those who believe the Earth is round. Geocentric folks should also get equal time.

What you fail to understand is that science has a method. A scientific theory is not the same a layman's theory. It is not just an idea. It is a hypothesis that has already withstood tests over a long period of time without being disproven. If there is no way to test it, it is not a scientific theory. If you really think we should teach any old idea anyone comes up with as science, you go ahead and push that. And when your kids come home telling you about their teacher's theory of invisible purple unicorns, you can't complain.

Creation Theory only states that some Power created the Universe by design. Not necessarily God.

Incorrect. Creationism is the specific belief that the Old Testament creation account (whichever the believer picks) is absolutely literal.

"Intelligent Design" is a new theory stating that creatures were made by an intelligent creator. Of course, it also does not count as a scientific theory.

It only states that Congress shall pass no laws abridging the free practice of religion. Whether that is Christian, Hindu, Wiccan, or Athiest. Again, it should be all or nothing.

It is all or nothing. No religious beliefs can be taught in public schools under any other banner than a comparative religion class.

It would be no better if Congress mandated Athesm than any other.

You are correct, which is why it won't happen.

The Founding Fathers wanted to keep the government from starting and forcing one, not that one's religious belief should become a criminal offense.

Believing in Creationism is in no way criminal. However, mandating that it should be taught in a science class, when it is in no way science, is.

I'm at risk of offending devout Christians, but I must ask: What about attending religious schools if you are very passionate about Creatism and can't bear to learn about evolution? It's just an idea and I understand if people don't want to banish themselves to a new school over one disagreement. I personally don't have an issue with Creatism. I think it's a fascinating story, thus far. I haven't made up my mind as to whether I think it's entirely true or false. The Bible, or any religous text, is open to interruptation.
ALSO, I don't see why Creatism can't be taught in public schools as an elective. At my school, Bible as Literature is offered and I'm sure they discuss Creatism in that class (though I do not know if they discuss it as absolute truth).
And I have a thought concerning the origin of the universe. We started as an infinitesimal speck in the middle of nothing. What was that nothing? What caused that nothing to expand into the universe? These are just some thoughts and I'm sure both sides can come up with their own concrete answers of their own. I'm oppen to anything, however. Yes I see I don't know why some Public schools don't have a Christian thing like a special class for us. But also some people don't have a choice. I mean I have to go to a Public school for 4 years then now a charter school. Religious schools are expensive some times so they have to go to a school that doesn't want to speak it in the classrooms. But also people could be homeschooled like I'm going to be.

Well I'm a VERY strong Christian and I think that God and all of it should be teached in school. I mean (in my religion) God create EVRYTHING. And that he is alive. So everything doesn't have to have a scientic reason. I mean do you think that the desiples in the Bible just made up stuff? So if they are telling the truth then God made the world. And so peole should know the truth! And if I have offended some people I'm sorry but that's what I think.

If you think this, then push for religion classes in schools. Do not attempt to interject your own personal religious beliefs into a science classroom.

Also a Christian :D don't want to offend anyone either! Have to be so careful these days... don't see why there should problem with creationism being taught as a belief, although I consider it a fact, forcing it on someone else is wrong. But then shouldn't evolution etc. be taught as a theory? And who's to say that both the scientific theories and the creationist views are not compatible? Just some thoughts...

Evolution is taught as a theory, as is all of science. First chapter of any introductory science textbook. There is no scientific discussion that is not theory. Of course, the scientific meaning of theory is very different from the lay-definition.

If you think this, then push for religion classes in schools. Do not attempt to interject your own personal religious beliefs into a science classroom. But then what am I going to say? I mean Cathlic, Morman, and Christian are the major religions in my school. So then all of them would want a special classroom. Oh and I work in one class room not 7.

Well I'm a VERY strong Christian and I think that God and all of it should be teached in school. I mean (in my religion) God create EVRYTHING. And that he is alive. So everything doesn't have to have a scientic reason. I mean do you think that the desiples in the Bible just made up stuff? So if they are telling the truth then God made the world. And so peole should know the truth! And if I have offended some people I'm sorry but that's what I think.

How do you know the Disciples didn't make everything up? Now, I've said this in other forums as well but there are only two historic books (besides the Bible) that mention christ. One has been found to be fraudulent and the other is under speculation. Wouldn't someone who had such a phenominal impact on the Earth be mention more throughout history?

Secondly, I can't even count the number of contridcitions found in the Bible. For instance if having sex is considered Original Sin (Is that supposed to be capitalized?) then how come:

Excerpt from Gospel according to Matthew
Abraham begot Isaac. And Isaac begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Judas and his brethren. And Judas begot Phares and Zara of Thamar. And Phares begot Esron. And Esron begot Aram. And Aram begot Aminadab. And Aminadab begot Naasson. And Naasson begot Salmon. And Salmon begot Booz of Rahab. And Booz begot Obed of Ruth. And Obed begot Jesse. And Jesse begot David the king. And David the king begot Solomon, of her that had been the wife of Urias. And Solomon begot Roboam. And Roboam begot Abia. And Abia begot Asa. And Asa begot Josaphat. And Josaphat begot Joram. And Joram begot Ozias. And Ozias begot Joatham. And Joatham begot Achaz. And Achaz begot Ezechias. And Ezechias begot Manasses. And Manesses begot Amon. And Amon begot Josias. And Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon. And after the transmigration of Babylon, Jechonias begot Salathiel. And Salathiel begot Zorobabel. And Zorobabel begot Abiud. And Abiud begot Eliacim. And Eliacim begot Azor. And Azor begot Sadoc. And Sadoc begot Achim. And Achim begot Eliud. And Eliud begot Eleazar. And Eleazar begot Mathan. And Mathan begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Thats a lot of sinning going on there. Don't people still "beget" the same way they did 2000 years ago? Is that considered sinning as well?

Thirdly, doesn't it say in the Bible that the world was created in around 4400 B.C. How do you explain the fact that we find fossils that are billions of years old?

Don't mean to offend. I'm just curious.

No I wouldn't like tht but I have read it. I just don't believe it that's all I'm saying. I just don't believe in that evolution stuff. And again as I say I'm NOT trying to offend anyone.

Do you have to believe something to learn about it?

I don't believe in Greek mythology, but I learned about it. Learning about it didn't force me to give up Christianity and go out and bow down to Zeus. I don't believe that Romeo and Juliet existed, but I had to learn the play. It didn't force me to give up Christianity and go marry someone and kill myself.

Here is my take to make everyone happy. Make a class solely on religion. Put all the stuff about reationism in that class. That way it is taught so they can no longer complain about it.

But then what am I going to say? I mean Cathlic, Morman, and Christian are the major religions in my school. So then all of them would want a special classroom. Oh and I work in one class room not 7.

Then you are going to have to teach all of those beliefs, as a public school cannot establish one above the other. Of course, the basic beliefs of all three of those are the same. In fact, Catholic and Mormon are both Christian anyways, so there would be no problem.

Edit: Would you want a math class to teach your children that 4*7=999?

Would you like it if a literature class taught that Romeo and Juliet was written by Mark Twain?

If not, why do you want something that is not scientific to be taught in a science class?

How do you know the Disciples didn't make everything up? Now, I've said this in other forums as well but there are only two historic books (besides the Bible) that mention christ. One has been found to be fraudulent and the other is under speculation. Wouldn't someone who had such a phenominal impact on the Earth be mention more throughout history?

Secondly, I can't even count the number of contridcitions found in the Bible. For instance if having sex is considered Original Sin (Is that supposed to be capitalized?) then how come:

Excerpt from Gospel according to Matthew
Abraham begot Isaac. And Isaac begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Judas and his brethren. And Judas begot Phares and Zara of Thamar. And Phares begot Esron. And Esron begot Aram. And Aram begot Aminadab. And Aminadab begot Naasson. And Naasson begot Salmon. And Salmon begot Booz of Rahab. And Booz begot Obed of Ruth. And Obed begot Jesse. And Jesse begot David the king. And David the king begot Solomon, of her that had been the wife of Urias. And Solomon begot Roboam. And Roboam begot Abia. And Abia begot Asa. And Asa begot Josaphat. And Josaphat begot Joram. And Joram begot Ozias. And Ozias begot Joatham. And Joatham begot Achaz. And Achaz begot Ezechias. And Ezechias begot Manasses. And Manesses begot Amon. And Amon begot Josias. And Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon. And after the transmigration of Babylon, Jechonias begot Salathiel. And Salathiel begot Zorobabel. And Zorobabel begot Abiud. And Abiud begot Eliacim. And Eliacim begot Azor. And Azor begot Sadoc. And Sadoc begot Achim. And Achim begot Eliud. And Eliud begot Eleazar. And Eleazar begot Mathan. And Mathan begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Thats a lot of sinning going on there. Don't people still "beget" the same way they did 2000 years ago? Is that considered sinning as well?

Thirdly, doesn't it say in the Bible that the world was created in around 4400 B.C. How do you explain the fact that we find fossils that are billions of years old?

Don't mean to offend. I'm just curious. if you have sex BEFORE marrige it's a sin (in MY religion). And the Bible DOESN'T say that the Earth was made in 4400 B.C. No one really knows how old the Earth is. THe Earth probaly was made with age like adam and eve. THey were adults not kids. In MY oppinion I don't believe that there are fossils that are billions of years old. I don't mean to offend anyone but that's my beliefs.

actually it was a Bishop Usher who came up with the 4400 BC figure (he nailed it down to the day of the week, date of the month and even the hour as it happens... I just don't remember the exact details). He came up with the figure by counting all of the ages of everyone in the Bible going back to Adam and the first line of Genesis.

As a Christian myself, I believe that Evolution is the best and most likely theory to explain biology. I also believe that the Big Bang created the universe as it seems to be the best theory at the moment and since we don't know what caused the Big Bang, God is a pretty good explanation to me.

But My belief's have no business being taught in school, nor do Bishop Ushers or the that of an Iman, Rabbi or anyone else regardless of their faith.

At least in the US, and at least in Government run and supported schools.

The Consitution is very specific on that.

Because Creationism rests on the foundation of faith, it cannot be considered simply a rival scientific theory but must be considered a religious teaching.

Therefore it should not be taught in Public Schools.

What's going on in Kansas right now makes me more embarassed to be an American than anything that people have dredged up to throw at us in their anti-U.S. threads.

This is the 21st century. We have advanced science as a system of rational observation in order to learn the what & how of existence. Rational meaning that we think about it. We search for evidence to support our ideas.

Religion deals with the why of things through belief rather than reason. Religion is not equipped to deal with what and how.

The idea of Creationism taught as scientific theory in schools is an oxymoron. Belief in something does not prove it exists. Creationism is also distinctly Judeo-Christian in origin, incompatible with the creation myths of other religions, and therefore cannot be taught in public schools as that would qualify it as state-sanctioned religion.

There is no rational proof that Creationism is correct. The Hindu idea of the world as a flat disk resting on the back of four elephants that stand on the back of a great turtle is equally valid, so is the Norse idea that their gods created the world from the body of another dead god. This is all a matter of belief.

As for Intelligent Design, I have to admit I find the idea compelling. It backs the hard science of what and how with the idea that yes, there is a very reasonable why behind it all. That thought is comforting, that we're not just a cosmic mistake. It provides meaning, which is something that science simply cannot do. However, without hard evidence, it doesn't qualify.

Do you have to believe something to learn about it?

I don't believe in Greek mythology, but I learned about it. Learning about it didn't force me to give up Christianity and go out and bow down to Zeus. I don't believe that Romeo and Juliet existed, but I had to learn the play. It didn't force me to give up Christianity and go marry someone and kill myself.

You nailed it Dem. If one's faith in a religion is strong then there would be no problem. If your faith is weak enough that you would be swayed by studying another, then you are following the wrong one.

Whenever I see this kind of thing anymore I just think of these two things...

(warning: these are long, but good.)

MR. DARROW--There were no others recorded, but Cain got a wife. That is what the Bible says. Where she came from, you don't know. All right. Does the statement, "The morning and the evening were the first day" and "The morning and the evening were the second day" mean anything to you?

MR. BRYAN--I do not think it means necessarily a twentyfour- hour day.

MR. DARROW--You do not?

MR. BRYAN--No.

MR. DARROW--What do you consider it to be?

MR. BRYAN--I have not attempted to explain it. If you will take the second chapter--let me have the book. [Examining Bible] The fourth verse of the second chapter (Genesis) says: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." The word "day" there in the very next chapter is used to describe a period. I do not see that there is necessity for construing the words, "the evening and the

morning" as meaning necessarily a twenty-four-hour day: "in the day when the Lord made the Heaven and the earth."

MR. DARROW--Then when the Bible said, for instance, "And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day,"--that does not necessarily mean twenty-four hours?

MR. BRYAN--I do not think it necessarily does.

MR. DARROW--Do you think it does or does not?

MR. BRYAN--I know a great many think so.

MR. DARROW--What do you think?

MR. BRYAN--I do not think it does.

MR. DARROW--You think these were not literal days?

MR. BRYAN--I do not think they were twenty-four-hour days.

MR. DARROW--What do you think about it?

MR. BRYAN--That is my opinion--I do not know that my opinion is better on that subject than those who think it does.

MR. DARROW--Do you not think that?

MR. BRYAN--NO. But I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the earth in six days as in six years or in six million years or in six hundred million years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other.

MR. DARROW--Do you think those were literal days?

MR. BRYAN--My impression is they were periods, but I would not attempt to argue as against anybody who wanted to believe in literal days.

MR. DARROW--Have you any idea of the length of the periods?

MR. BRYAN--NO, I don't.

MR. DARROW--Do you think the sun was made on the fourth day?

MR. BRYAN--Yes.

MR. DARROW--And they had evening and morning without the sun?

MR. BRYAN--I am simply saying it is a period.

MR. DARROW--They had evening and morning for four periods without the sun, do you think?

MR. BRYAN--I believe in creation, as there told, and if I am not able to explain it, I will accept it.

MR. DARROW--Then YOU can explain it to suit yourself. And they had the evening and the morning before that time for three days or three periods. All right, that settles it. Now, if you call those periods, they may have been a very long time?

MR. BRYAN--They might have been.

MR. DARROW--The creation might have been going on for a very long time?

MR. BRYAN--It might have continued for millions of years.


And...


There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.

In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of socalled evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it.

Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.

Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either -- so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.


Matt Collins
Editor; Scientific American

Creationism implies a bond with x or y faith, as it canot tell ALL creationisms, this violates the church-state separation.
Atheism, however, implies no faith, it is the neutral ground, the absence of faith. This, then, is the posture the goverment should take.

That article made me smile.

I think it's very important to teach school children about something called the Enlightenment.

Creationism implies a bond with x or y faith, as it canot tell ALL creationisms, this violates the church-state separation.
Atheism, however, implies no faith, it is the neutral ground, the absence of faith. This, then, is the posture the goverment should take.

Incorrect. The government, like science, should take no stance at all. The government should be neither theist nor atheist.

if you have sex BEFORE marrige it's a sin (in MY religion). And the Bible DOESN'T say that the Earth was made in 4400 B.C. No one really knows how old the Earth is. THe Earth probaly was made with age like adam and eve. THey were adults not kids. In MY oppinion I don't believe that there are fossils that are billions of years old. I don't mean to offend anyone but that's my beliefs.

Sorry about mixing up the date and such.


Yes, we do know how old the earth is. Scientists used radiometric dating which is based on the known rate of decay. Using this they found that the Earth is approximently 4.5 billion years old.

Incorrect. The government, like science, should take no stance at all. The government should be neither theist nor atheist.
Atheism is not a stance like Theism is. It is not a belief. The atheistic stance would not discredit religion, it would merely *not* talk about it.

The government should take an atheism stance.

Atheism is not a stance like Theism is. It is not a belief. The atheistic stance would not discredit religion, it would merely *not* talk about it.

The government should take an atheism stance.

Incorrect. An atheistic stance would automatically place the idea that there is no God - ie. the lack of belief in a deity - above that of the theistic stance.

Not talking about it is exactly what I am proposing, and that would mean choosing neither side of the axiom.

Incorrect. An atheistic stance would automatically place the idea that there is no God - ie. the lack of belief in a deity - above that of the theistic stance.

Not talking about it is exactly what I am proposing, and that would mean choosing neither side of the axiom.
Agnostic?

Incorrect. An atheistic stance would automatically place the idea that there is no God - ie. the lack of belief in a deity - above that of the theistic stance.

Not talking about it is exactly what I am proposing, and that would mean choosing neither side of the axiom.
Shall we call it the "agnostic stance"?

By your definition of atheistic stance, I agree with you. I disagree with your definition, however. But that's a different debate.

Agnostic?

Agnosticism still makes a declarative statement about a deity - that is, that we cannot know.

The government should make no statement whatsoever concerning the existence or non-existence of a deity - much like science.

Thirdly, doesn't it say in the Bible that the world was created in around 4400 B.C. How do you explain the fact that we find fossils that are billions of years old?

Don't mean to offend. I'm just curious.

If I may, I'd like to offer up an opinion. I come from a rather unique perspective when it comes to this topic. Most people have a group of friends that they are always associated with. In my case, that group consists of me an two other girls, my two very good friends. One of those friends is a devout Christian, almost to the point of being born again (although I am unclear on her exact affiliation, I believe she refers to herself as non-denominational). The other girl is an atheist and a devout follower of both Darwinism (I apologize if the spelling is incorrect) and scientific research supporting the creation of the earth however many billion years ago. With two such extreme sets of beliefs, it would stand to reason that I would fall somewhere in the middle. I consider myself a Christian. I was baptized before I was a year old, confirmed at fourteen and affiliate myself with the Episcopal Church.

Now, I realize that is a lot of background information, but it is necessary to understand my point. We three are very close friends and despite our beliefs, so very different, we still manage to be as close as we are. And we do not avoid the topic of religion either, as it is a central part in all of our lives. Recently, my religious friend and I had a discussion about the creation of the Earth. I personally believe that the earth was created however many millions or billions of years ago that scientific research states. I discredit the Adam and Eve story. But I do believe that "God" put life on this planet. Needless to say, my atheist friend agrees, minus the "God" theory. My other friend begs to differ. In her reality, the world is only 6000 years old, created when the Bible begins. Three different opinions. But each one is the reality of the one who believes it. My atheist friend and I see the scientific evidence presented and we believe. My other friend's reality says that God created the world only 6000 years ago. And she doesn't just say it. She has evidence from scientists - books, magazines, newspapers, Internet sites and so on - that support her in her belief. In short, as ridiculous as it seems to those who support scientific theory, some people believe it and can create a convincing case for it. It is a topic discussed almost daily between my two friends and myself.

What I'm trying to say is is that maybe God is too big for one religion. Many atheists (and I am generalizing, to save any toes I may step on) jump up and down to discredit religion, but if three friends can coexist as mine and I do, I don't see why we can't leave well enough alone. Buddhism, Catholic, Protestantism (is that even a word?), Hinduism and so on, each has their own beliefs and in my personal opinion, those beliefs allow for each person to feel comfortable talking to their God. I found my own religion on my own in my own time. So did my other two friends. Diversity should be what allows us to keep peace but instead causes strife because everyone is so convinced that everyone who doesn't follow their scripture is wrong.

Creationism is a choice. It is a belief that some people hold and should be respected, even if it is not agreed with. I agree with what was said before. If creationism is offered in the curriculum, it should be as an elective. But don't isolate those who either believe or are curious about it. Understanding is power, and if we understand opposing sides, we can whether choose to believe them or we can further strengthen our own arguments. Either way, I don't see why any one else's beliefs are of any concern other individuals as long as it is not being forced on anyone.

-Sighs-

I've said my bit and I'll get off my soapbox now. By the way, I adore Robert Jordan and his Wheel of Time series. I got my brother into them and he adores them too. I can't wait for Jordan to release the next one.

She has evidence from scientists - books, magazines, newspapers, Internet sites and so on - that support her in her belief.

Just a clarification. She does not have evidence from scientists, at least not in their capacity as scientists. She may have "evidence" from people who use scientific terms, but that is not the same thing.

And books, magazines, etc. are worth nothing in a scientific debate if they are not peer-reviewed.

In short, as ridiculous as it seems to those who support scientific theory, some people believe it and can create a convincing case for it. It is a topic discussed almost daily between my two friends and myself.

A convincing case can only be made to those who hear big words and think it is science. Those who actually know how science works are well aware that Creationism has no scientific backing.

Creationism is a choice. It is a belief that some people hold and should be respected, even if it is not agreed with. I agree with what was said before. If creationism is offered in the curriculum, it should be as an elective. But don't isolate those who either believe or are curious about it. Understanding is power, and if we understand opposing sides, we can whether choose to believe them or we can further strengthen our own arguments. Either way, I don't see why any one else's beliefs are of any concern other individuals as long as it is not being forced on anyone.

Others' beliefs should not be any concern, but there are those who *are* trying to force them upon others, and that is why this debate comes up.

That article made me smile.

I think it's very important to teach school children about something called the Enlightenment.

I agree entirely, and commend you for bringing that up. Folks, does anybody else know about the Enlightenment? It was a movement in the 18th century that spread the belief that knowledge, reason, and science could improve society. Now, I'm not saying that we should place entirely too much faith in our scientific methods, because they were, after all, conceived by man, and therefore spawned in a cesspool of idiocy. However, it's certainly a step up from allowing theology to make our decisions. Let's examine this for a moment, and see where religious leadership has gotten us.

The Crusades: A bunch of dsigruntled Christians decide to vent their Holy Rage on an enemy of a different religion. This results in massive slaughter and what could, conceivably, be described as a genocide.

The Holocaust: Millions of Jews are persecuted because of their religion. Enough said.

And most relevant of all...

Current regime in the USA: George Bush, skirting dangerously close to being a fundamentalist Christian, "leads" us in an attack on a nation that posed no discernable threat to the United States. As said, George Bush is almost a fundamentalist. Said nation practices Islam. Said nation is also very close to the main Jewish population, as well as other Islamic nations. Can anybody say "Crusades, the Sequel?"

Religion in government brings nothing but death - history shows it. Placing Creationism in school systems, let alone allowing it to corrupt science, one of the few chances for human society to progress , is absolutely absurd.

The Book of Genesis was originally written by priests to explain to uneducated people how the world came into existance. No explanation existed for how everything was created but educated people knew well that there was something more than "Let there be light". I'm a Christian too, I think Creationists should be made stand in a corner until common sense hits.

I don't mean to offend anyone, just feel strongly about this as a scientist

I'm a music teacher ... what does Creation or Evolution have to do with my class? :p

We actually were having this same discussion in English today. My teacher said the best option would be to let the students vote on what they'd rather learn - evolution or creationism. There was a recent poll amongst biology teachers and it turned out that a huge chunk of them (1/3) supported teaching creationism. Why not let the people who are getting educated decide on what they want to learn? It seems that parents and teachers are looking to rule the curriculum with an iron fist.

The Book of Genesis was originally written by priests to explain to uneducated people how the world came into existance. No explanation existed for how everything was created but educated people knew well that there was something more than "Let there be light". I'm a Christian too, I think Creationists should be made stand in a corner until common sense hits.

I don't mean to offend anyone, just feel strongly about this as a scientist

Close. The first creation story (ie. the 6-day creation) was written by a priestly author - most likely a priest or set of priests.

The second creation story (ie. the Adam and Eve creation, which is, contrary to popular misconception, a separate story) was written by an author called the Yahwist, who was unlikely to be a priest, but compiled and wrote down many of the story-like parts of the Torah.

We actually were having this same discussion in English today. My teacher said the best option would be to let the students vote on what they'd rather learn - evolution or creationism. There was a recent poll amongst biology teachers and it turned out that a huge chunk of them (1/3) supported teaching creationism. Why not let the people who are getting educated decide on what they want to learn? It seems that parents and teachers are looking to rule the curriculum with an iron fist.


Ever occur to you that Biology teachers just wanted a break so they decided to pawn you off on some poor sucker of a Religion teacher who only got into the job because it was easy?

I believe there's something out there, I just believe that this God person is much more a sit back and watch the movie type, throw in the means of creating life, see if it takes hold, see how it adapts to it's environment. There is too much evidence of evolution and a 3.5 billion year old Earth, and none to support Creationism. I think Creationism just makes a nice story...

We actually were having this same discussion in English today. My teacher said the best option would be to let the students vote on what they'd rather learn - evolution or creationism. There was a recent poll amongst biology teachers and it turned out that a huge chunk of them (1/3) supported teaching creationism. Why not let the people who are getting educated decide on what they want to learn? It seems that parents and teachers are looking to rule the curriculum with an iron fist.

That is one of the most idiotic things I have every heard. Yes, and I suppose kids should get to vote on whether to learn actual mathematics or some made up version? Yes, that would be wonderful.

Meanwhile, you need to provide that poll because I highly doubt its veracity. Of course, many biology teachers have never actually studied biology, so I suppose it might be possible.

Close. The first creation story (ie. the 6-day creation) was written by a priestly author - most likely a priest or set of priests.

The second creation story (ie. the Adam and Eve creation, which is, contrary to popular misconception, a separate story) was written by an author called the Yahwist, who was unlikely to be a priest, but compiled and wrote down many of the story-like parts of the Torah.

Apologies. I really should have said the story of Creation, rather than including the whole book of Genesis. Thanks for the tidbit of info!

Ever occur to you that Biology teachers just wanted a break so they decided to pawn you off on some poor sucker of a Religion teacher who only got into the job because it was easy?

I believe there's something out there, I just believe that this God person is much more a sit back and watch the movie type, throw in the means of creating life, see if it takes hold, see how it adapts to it's environment. There is too much evidence of evolution and a 3.5 billion year old Earth, and none to support Creationism. I think Creationism just makes a nice story...

Did you happen to watch 'The Terminal'? :p

That movie was filmed in an abandoned airport half an hour away from my house.

Did you happen to watch 'The Terminal'? :p

That movie was filmed in an abandoned airport half an hour away from my house.

Cool! And I did, but where the name came from is kinda funny. When I was creating my nation, the name was stuck in my head, but I couldn't figure out from where. It just sounded like a good name for a nation. It was only pointed out to me a few days later by my husband...

You're not the first to point it out...

First, Creationism has no scientific basis at all. Yes, I know that I cant disprove it because I cant prove that God doesnt exist. But it should not be taught in school.
Both Canada and the US laws are quite vague in the areas around religion since it has always and will continue to be a hot and contiversial, most governments choose to stay out of it out of a sense of self-preservation.

When it comes right down to the bare facts, all unproven theories aside, then both Creation and Darwinism are nothing more than Faiths. You must take the majority of the theory on faith as neither can be proven nor fully disproven. If you want to call yourself an atheist and believe in Darwinism then you are deluding yourself. You are religious whether you choose to recognise it or not!

I really think that a few things should probably be clarified for this debate to take place on even ground:

First, to all those who say there is no clause in the Constituition using the words "seperation of church and state", you are correct. They use different words to say the exact same thing. The words just sound better and look better written in faded flowing text.

Second, to all those who say evolution is just a theory: the scientific defintion of a theory is as follows: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory". What that all means is that it is the closest science has to a fact.

Third, Catholics, Christians, and Mormons are not the same thing. Catholics recognize the Pope. We are the original Christian religion. Mormons and other Christians are offshoots of Catholocism and many beliefs of the Catholic Church are not those of many other denominations, for example, we think evolution is the right idea.

Fourth, Christians are not the only religious group that has ever gone off on rampages against other religions, and representing it like that does a vast misservice to the thousands of Christians who are sincerely apologetic for the offenses caused by the Church of old.

Fifth, George Bush is not a Church official. While I disagree with everything he believes in and personally dislike the man, he can not actually directly affect Church processes.

That's all I have to say except that I believe in evolution, but I also believe in a God that set it all off somewhere along the line. I go to a religious (Catholic) school, and that is the doctrine we are taught and I agree with it.

Both Canada and the US laws are quite vague in the areas around religion since it has always and will continue to be a hot and contiversial, most governments choose to stay out of it out of a sense of self-preservation.

When it comes right down to the bare facts, all unproven theories aside, then both Creation and Darwinism are nothing more than Faiths. You must take the majority of the theory on faith as neither can be proven nor fully disproven. If you want to call yourself an atheist and believe in Darwinism then you are deluding yourself. You are religious whether you choose to recognise it or not!

I don't agree with you here. Science is something that's open to debate until proved correct and becomes accepted, or proved wrong and discarded. Religion is something that is expected to be accepted without proof.

As a devout catholic, and a believer in 7 day creation I can still say that creationism should not be taught, it is to vague and differentiated among the different religions and even the denominations for that matter. If I wanted my kids to get a religious education (Which I do if I ever have kids) then I will send them to parochial schools, and some say that not all christians can afford christian schools; however, I have never seen a christian school (and I have seen many) that do not offer financial aid. That is just my opinion as a christian, an open minded one but still a disbeliever in relativism. ;)

Levi Delaroche, Minstre de la Patrie en Franco-Philia

As a devout catholic, and a believer in 7 day creation I can still say that creationism should not be taught, it is to vague and differentiated among the different religions and even the denominations for that matter. If I wanted my kids to get a religious education (Which I do if I ever have kids) then I will send them to parochial schools, and some say that not all christians can afford christian schools; however, I have never seen a christian school (and I have seen many) that do not offer financial aid. That is just my opinion as a christian, an open minded one but still a disbeliever in relativism. ;)

Levi Delaroche, Minstre de la Patrie en Franco-Philia


What's relativism?

""Third, Catholics, Christians, and Mormons are not the same thing. Catholics recognize the Pope. We are the original Christian religion. Mormons and other Christians are offshoots of Catholocism and many beliefs of the Catholic Church are not those of many other denominations, for example, we think evolution is the right idea."""

-Previously stated

Oh good lord, literally, as a devout catholic this is sad!!!! "We believe evolution is the right idea" That's your and your school's opinion not the opinion of the mother church, the mother church HAS NOT formulated dogma on evolution, so what your school teaches you is ITS OWN beliefs not that of home sweet rome, and another thing, to correct your history Mormonism is NOT protestant, it WASNT created in the reformation at all and isnt an offshoot of Catholicism, it is a seperate religion founded in America way way WAY after the original 95 theses and anglican heresy. So no we DONT think evolution is the right idea, that's your belief and hey if that floats your boat goes for it, but dont speak for 1.8 billion people please :) God Bless

Relativism is the belief that there are no absolute truths, no one can be totally right, so EVERYONE is right. I believe there are absolute truths. That is why said I didnt agree with relativism even though it is popular among some christian groups.

I think everyone should be homeschooled! I mean seriously, so many of the problems come from the fact that goverment is in charge, and brings all the political complications that come with it. Homeschooling gives you choice in the curriculums you use, and as long as you can prove the homeschooled students are up to par with where they should be, you're alright.
I was homeschooled, was taught from a Christian perspective, but also learned about evolution. Yeah, I know, homeschooling isn't for everyone, but it solves a lot of political problems.

I don't really see why Fundies want religion taught in school so much. They spend all the time they're not in school reading the bible and going to church anyway. How much more exposure do they need?

Relativism is the belief that there are no absolute truths, no one can be totally right, so EVERYONE is right. I believe there are absolute truths. That is why said I didnt agree with relativism even though it is popular among some christian groups.

OK, thank you.

In that case, I'd have to say that I agree and disagree with that statement. I agree that there is an absolute truth, but I also believe that we do not know and will probably never will know the whole story. Not while we live anyway

ehh

do you want NO SUMMER?


cause if we do the creation story, we also need to do all other stories. And yes, that does include the one about how a star cried, and another where we came out of a buffolos nostril, and yet more about this or that and trust me, no one wants to do that

I think everyone should be homeschooled! I mean seriously, so many of the problems come from the fact that goverment is in charge, and brings all the political complications that come with it. Homeschooling gives you choice in the curriculums you use, and as long as you can prove the homeschooled students are up to par with where they should be, you're alright.


Psst. To make sure students are "up to par with where they should be", you have to enact a standard curriculum.

In MY oppinion I don't believe that there are fossils that are billions of years old.

Despite the fact that thousands of them have been dug up all over the world? :confused:

Despite the fact that thousands of them have been dug up all over the world? :confused:

A lot of people do not believe that the carbon dating used to date those fossils is acurate...that's what amber12 believes, Im guessing.

A lot of people do not believe that the carbon dating used to date those fossils is acurate...that's what amber12 believes, Im guessing.

I wouldn't bet against it, as most people who believe in creationsm don't know enough about the subject to know that carbon dating isn't used to date fossils.

And the radiometric dating methods that ARE used to date fossils have been cross checked and verified a dozen different ways.

Oh good lord, literally, as a devout catholic this is sad!!!! "We believe evolution is the right idea" That's your and your school's opinion not the opinion of the mother church, the mother church HAS NOT formulated dogma on evolution, so what your school teaches you is ITS OWN beliefs not that of home sweet rome, and another thing, to correct your history Mormonism is NOT protestant, it WASNT created in the reformation at all and isnt an offshoot of Catholicism, it is a seperate religion founded in America way way WAY after the original 95 theses and anglican heresy. So no we DONT think evolution is the right idea, that's your belief and hey if that floats your boat goes for it, but dont speak for 1.8 billion people please :) God Bless[/QUOTE]

Ya know what, you're right. I'm sorry. John Paul II, a man largely regarded as one of the best popes we've had, seemed to think evolution was correct. I made a mistake. I just sort of assumed that as the pope, leader of our religion, most of what he said was the position the Catholic Church takes on matters. It wasn't dogma, it was a papal statement.

But then, I never said it was dogma. That's a misrepresentation you introduced to the debate. The same way you misrepresented what I said about Mormons.

I never said Mormonism was created in the Reformation. I never talked about the Reformation at all. I also never mentioned the 95 Theses, nor the Anglican Heresy. You, however, stated that Mormonism is not an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The official title of the Mormon Church is the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".

As you yourself said, you are a "devout Catholic". Could you please explain to me then, as an apparently uneducated Catholic, how the Mormon Church was founded in America, by a white man, yet before the Catholic Church? Because I sort of thought that white people hadn't even discovered America before the Catholic Church existed. I also wasn't aware that other churches for the worship of Jesus Christ existed before the Roman Catholic Church, because if it isn't an offshoot of Catholicism, it must be devolved from some other form of Christ worship.

Instead of trying to be condescending and twisting someone else’s words to make a false point, try doing some research and getting both your facts and any quotes you make truthful.

A lot of people do not believe that the carbon dating used to date those fossils is acurate...that's what amber12 believes, Im guessing.

And the geological column too, I imagine.

There have been debates as to whether or not Creationism should be allowed to be taught in schools. Basically, Creationism states that a God created everything. I am an atheist and have many problems with this.

First, Creationism has no scientific basis at all. Yes, I know that I cant disprove it because I cant prove that God doesnt exist. But it should not be taught in school.

Second, If the government supports this action of teaching Creationism, it means that they would be breaking the principle of Separation of church and state. Also by supporting this, it means that the government is supporting the principle that there is a god and that is offensive, biased and unfair.

Please, I do not mean to offend anyone. I merely want to hear others opinion in this. So if I have offended you or your religion, I sincerely apologize.

I think it has every right to be taught in school just NOT in a science class it BELONGS in something like a theology course

I also wasn't aware that other churches for the worship of Jesus Christ existed before the Roman Catholic Church, because if it isn't an offshoot of Catholicism, it must be devolved from some other form of Christ worship.

While there has never been a single unified church, and there were other forms of Christ worship long before any incarnation of the Catholic Church as we now know it, Mormonism most certainly is an offshoot of other Protestant religions, which were offshoots of the Catholic religion.

Of course, Mormonism is an offshoot of Christianity much like Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism. Mormons believe that they have new revelations directly from God.

Um, there actually was one unified Church, long long ago, before the Coptics and the Greeks broke away from it.

And I knew that about the Mormons, but the person who misquoted me claimed that they were not offshoots of the Protestant faiths, which were in turn offshoots of the Catholic faith.

Ill reply to each of your remarks. One: about the mormon thing, you said that it was an offshoot of catholicism...you did say that...to make that true it would had to have split off from our religion, it didn't, It was founded by someone who was NOT catholic, far after our religion, I never said it was older. I never said that it was, so who is twisting whom? About the dogma thing...by saying that "that is what WE believe" you are saying that ALL catholics believe that, the only things (sadly, and especially lately) that ALL catholics believe, or HAVE to believe to be in communion with Mother Church, are DOGMAS. Just because a pope likes or speaks for a certain thoery does not mandate it for us, pope leo stated there was no trinity, do we believe that? Of course not! I loved Pope John Paul II, but just because he supported evolution DOES NOT mean that we (meaning all catholics) believe it as you kidna hinted at, wether you ment that or not im not sure, Im sorry if it was a mistype. Another thing, how rude to call me educated, IM actually getting a degree in Theology, and canon law, and am pursuing the priesthood, so I am quite educated in the faith, an if you dont think that, then I would glady discuss church doctrine and history with you and we will match up, because i am very happy that I have studied my faith this far and for you to call me uneducated is silly, and not for you to judge.

Um, there actually was one unified Church, long long ago, before the Coptics and the Greeks broke away from it.

Although that may be what many people like to think, it is historically untrue. There were various sects and beliefs from the start. Most of them banded together under one church (which, itself, never fully agreed on most doctrine), but there were always other ideas and beliefs.

Ill reply to each of your remarks. One: about the mormon thing, you said that it was an offshoot of catholicism...you did say that...to make that true it would had to have split off from our religion, it didn't, It was founded by someone who was NOT catholic, far after our religion, I never said it was older.

An offshoot of an offshoot can still trace its roots back to the original stem.

About the dogma thing...by saying that "that is what WE believe" you are saying that ALL catholics believe that, the only things (sadly, and especially lately) that ALL catholics believe, or HAVE to believe to be in communion with Mother Church, are DOGMAS. Just because a pope likes or speaks for a certain thoery does not mandate it for us,

If you had read the reply, you would see that he/she already conceded this point, having previously thought that the comment by John Paul II had been made into dogma.

They seemed to infer however that because it was endorsed by the Pope we all believed it, that is what I was referring to, I already knew they had said their basis of belief on the pope. As for the mormonism thing, it WASNT an offshoot from Protestant, Joseph SMith really wasnt a denominational christian, he was actually into occultic practices like dowsing and fortune telling before his historic revelations, so its not really tied to protestantism, that was my point. God Bless

Thanks Dempub. I think I need to look harder at the early Church history. I haven't studied it enough to make definitive statements about it.

To FP: I never called you uneducated. I was refering to myself as uneducated because you implyed in your 1st message through your use of condescension that I was uneducated and you were educated.

I was using a device known as "sarcasm", which you, being so highly educated, probably should have caught. In case you can't tell, this is that "sarcasm" thing again.

Also, please stop misrepresenting what I say. This is three times now, and its getting tiring. Also also, for you to effectively insult me ("while that may be your little opinion") (by the way, that's that condescension thing, it's another one of those speech devices) then tell me not to judge is hypocritical. Think hard before you say these things.

There are two prevailing world views on the origin of the species (although theistic evolution is gaining ground and could soon be considered a third). It would be irresponsible for an institute that aims to educate students to purposefully omit one of the prevailing world views from their curriculum. Why would you promote that schools intentionally withhold information from students? The very goal of schools is to fill students with knowledge and this includes knowledge of the various points of view on different issues.

If you inferred that I was calling you uneducated you were misinterpreting me, and I apologize deeply, in Christ. You see a little explanation is in need here. I grew up and go to college in a very anti catholic area, and I was always having to play apologist, so open ended statements just start me up which I shouldnt do. We are brothers and sisters in Christ and I apologize deeply. I just get on a soap box sometimes, especially about my education because I have to fight for it so much being a convert in a fundamentlaist anti-catholic family...and me entering the priesthood....kinda crazy. Sory Pro, but I just feel like this argument is causing me to sin, and I hope it isnt you (rage, disdain, etc.) so sorry again...I just...I dont know...god bless.

Thanks Dempub. I think I need to look harder at the early Church history. I haven't studied it enough to make definitive statements about it.

No problem. I hope you do study Church history at some point - it is incredibly interesting. If you do get interested, I would suggest a series of books titled A History of Christian Thought by Justo L. Gonzalez. There are three books in the series. They get a little dry at times, but are overall a pretty good read.

There are two prevailing world views on the origin of the species (although theistic evolution is gaining ground and could soon be considered a third). It would be irresponsible for an institute that aims to educate students to purposefully omit one of the prevailing world views from their curriculum. Why would you promote that schools intentionally withhold information from students? The very goal of schools is to fill students with knowledge and this includes knowledge of the various points of view on different issues.

Creationism is not a prevailing world view; it is practically non-existant outside the USA and Africa. Theistic Evolution has more proponents.

There are two prevailing world views on the origin of the species (although theistic evolution is gaining ground and could soon be considered a third). It would be irresponsible for an institute that aims to educate students to purposefully omit one of the prevailing world views from their curriculum. Why would you promote that schools intentionally withhold information from students? The very goal of schools is to fill students with knowledge and this includes knowledge of the various points of view on different issues.

There is no information being withheld. One is appropriate in a science class - that being the scientific viewpoint.

One is appropriate if there happens to be a comparative religion or theology class - that being the religious viewpoint.

There are two prevailing world views on the origin of the species (although theistic evolution is gaining ground and could soon be considered a third). It would be irresponsible for an institute that aims to educate students to purposefully omit one of the prevailing world views from their curriculum. Why would you promote that schools intentionally withhold information from students? The very goal of schools is to fill students with knowledge and this includes knowledge of the various points of view on different issues.

If the second view you're talking about is creationism they're free to teach it.

They can teach it in a comparative religions class. Or they can teach it in a class on mythology.

You know... where it belongs. As opposed to in a science class where it does not belong because it doesn't even remotely resemble science.

No problem. I hope you do study Church history at some point - it is incredibly interesting. If you do get interested, I would suggest a series of books titled A History of Christian Thought by Justo L. Gonzalez. There are three books in the series. They get a little dry at times, but are overall a pretty good read.


Hey I have a class coming up and Im pretty sure that those are on the reading list.

There are two prevailing world views on the origin of the species (although theistic evolution is gaining ground and could soon be considered a third). It would be irresponsible for an institute that aims to educate students to purposefully omit one of the prevailing world views from their curriculum. Why would you promote that schools intentionally withhold information from students? The very goal of schools is to fill students with knowledge and this includes knowledge of the various points of view on different issues.
No I think there should deffinatly be information like that taught ... but one belongs in a science class the other does not

As a Geologist, and a Catholic turned Agnostic, this is a big issue to me. Creationism / Intelligent Design scientifically speaking has no merrit in a science class of any sort. It is based off of Theology, and has no scientific merit. I, however, do understand that Evolution does have areas that are still unexplanable. Yet, evolution is the best scientific hypothisis (Good Guess) that has been suggested yet.

Do I beleive that Evolution should be called a Theory? No. Why? If nothing else, because we can not test it. A Theory is a Hypothisis that has been tested over and over again, and still come up with the same result in the end. We can not do this with Evolution, nor Plate Techtonics. Yet I beleive in both as a scientist simply due to the fact that nothing better has come allong to explain what we see.

If Creationism / Intellegent Design is to be taught in schools, then I feel that a seperate class based on World Religion or Religious Understanding should be taught, instead of placing this in a Science Course. This class should cover multiple or just major world religions, and include everything from Creation to Armagedon in each. Now if this is not a viable solution to teaching Creation, and forcing everyone to learn and respect other religions, then don't teach Creation of any sort, in any classroom.

As a Geologist, and a Catholic turned Agnostic, this is a big issue to me. Creationism / Intelligent Design scientifically speaking has no merrit in a science class of any sort. It is based off of Theology, and has no scientific merit. I, however, do understand that Evolution does have areas that are still unexplanable. Yet, evolution is the best scientific hypothisis (Good Guess) that has been suggested yet.

It is not a hypothesis. It is a theory.


Do I beleive that Evolution should be called a Theory? No. Why? If nothing else, because we can not test it.

We can, and we have. Thousands of times.

A Theory is a Hypothisis that has been tested over and over again, and still come up with the same result in the end. We can not do this with Evolution, nor Plate Techtonics.

And you say you're a geologist? :rolleyes:

You want to tell me how you managed to get a degree in geology while remaining this ignorant of science? PARTICULARLY of plate tectonics? Sea floor spreading? Mountain formation? Fault line monitoring? Do these sound familiar? They're things we test all the time, and they always come up with the same answer. Specifically: that the bloody tectonic plates are moving around in specific ways

Both evolution and plate tectonics HAVE been tested over and over again... and we DO always get the same results. Every single time we examine the fossil record it conforms to the predictions of evolutionary theory. Every single time we analyze a new DNA sequence it conforms to the predictions of evolutionary theory. We've bloody WATCHED speciation events occur. Etc...

There have been debates as to whether or not Creationism should be allowed to be taught in schools. Basically, Creationism states that a God created everything. I am an atheist and have many problems with this.

First, Creationism has no scientific basis at all. Yes, I know that I cant disprove it because I cant prove that God doesnt exist. But it should not be taught in school.

Second, If the government supports this action of teaching Creationism, it means that they would be breaking the principle of Separation of church and state. Also by supporting this, it means that the government is supporting the principle that there is a god and that is offensive, biased and unfair.

Please, I do not mean to offend anyone. I merely want to hear others opinion in this. So if I have offended you or your religion, I sincerely apologize.

Creationism should not be taught in science classes... ever.

It is not scientific... it has no scientific evidence... it does not adhere to the scientific method.

Creationism should be taught in Religion classes, if it is taught anywhere. It should also ONLY be taught proportionate to OTHER 'creation' stories.

So - Creationism should be accorded the same amount of time within the course, as the Norse 'creation' story, for example.

Creationism should not be taught in science classes... ever.

It is not scientific... it has no scientific evidence... it does not adhere to the scientific method.

Creationism should be taught in Religion classes, if it is taught anywhere. It should also ONLY be taught proportionate to OTHER 'creation' stories.

So - Creationism should be accorded the same amount of time within the course, as the Norse 'creation' story, for example.
We think so much alike :fluffle: :fluffle:

And you say you're a geologist? :rolleyes:

Yes, I do beleive that I am a geologist, and a better scientist than yourself.

You want to tell me how you managed to get a degree in geology while remaining this ignorant of science?

How is that I am the one that is ignorant of science? When clearly you do not know some of the basic princibles of scientific theory. I also have professors, and degree from an accreditoed unversity to back it up.

PARTICULARLY of plate tectonics? Sea floor spreading? Mountain formation? Fault line monitoring? Do these sound familiar? They're things we test all the time, and they always come up with the same answer. Specifically: that the bloody tectonic plates are moving around in specific ways

Question? Has Plate Tectonics been Proven? No, because in science we can not prove diddly squat, the only thing we can do, is dis-prove. Once again, as I stated in my earlier post, Plate Tectionics is the best we have come up with so far. We can moniter these things, but what proof do we have that, what we understand as plates, are actually what we understand as plates? They could just be something else, and we don't have enough evidence yet to say. What you point out we can test in small, not whole. We can only moniter and test in small, not whole. We have not seen mountans build up from nothing (except volcanoes). We can not move thousands of miles of earth, and then put them back just they were, and run a test again. This is the point I am trying to make. This is why Plate Techtonics is a Hypothis, and not a Theory. We can only test small enviroments, and in limited factors and find out, how it may have worked. We can not test every factor, just due to the scale the experaments that we would have to run.

Yes, we do have an understanding of these environments, but it is still a limited understanding. Case in point... I read and artical on a section of Utah, that was felt had no oil producing capabilities. One well, proved that wrong. If we had full understanding of the earth, then this would not have been a surprise.

Both evolution and plate tectonics HAVE been tested over and over again... and we DO alwys get the same results.

(Read Above)

Every single time we examine the fossil record it conforms to the predictions of evolutionary theory. Every single time we analyze a new DNA sequence it conforms to the predictions of evolutionary theory. We've bloody WATCHED speciation events occur. Etc...

We may have observed these things, and some may have merit with the predictions of other studies. But once again, we have only seen these results in a very limited perspective. If we could watch and record over millions of years, and see the same, or similar results take place, then, and only then, would I consider this as a theory. Untill then, It is only an educated guess, that may have some merit.

So, you can go ahead and call Plate Techonics and Evolution a Theory if you want to. Myself, I can not consider these as theories, untill I have more evidence that suggests otherwise.

We think so much alike :fluffle: :fluffle:

So it would appear. :)

:fluffle:

Personally, I LOVED religious education at school. I was fascinated by the tales of the Norse 'Ragnarok'. I loved the early Celtic mythology... and was enthralled by tales of Dagon and Apophis.

But - the point is, THAT is the venue for religious material.

I can see NO reason why Creationism should ever even be mentioned in a 'scientific' class, except, perhaps, as contrast.

For the same reason - I see no real reason why "Coal Mining in the Ruhr Valley" should turn up in a Woodworking class...

Yes, I do beleive that I am a geologist, and a better scientist than yourself.



How is that I am the one that is ignorant of science? When clearly you do not know some of the basic princibles of scientific theory. I also have professors, and degree from an accreditoed unversity to back it up.


Question? Has Plate Tectonics been Proven? No, because in science we can not prove diddly squat, the only thing we can do, is dis-prove. Once again, as I stated in my earlier post, Plate Tectionics is the best we have come up with so far. We can moniter these things, but what proof do we have that, what we understand as plates, are actually what we understand as plates? They could just be something else, and we don't have enough evidence yet to say. What you point out we can test in small, not whole. We can only moniter and test in small, not whole. We have not seen mountans build up from nothing (except volcanoes). We can not move thousands of miles of earth, and then put them back just they were, and run a test again. This is the point I am trying to make. This is why Plate Techtonics is a Hypothis, and not a Theory. We can only test small enviroments, and in limited factors and find out, how it may have worked. We can not test every factor, just due to the scale the experaments that we would have to run.

Yes, we do have an understanding of these environments, but it is still a limited understanding. Case in point... I read and artical on a section of Utah, that was felt had no oil producing capabilities. One well, proved that wrong. If we had full understanding of the earth, then this would not have been a surprise.



(Read Above)



We may have observed these things, and some may have merit with the predictions of other studies. But once again, we have only seen these results in a very limited perspective. If we could watch and record over millions of years, and see the same, or similar results take place, then, and only then, would I consider this as a theory. Untill then, It is only an educated guess, that may have some merit.

So, you can go ahead and call Plate Techonics and Evolution a Theory if you want to. Myself, I can not consider these as theories, untill I have more evidence that suggests otherwise.

Logical flaw … you are appealing to an un-verifiable authority (yourself) (or at least a non verified)

(now I am not normally a stickler as I am a bad speller myself but you misspelled accredited)

a few things...

once again, to repeat what the US Constitution actually says...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

200 years of court cases, especially in the last 60 years have been very strict in looking at the exact wording... and the general pattern has been that any teaching that has a specific religious foundation and is required to be tought in schools is considered an establishment of religion.

just as school prayer and similar religious observances that used to be held in schools have been so ruled.

Secondly,
Carbon dating is only used on organic material.. fossels are rocks and cannot be carbon dated, but are dated based on the known age of the rock layers they are found in. We know how old the rock layers are based on knowns like the rate of sediment being deposited, organic material found in rocks and a lot of other factors

third,
Genesis, which is one of the books of the Hebrew Torah, like all of the remainder of the Torah was almost certainly WRITTEN at the same time based on the oral traditions of the Hebrews. The age of writing is a known based on carbon dating of the first writing, which is after the events occured in Genesis even if you believe Genesis is the literal truth as Ushers figures of 4400 BC are good as far as dating the story back to Adam, while writing shows up around 3000 BC (and it was basic cruciform, not letters, not an ideal medium for writing stories, but adequate for basic accounting... the first records). Alphabets show up around 1500 BC.

All of the events of the first two books of the Bible (Genesis and Exodus) occur during periods when the Hebrews did not have writing.

So therefore, even if you believe the Bible is the literal word of God, it was still written down much later than the events described.

The point is this, the Bible was written by men, and only Faith will tell you that everything that occured in it happened as stated. Therefore, if you are basing the teaching of Intelligent Design or Creationism on the Bible, you are forced to go with Faith. Faith is a religious concept and doctrine.

It is not the same as a scientific theory supported by considerable data that is accepted as the most likely reason life is different know than it was millions of years ago. Measurements from space show exactly how old stars and even the universe is (with some margin for error). The stars in the sky above you tell you that they are far away.

Unless you believe that they (the stars) are merely painted lights in the sky put up by God (like the accepted view some early religions and pre Enlightment common folk beliefs had).

There is nothing wrong with faith. But faith without reason is simply not using the gifts God gave us all. Our ability to reason, to accept, to question.

But under the Constitution of the United States the government does not have the right to promote the establishment of any religion. Allowing publically funded schools to teach Creationism, a faith based belief, would be in violation of that basic fact of law.

Yes, I do beleive that I am a geologist, and a better scientist than yourself.

Curious... how does one measure 'best-ness' of scientists?

Also - how does one manage that over incalculable distances, between individuals who have never actually been tested against each other...?

Unless you believe that they (the stars) are merely painted lights in the sky put up by God (like the accepted view some early religions and pre Enlightment common folk beliefs had).


Just as a matter of interest... an ex-girlfriend of mine attended a prominent Catholic school in England between the ages of 11 and 18.

They were actually taught (true) that the stars were holes in the sky that let light through.

Yes, I do beleive that I am a geologist, and a better scientist than yourself.

We'll just let those reading along evaluate that statement shall we?

Question? Has Plate Tectonics been Proven? No, because in science we can not prove diddly squat, the only thing we can do, is dis-prove.

You appear to have become lost in your own rant. Let me remind you of your own earlier statement:

" A Theory is a Hypothisis that has been tested over and over again, and still come up with the same result in the end."

And what are Evolutionary theory and the Theory of Plate Tectonics... as I just finished demonstrating? That's right... hypothesis that have been tested over and over again, and still come up with the same result in the end.

Is this all coming back to you yet?

Once again, as I stated in my earlier post, Plate Tectionics is the best we have come up with so far. We can moniter these things, but what proof do we have that, what we understand as plates, are actually what we understand as plates?

Proof is for math. Evidence is for science. But I'm sure you knew that.

And we have, excuse the pun... mountains of evidence.

They could just be something else, and we don't have enough evidence yet to say. What you point out we can test in small, not whole.

"test in small, but not whole"? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

We have not seen mountans build up from nothing (except volcanoes).

But we have seen mountains build up.

Nobody has ever watched a complete orbit of pluto either. Let me guess... heliocentric theory is only a hypothesis in your world too?

We can not move thousands of miles of earth, and then put them back just they were, and run a test again.

And we don't bloody well have to either.

This is the point I am trying to make. This is why Plate Techtonics is a Hypothis, and not a Theory.

Repeating the earlier demonstration of your ignorance of basic scientific principles. The requirement for reproducibility is that the same test will always produce the same results. Measurements of sea floor spreading ALWAYS show the same patterns of movement. Measurements of mountain range formation ALWAYS show the same thing. Measurements of fault lines ALWAYS show the same thing.

It does NOT require you to be able to turn back freaking time.

In order for cosmology to be science, scientists do NOT need to construct a universe in a lab!

We may have observed these things, and some may have merit with the predictions of other studies. But once again, we have only seen these results in a very limited perspective. If we could watch and record over millions of years, and see the same, or similar results take place, then, and only then, would I consider this as a theory.

Any geologist worth his salt would know we CAN watch the outcome of these processes over millions of years and always see the same things.

The Hawaiian Islands for example? As a geologist you DO have at least some small familiarity with their formation? The dated age of each island? How that age correlates with it's distance from current active volcanic activity? What that all SHOWS?

Or the polarized magnetic striping profile extending outward in both directions from the mid-atlantic ridge? I trust that, as a geologist, you don't need that data explained to you?

Just as a matter of interest... an ex-girlfriend of mine attended a prominent Catholic school in England between the ages of 11 and 18.

They were actually taught (true) that the stars were holes in the sky that let light through.

thats almost enough to make one cry.. in the US the Catholic Schools are generally pretty well respected for the quality of their education, and I am pretty sure the official Church stance on Evolution is accepting at this point.

thats almost enough to make one cry.. in the US the Catholic Schools are generally pretty well respected for the quality of their education, and I am pretty sure the official Church stance on Evolution is accepting at this point.

I had always ASSUMED that the education at a Catholic school would be much the same as at a non-religious school... just with more Catholic stuff... I was horrified to learn that school-leavers were taking THAT kind of misinformation with them. :(

Plate Tectonics has not been proved, thats true, but it is overwhelmingly supported by readily observable evidence, like entire sections of the ocean floor shifting in the recent massive quake in Indonesia to name a recent example.

Evolution hasn't been proved either, also true, but the overwhelming body of evidence points to that as the most likely explanation to account for the diversity of life, and its expansion from the single cell to the complex multicell and experiments with creatures with short lifespans when exposed to external influences tend to support the basis of the theory as well.

There is no such overwhelming body of evidence supporting Creationism. There is only the faith of those who believe it, and the religious works that proclaim it. Unless you believe that God created a world with fossils in it just to test us, than the fossil record supports Evolution.

Intelligent Design is a different matter. The Big Bang has not been proven but the current evidence supports it as the beginning of space and time and the universe. Current examination of subnuclear particles has no explanation for some of the things that occur (although it probably will eventually), and I for one can live with the idea that the 'weak force' and the 'strong force' and the event that caused all matter in the universe to expand explosively could easily be explained by God. But that is my faith speaking, and not the evidence. Because there is no evidence in that example to cite.

Conditions have worked out very well for life on Earth and especially for the development of Mankind. Cosmic accident? If you say so. Proof of Gods divine plan? Works for me. But that is faith, not reason.

Incorrect. The government, like science, should take no stance at all. The government should be neither theist nor atheist.
Ah, but then what? One either believes it (god, goddess, divine being, etcetera) is there or it is not there.
As the goverment cannot say "yes, it is there" because then they are compeled to take a stance to a particular faith*, they are compeled to say "no, it is not there". This of course leads to atheism**. The goverment itself is atheist, the governors may worship a purple hipopotamus for all I care, but not while they are working. Ruling under a separation of state and religion means that you, the ruler, must not be swayed by your beliefs but by the good of the nation.

*This would not be the case in a world that lacked monotheism
**I do not mean the agressive atheism that calls science it's god (well it doesn't call it that but it fits), but the true atheism that is the lack of faith.

Oh btw, I am a rather spiritual person. I do believe that the beginings of life were orchestrated by a... something(s)-someone(s)
But that it was done through the laws of science.

Lots to read. Some thoughts in reply to nothing (or something) in particular:

Science is the general discipline built upon the scientific method. "Science" derives from a Latin root meaning "knowledge", hence the "scientific method" is a method applied in pursuit of knowledge.

There are several hundreds - perhaps thousands - of "Creation" stories. The one always implied in the States is the so-called Judeo-Christian account of Creation (which is, itself, drawn from the nearly identical ancient Babylonian accounts of Creation, Eden, Flood, and the like - indeed, historical study indicates that the Hebrew Bible took its final form, and was first put into written form, only after the Babylonian Captivity), but there are numerous others, none more "deserving" than the next, save that one (or multiple, as is more often the case!) happens to belong to the particular thought system professed by its proponent.

Education - public education, financed by the public through taxes - should concern itself with firmly grounded matters. What those should be is up for discussion, but in any case, things taught in a given course should fit the course - regardless of how important sexual education might be, for example, it's not suitable in the context of mathematical study! An ill-founded, unscientific "theory", such as "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design", do not belong in any science class - comparative religion/philosophy, possibly, but in such a case, they would only be presented as one scenario among many religious ideas. At any rate, sectarian beliefs have no room within public education, which is by no means meant to provide ecclesiastical education (indeed, one of the tenets upon which public education was instituted is that such matters should be left to individual choice, not coerced, at least by the government, upon those too immature to fully understand the ramifications).

There is no Constitutional provision for "Separation Of Church And State" as such - that's just the way in which we happen to echo the genius of the words of Thomas Jefferson, in summarizing what would otherwise be a very complicated thing to explain. Very few Americans - I couldn't say for any other nations - realize just how revolutionary such a concept was in Colonial America. Many of the original colonists of what would become the USA fled from religious persecution - from nations in which church and state were joined. The concept of a representative government was not revolutionary, but the creation of representative governments based upon certain inherent, natural, rights was, and among those rights is the idea that a person, by right, should be free from any and all external coercion in terms of conscience and thought.

The Enlightenment is a sadly forgotten time in humanity's history. It is the foundation upon which everything we count as modern is built - from it sprang concepts about liberty, the seeds of the industrial revolution, the rebirth of science, the foundations of modern political and economic theories, reformations of religion and politics, and so on. More revolutionary than the Industrial Revolution (as this would later arise from the thoughts and ideas that the Enlightenment brought [back, in some cases] into the world), perhaps only the Agricultural Revolution is more so (some 8000-10000+ years ago, when domestication of certain animals and grains are thought to have allowed the very first permanent large human settlements, eventually allowing for the creation of the first human civilizations).

On a more subjective note: as far as education goes, I'm appalled by what passes as "quality" in America these days - at least in primary settings, but even college level education seems to be lacking, at least if various studies have any merit (such as those that indicate a frighteningly large proportion of high school or college students are ignorant of very basic, fundamental, matters, whether academic or cultural).

If I do ever end up teaching, it'll have been inspired in no small part by the abysmal environment I found when I went through it myself. At the very least, the one thing I found most lacking, and the one thing most important, is that while most teachers in most schools tend to teach students by rote, to remember factoids and an inane amount of pointless trivia, very few, if any teach, or help, their students to learn to think for themselves. As far as I understand it, that goal should be the crux of any and all education - to think critically is to be able to think for oneself, to learn for oneself, to be able to find where to learn more, to be able to teach others, everything... including being able to decide, for oneself, whether a particular idea makes sense or not, instead of special interest parties insisting on cramming the most recent fad (whether it be "Creationism", "Intelligent Design", Abstinence Only Education, the like - yes, I'm biased - against things that aren't grounded in facts, reason, and beneficial effects, etc).

(Bit of a rant, at least towards the end. I'm really tired but can't sleep, I hate insomnia and its kin. I can become very wordy, more than usual, when I'm tired and unable to sleep. Wanted to contribute something, anyway, though. :p)

Yes, I do beleive that I am a geologist, and a better scientist than yourself.

Interesting.

How is that I am the one that is ignorant of science? When clearly you do not know some of the basic princibles of scientific theory. I also have professors, and degree from an accreditoed unversity to back it up.

Well, I have a degree from an accredited (cheap shot, I know, don't take offense I'm just being silly) university, and I am working towards another and another accredited university.

Question? Has Plate Tectonics been Proven? No, because in science we can not prove diddly squat, the only thing we can do, is dis-prove. Once again, as I stated in my earlier post, Plate Tectionics is the best we have come up with so far. We can moniter these things, but what proof do we have that, what we understand as plates, are actually what we understand as plates? They could just be something else, and we don't have enough evidence yet to say. What you point out we can test in small, not whole. We can only moniter and test in small, not whole. We have not seen mountans build up from nothing (except volcanoes). We can not move thousands of miles of earth, and then put them back just they were, and run a test again. This is the point I am trying to make. This is why Plate Techtonics is a Hypothis, and not a Theory. We can only test small enviroments, and in limited factors and find out, how it may have worked. We can not test every factor, just due to the scale the experaments that we would have to run.

I suppose that the theory of gravity is just a hypothesis then, in your little world? After all, we can't really test it on a large scale. The world is small compared to the rest of the universe and we haven't tested it light years away. Yes, I suppose gravity is just a hypothesis, not a theory.

Yes, we do have an understanding of these environments, but it is still a limited understanding. Case in point... I read and artical on a section of Utah, that was felt had no oil producing capabilities. One well, proved that wrong. If we had full understanding of the earth, then this would not have been a surprise.

Nothing in science is a full understanding. It is always limited. A full understanding is not necessary for a hypothesis to become a theory - numerous tests supporting that theory are.

We may have observed these things, and some may have merit with the predictions of other studies. But once again, we have only seen these results in a very limited perspective.

All of science is a very limited perspective. From your defintion, nothing would ever be a theory.

Should we teach Creationism? Hell - NO!

If we would, we should teach other evidently disproved nonsense such as geocentric world view, the luminiferous aether, and while we're at it, maybe also homeopathy and [INSERT RANDOM PSEUDOSCIENCE HERE]...

Creationism is pseudoscience, it has no room in science class. :mad:

Science requires that a theory be testable. Creationism is not. Everytime they run into a problem they can invoke god's supernatural powers and cling to their faith. Therefore creationism isn't science, it's faith and has no place in a science class.

Yes, science is infallible. We know everything.

Yes, I do beleive that I am a geologist, and a better scientist than yourself.



How is that I am the one that is ignorant of science? When clearly you do not know some of the basic princibles of scientific theory. I also have professors, and degree from an accreditoed unversity to back it up.


Question? Has Plate Tectonics been Proven? No, because in science we can not prove diddly squat, the only thing we can do, is dis-prove. Once again, as I stated in my earlier post, Plate Tectionics is the best we have come up with so far. We can moniter these things, but what proof do we have that, what we understand as plates, are actually what we understand as plates? They could just be something else, and we don't have enough evidence yet to say. What you point out we can test in small, not whole. We can only moniter and test in small, not whole. We have not seen mountans build up from nothing (except volcanoes). We can not move thousands of miles of earth, and then put them back just they were, and run a test again. This is the point I am trying to make. This is why Plate Techtonics is a Hypothis, and not a Theory. We can only test small enviroments, and in limited factors and find out, how it may have worked. We can not test every factor, just due to the scale the experaments that we would have to run.

Yes, we do have an understanding of these environments, but it is still a limited understanding. Case in point... I read and artical on a section of Utah, that was felt had no oil producing capabilities. One well, proved that wrong. If we had full understanding of the earth, then this would not have been a surprise.



(Read Above)



We may have observed these things, and some may have merit with the predictions of other studies. But once again, we have only seen these results in a very limited perspective. If we could watch and record over millions of years, and see the same, or similar results take place, then, and only then, would I consider this as a theory. Untill then, It is only an educated guess, that may have some merit.

So, you can go ahead and call Plate Techonics and Evolution a Theory if you want to. Myself, I can not consider these as theories, untill I have more evidence that suggests otherwise.

Ouch. Hello, evidence for fossil record is overwhelming. Fossil record, remanent magnetism, and at least since the dawn of GPS we can actually measure the speed of plate tectonics. Of course it is proven. It is a very real phenomenon! And you call yourself a geologist?!?

Yes, science is infallible. We know everything.
Science is only a process it is not the knowledge derived from it nor does it have bearing on the input or our ability to observe or build the basic theory

Essentially science could be infallable without having infinite knowledge

Actually, why not teach both? Call it Evoreation.

See, if there is nothing, then there can be no evolution. There must be something there first before any evolution can take place.

i've never seen anything simply pop out of thin air. But I figure that when there was nothing, that this is sort of how we came to have elements in the universe: they simply appeared.

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed... by us, anyway. I've never seen anyone whoo could do it. So something made everything, or the basis for everything, in the universe. Something put the elements there so that they could combine... made them move so that they could collide and go boom.

Maybe that's how it all started, anyway.

Sorry about mixing up the date and such.


Yes, we do know how old the earth is. Scientists used radiometric dating which is based on the known rate of decay. Using this they found that the Earth is approximently 4.5 billion years old. Well how don't you know if the scientist are lieing. Maybe they just want to get famous. NO ONE really know how old the Earth is.

Well how don't you know if the scientist are lieing. Maybe they just want to get famous. NO ONE really know how old the Earth is.
That is why science finding is open to the peer review process this eliminates that possibility

We actually were having this same discussion in English today. My teacher said the best option would be to let the students vote on what they'd rather learn - evolution or creationism. There was a recent poll amongst biology teachers and it turned out that a huge chunk of them (1/3) supported teaching creationism. Why not let the people who are getting educated decide on what they want to learn? It seems that parents and teachers are looking to rule the curriculum with an iron fist.
Yes, let's let the students vote on the entire curriculum. We'd end up having classes on sports, fashion, videogames, and little else. Or perhaps we could have students vote on whether to teach the holocaust as fact or as a lie made up by the Jews.

Education is not a democratic process. There are truths, there are falsehoods. Only truth should be taught in schools. Creationism has been shown to be fiction by all the available evidence. It shouldn't be taught.

That is why science finding is open to the peer review process this eliminates that possibility Yeah but how do YOU know. I mean it's SO easy to lie these days and again they could be lieing.

Wow posts really build up fast in this place! Being a Christian and a Physics student I thought I would add something. Using our understanding of our Universe as as accuratly as we have tested our theories, we can model the universe right back to a fraction of a second after its creation, and understand what happened then, and since, scientifically. However, Phyics itsself ceases to exist before that point and we cannot understand or even begin to guess what happened in that fraction of the second since our Universe began, or even what caused it to begin in the first place.

In an astronomy lecture, taught by an avowed athiest, he stated that this was the realm of theology.

Another thought to make the discussion a little more interesting ;)

Grace and Peace

Well how don't you know if the scientist are lieing. Maybe they just want to get famous. NO ONE really know how old the Earth is.

Why should they be lying? This has been measured over and over again by so many people, it's unlikely to be wrong. And no, i don't believe into any weird "evolutionist conspiracy".

We don't really know how old *exactly* the Earth is, but we have some pretty good evidence in what order of magnitude it must be (radiometric dating of rocks, meteorites, rocks from the moon, etc.)

Scientists don't say it was October 23rd 4,600,000,000 BC, but it was some 4.6 billion years ago, plus/minus 100 million years. Considering how long ago that was, the amount of error is quite small.

Yeah but how do YOU know. I mean it's SO easy to lie these days and again they could be lieing.
Not in a published works of science I know because I have all available material that they make their basis on and I can review it myself

Again peer review process its highly unlikely devious statements and claims make it through (not saying all ideas that get through are correct but usually as close as can get with the current data)

And you make it sound like their was only one scientist claiming this … do you have any proof of that? Because I was pretty sure it was hundreds of scientists in MANY different fields

(and if It was supposed to make him famous do you know his name? the single claimer of the age of the earth? … thought not)

Science is only a process it is not the knowledge derived from it nor does it have bearing on the input or our ability to observe or build the basic theory

Essentially science could be infallable without having infinite knowledge

Science was invented by humans... it's how we rationalize that which we see or (otherwise) that which we want to know. Because it was invented by humans, it cannot be perfect. Therefore, it is not infallible.

Science was invented by humans... it's how we rationalize that which we see or (otherwise) that which we want to know. Because it was invented by humans, it cannot be perfect. Therefore, it is not infallible.
Why does being created by humans make it fallible automatically?

Science was invented by humans... it's how we rationalize that which we see or (otherwise) that which we want to know. Because it was invented by humans, it cannot be perfect. Therefore, it is not infallible.

Yeah, and the bible (and all other scriptures) are books written by humans. :)

Why should they be lying? This has been measured over and over again by so many people, it's unlikely to be wrong. And no, i don't believe into any weird "evolutionist conspiracy".

We don't really know how old *exactly* the Earth is, but we have some pretty good evidence in what order of magnitude it must be (radiometric dating of rocks, meteorites, rocks from the moon, etc.)

Scientists don't say it was October 23rd 4,600,000,000 BC, but it was some 4.6 billion years ago, plus/minus 100 million years. Considering how long ago that was, the amount of error is quite small. Yes true we don't know how old the Earth is but everyone has a VERY good idea of it is. I mean I believe that the Earth is only a million years old. And the Earth was made with age to so that's harder to figur out.

third,
Genesis, which is one of the books of the Hebrew Torah, like all of the remainder of the Torah was almost certainly WRITTEN at the same time based on the oral traditions of the Hebrews. The age of writing is a known based on carbon dating of the first writing, which is after the events occured in Genesis even if you believe Genesis is the literal truth as Ushers figures of 4400 BC are good as far as dating the story back to Adam, while writing shows up around 3000 BC (and it was basic cruciform, not letters, not an ideal medium for writing stories, but adequate for basic accounting... the first records). Alphabets show up around 1500 BC.


Wow. When you make such a glaring factual error, it really has a way of putting in doubt everything else you say. Well, let me point it out since no one else has caught it. The first writing of the Torah has not been carbon dated. Why? because we have never found it! We do not have a copy of the original Torah. How do you propose we carbon date something that we havent been able to find? If you still wish to insist otherwise, perhaps you can point me to the museum that contains the original Torah that scientists have carbon dated. Oh, I see, you cant. So, you made up an experiment that did not happen and invented some findings?? That really does alot for your credibility.

Yes true we don't know how old the Earth is but everyone has a VERY good idea of it is. I mean I believe that the Earth is only a million years old. And the Earth was made with age to so that's harder to figur out.
And where do you get your random date of a million years?

There are two prevailing world views on the origin of the species (although theistic evolution is gaining ground and could soon be considered a third). It would be irresponsible for an institute that aims to educate students to purposefully omit one of the prevailing world views from their curriculum. Why would you promote that schools intentionally withhold information from students? The very goal of schools is to fill students with knowledge and this includes knowledge of the various points of view on different issues.
Are you trying to claim that creationism is a valid competing scientific theory? If so you are dead wrong.

1 Creationism is not science. While scientific theories are structured so that they can be tested, and if they fail the test they can be discarded, Creationism can always fall back on god's supernatural power to invalidate the facts. For example, radiometric dating shows that there are fossils billions of years old. Creationists just get around that by saying god changed the rate of radioisotope decay. Any test they fail they use god to invalidate.

2 Creationism is directly contradicted by the evidence. It's simply not true. Any openminded look at the evidence will show that evolution has occured.

In short, I'm in favor of schools withholding certain information from students if that information doesn't fit in the curriculum, like the RELIGIOUS principle of creation being inserted into a SCIENCE class, or if the information is simply wrong.

Ah, but then what? One either believes it (god, goddess, divine being, etcetera) is there or it is not there.

A human being either believes one or the other.

A government does not have to. A government can take no stance at all, which is what it should do.

This is also true of science. The idea of God is outside the realm of science, so science takes no stance whatsoever on it.

As the goverment cannot say "yes, it is there" because then they are compeled to take a stance to a particular faith*, they are compeled to say "no, it is not there". This of course leads to atheism**.

Or the goverment can say "We are not concerned with whether or not it is or is not there."

Not in a published works of science I know because I have all available material that they make their basis on and I can review it myself

Again peer review process its highly unlikely devious statements and claims make it through (not saying all ideas that get through are correct but usually as close as can get with the current data)

And you make it sound like their was only one scientist claiming this … do you have any proof of that? Because I was pretty sure it was hundreds of scientists in MANY different fields

(and if It was supposed to make him famous do you know his name? the single claimer of the age of the earth? … thought not) Well not everyone agree's with scientists and evalution.

Yes true we don't know how old the Earth is but everyone has a VERY good idea of it is. I mean I believe that the Earth is only a million years old. And the Earth was made with age to so that's harder to figur out.

Have you ever had any lecture about geology? Even without radiometric dating i can tell you that there is overwhelming evidence that Earth is at least many millions of years old. Stuff like erosion sedimentation rates, the time it takes for granite intrusions to cool and form crystals, existence of metamorphous rocks. And they happened over and over again. All these processes take very long time. Besides, where do you take the idea from that Earth would be just a million years old? That's very weird...

Well not everyone agree's with scientists and evalution.
Your disagreement does not make it any less accurate nor reliable

And where do you get your random date of a million years? From the BIBLE.

Yes, science is infallible. We know everything.
No, science is self correcting. We always learn more and get closer to the truth.

From the BIBLE.
And what in the bible leads you to think that? (current estimate based on the bible is 6k years roughly … no where NEER a million)

From the BIBLE.

LOL!

Your disagreement does not make it any less accurate nor reliable No one on my family on BOTH sides agrees with it! Now I have ALOT of family members.

And what in the bible leads you to think that? (current estimate based on the bible is 6k years roughly … no where NEER a million)

Right-right. Creationists over and over again point out it was October 23rd, 4004 BC.

:D

Well not everyone agree's with scientists and evalution.
No, but usually they haven't done any research either.

Actually, why not teach both? Call it Evoreation.

See, if there is nothing, then there can be no evolution. There must be something there first before any evolution can take place.

i've never seen anything simply pop out of thin air. But I figure that when there was nothing, that this is sort of how we came to have elements in the universe: they simply appeared.

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed... by us, anyway. I've never seen anyone whoo could do it. So something made everything, or the basis for everything, in the universe. Something put the elements there so that they could combine... made them move so that they could collide and go boom.

Maybe that's how it all started, anyway.
Nice, you criticize evolution and don't even know what it is. Evolution has nothing at all to do with the big bang. It has nothing to do with the formation of the first life form. It's only the process by which that first life form changed into the many we see today.

This is part of the problem. People who don't even know what evolution is are given a say as to whether it should be taught. We don't let sewer workers to triple bypasses, we shouldn't let those ignorant of evolution decide if teaching it is appropriate.

No one on my family on BOTH sides agrees with it! Now I have ALOT of family members.
Opinions still do not change facts sorry … belief does not create reality

And what in the bible leads you to think that? (current estimate based on the bible is 6k years roughly … no where NEER a million) Well when you think of it Adam and Eve were adult not babies so couldn't everything be made with age.

Well how don't you know if the scientist are lieing. Maybe they just want to get famous. NO ONE really know how old the Earth is.
Because another scientist who also wants to get famous would reveal the lie and steal the other's fame. That's actually a big part of science. Peer reviewed journals expose a scientist's discoveries to review and criticism.

Because of that it's no surprise that creationists don't publish in them. It's hard to lie to people who know how to find the truth.

No one on my family on BOTH sides agrees with it! Now I have ALOT of family members.
All PhD's in biology, eh?

Well when you think of it Adam and Eve were adult not babies so couldn't everything be made with age.
That has nothing to do with my quote … answer the question why do you think the bible says that the earth is a million years old?

Well not everyone agree's with scientists and evalution.

So?

That doesn't change the fact that evolution is a scientific theory, while a religious set of beliefs is not.

Science requires that a theory be testable. Creationism is not. Everytime they run into a problem they can invoke god's supernatural powers and cling to their faith. Therefore creationism isn't science, it's faith and has no place in a science class.

Sure, you can teach creationism in a science class. If we can teach people in geography class that "well, in the old days, people thought the Earth was flat," and in astronomy class we can teach, "well, in the old days, people thought the sun went around the Earth," then we can teach creationism in the same light.

LOL! DO NOT SAY THAT AGAIN!!!!!

Because another scientist who also wants to get famous would reveal the lie and steal the other's fame. That's actually a big part of science. Peer reviewed journals expose a scientist's discoveries to review and criticism.

Because of that it's no surprise that creationists don't publish in them. It's hard to lie to people who know how to find the truth.
You sound just like me lol

Yeah but how do YOU know. I mean it's SO easy to lie these days and again they could be lieing.
You know what? I take back my appology to you from yesterday. My first impression of you is now reinforced.

Well when you think of it Adam and Eve were adult not babies so couldn't everything be made with age.

Of course it could. But such a proposition would be untestable, and hence, unscientific.

DO NOT SAY THAT AGAIN!!!!!
Why not it made me chuckle … I have never heard of any evidence to support a 1 million year old earth before

DO NOT SAY THAT AGAIN!!!!!

Why? You still didn't say how did get to the rediculous age of 1 million years. You know that you even dissagree with "mainstream young-Earth Creationists" (horribly word, sorry!).

So?

That doesn't change the fact that evolution is a scientific theory, while a religious set of beliefs is not. not everything has to have a scientific theory.

not everything has to have a scientific theory.

It does if you want to teach it in a science class.

Are you trying to claim that creationism is a valid competing scientific theory? If so you are dead wrong.

1 Creationism is not science. While scientific theories are structured so that they can be tested, and if they fail the test they can be discarded, Creationism can always fall back on god's supernatural power to invalidate the facts. For example, radiometric dating shows that there are fossils billions of years old. Creationists just get around that by saying god changed the rate of radioisotope decay. Any test they fail they use god to invalidate.

2 Creationism is directly contradicted by the evidence. It's simply not true. Any openminded look at the evidence will show that evolution has occured.

In short, I'm in favor of schools withholding certain information from students if that information doesn't fit in the curriculum, like the RELIGIOUS principle of creation being inserted into a SCIENCE class, or if the information is simply wrong.


I didnt say scientific theory, I said its one of the predominant world views, and it is. It is not contradicted by evidence, neither does any open minded look at evidence prove that evolution has occured. If it did, then evolution would not have any detractors in the scientific community. There are many well qualified scientists who do not accept the evolutionary model and have written works criticizing it. There are also quite a few scientists who are creationists. These facts show that evolution is not something accepted by the entire scientific community.

The purpose of school is to fill students with knowledge. School isnt about science. A large percentage of the people who attend school will not go on to study in a scientific field. Many of them will go on to study in the arts, and many will never study after high school at all. School should not be (and thankfully isnt) limited to teaching science.

Well not everyone agree's with scientists and evalution.
And not everyone agrees with the fact that the earth is round. It doesn't mean that a flat earth is a competing theory, it only means that flat earthers are idiots.

not everything has to have a scientific theory.
Anything that exists in this universe can have a theory attached to it

Nice, you criticize evolution and don't even know what it is. Evolution has nothing at all to do with the big bang. It has nothing to do with the formation of the first life form. It's only the process by which that first life form changed into the many we see today.

This is part of the problem. People who don't even know what evolution is are given a say as to whether it should be taught. We don't let sewer workers to triple bypasses, we shouldn't let those ignorant of evolution decide if teaching it is appropriate.

lol

Believe me, i know what evolution is....

MY POINT WAS that there could BE no evolution if there FIRST hadn't been CREATION, you FUCKING MORON. Do NOT patronize me or my intelligence.

Sure, you can teach creationism in a science class. If we can teach people in geography class that "well, in the old days, people thought the Earth was flat," and in astronomy class we can teach, "well, in the old days, people thought the sun went around the Earth," then we can teach creationism in the same light.
That's how I was taught in our equivalent of High School actually, first they stated creationism, then Lamarc, then Darwin and lastly the modern theory. ;)

From the BIBLE.
People who studied the bible say it's only about 6000 years old. You're a heretic and should repent before you burn in hell for eternity.

Why? You still didn't say how did get to the rediculous age of 1 million years. You know that you even dissagree with "mainstream young-Earth Creationists" (horribly word, sorry!). I DIDN'T LAUGH AT YOUR RELIGION!!!!!!!

I didnt say scientific theory, I said its one of the predominant world views, and it is. It is not contradicted by evidence, neither does any open minded look at evidence prove that evolution has occured. If it did, then evolution would not have any detractors in the scientific community. There are many well qualified scientists who do not accept the evolutionary model and have written works criticizing it. There are also quite a few scientists who are creationists. These facts show that evolution is not something accepted by the entire scientific community.

The purpose of school is to fill students with knowledge. School isnt about science. A large percentage of the people who attend school will not go on to study in a scientific field. Many of them will go on to study in the arts, and many will never study after high school at all. School should not be (and thankfully isnt) limited to teaching science.
Its fine in school just not SCIENCE class … being a competing worldview does not make it a scientific theory

No one on my family on BOTH sides agrees with it! Now I have ALOT of family members.
Entire tribes in the Amazon think illness is caused by magic and evil spirits. Numbers don't make you right. You're just primitive, like the Amazon indians.

I DIDN'T LAUGH AT YOUR RELIGION!!!!!!!
That’s what made us laugh because we seem to know your religion better then you

People who studied the bible say it's only about 6000 years old. You're a heretic and should repent before you burn in hell for eternity.

probably the creation chapters in Genesis were written so that people could understand the story... EG, one day used to represent a billion (or more) years.

People who studied the bible say it's only about 6000 years old. You're a heretic and should repent before you burn in hell for eternity. Oh I should be burned in Hell? Well first of all you don't even know me or my age! And sencondly God is in my heart so I will go to Heaven!!!!!!

Well when you think of it Adam and Eve were adult not babies so couldn't everything be made with age.
Yes, and god put the dinosaur fossils in the earth to trick all the smart people into going to hell. Remember he's a shepard. He only wants sheep. They're easier to lead to the slaughter.

Yes, let's let the students vote on the entire curriculum. We'd end up having classes on sports, fashion, videogames, and little else. Or perhaps we could have students vote on whether to teach the holocaust as fact or as a lie made up by the Jews.

Education is not a democratic process. There are truths, there are falsehoods. Only truth should be taught in schools. Creationism has been shown to be fiction by all the available evidence. It shouldn't be taught.
I didn't say the entire curriculum. You're exaggerating what I said. As far as I see it, believing in either evolution or creationism is a choice. This choice should be brought to whomever is going to be directly affected by it. But in a way, I also disagree with teaching creationism in school but only because I don't think religious education should be taught in public schools. Multiculturalism just doesn't allow it.

probably the creation chapters in Genesis were written so that people could understand the story... EG, one day used to represent a billion (or more) years.

It doesn't say that. And if you're going to be a fundamentalist, a day is a day. Not a billion years.

Not scientifically sound to play with your frame of reference just to get your ideas to fit.

Sure, you can teach creationism in a science class. If we can teach people in geography class that "well, in the old days, people thought the Earth was flat," and in astronomy class we can teach, "well, in the old days, people thought the sun went around the Earth," then we can teach creationism in the same light.
I'd be cool with that. Just as long as it's not taught as a valid competing theory.

I didnt say scientific theory,

If you wish it to be taught alongside evolution, it has to be a scientific theory.

I said its one of the predominant world views, and it is. It is not contradicted by evidence, neither does any open minded look at evidence prove that evolution has occured. If it did, then evolution would not have any detractors in the scientific community.

(a) Creationism is contradicted by evidence.

(b) Science can never prove anything. It can only give you the best explanation it has. For that reason, there will always be those who disagree, in part or in whole.

There are many well qualified scientists who do not accept the evolutionary model and have written works criticizing it.

Most accept it, with alterations they believe should be made.

There are also quite a few scientists who are creationists.

There are no biologists or antrhopologists or any of the other studies that would actually be involved with evolution who are creationists, at least not in a professional capacity. Creationism is, by its very nature, unscientific.

The purpose of school is to fill students with knowledge. School isnt about science.

No, but a science class damn well is.

That’s what made us laugh because we seem to know your religion better then you OH YEAH THINK! I think I know it better than you since I know what's in the Bible and you don't!

Oh I should be burned in Hell? Well first of all you don't even know me or my age! And sencondly God is in my heart so I will go to Heaven!!!!!!
What does your age have to do with anything?

not everything has to have a scientific theory.
Well biology does.

OH YEAH THINK! I think I know it better than you since I know what's in the Bible and you don't!
Ohhhh you do huh… well point out where it leads you to believe that the earth is a million years old … I want a passage

OH YEAH THINK! I think I know it better than you since I know what's in the Bible and you don't!

I highly doubt that you actually know what is and is not in Scriptures better than the rest of us, dear.

OH YEAH THINK! I think I know it better than you since I know what's in the Bible and you don't!

Well, you still haven't explained where you did get that ridiculous quote of one million years. As mentioned, you disagree with mainstream creationists with that opinion. Plus, i'm really really curious now... :D

Yes, and god put the dinosaur fossils in the earth to trick all the smart people into going to hell. Remember he's a shepard. He only wants sheep. They're easier to lead to the slaughter. You sick minded person! THat is NOT true at all! Dinosaurs and people lived on the Earth then Noah came and built the Ark and put all the animals in it!

I didnt say scientific theory, I said its one of the predominant world views, and it is. It is not contradicted by evidence, neither does any open minded look at evidence prove that evolution has occured. If it did, then evolution would not have any detractors in the scientific community. There are many well qualified scientists who do not accept the evolutionary model and have written works criticizing it. There are also quite a few scientists who are creationists. These facts show that evolution is not something accepted by the entire scientific community.

The purpose of school is to fill students with knowledge. School isnt about science. A large percentage of the people who attend school will not go on to study in a scientific field. Many of them will go on to study in the arts, and many will never study after high school at all. School should not be (and thankfully isnt) limited to teaching science.
I've read some stuff by the "scientists" who claim evolution can't happen. In particular Michael Behe. Their works on evolution are unscientific, and often filled with straw man depictions of evolution. I'm not impressed, neither are the vast majority of biologists.

Science class should be about science. If you want to teach creationism, teach the scopes monkey trial in history class, or have a comparative religion class.

Well, you still haven't explained where you did get that ridiculous quote of one million years. As mentioned, you disagree with mainstream creationists with that opinion. Plus, i'm really really curious now... :D Oh now your curious. THe Earth was made with age since Adam and Eve were adults and not babies so couldn't the rest be made with age?

You sick minded person! THat is NOT true at all! Dinosaurs and people lived on the Earth then Noah came and built the Ark and put all the animals in it!
Well he obviously did not put ALL animals in … (and depending on the bible verse one says two of all animals and the other of only “clean” animals)

You sick minded person! THat is NOT true at all! Dinosaurs and people lived on the Earth then Noah came and built the Ark and put all the animals in it!

ROTF! There's no evidence whatsoever that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. In fact, the existence of dinosaurs inhibited the evolution of mammals over millions of years. Also, there's no evidence for the existence of your biblical Deluge. Where do you think would the water have come from? There's not enough water on Earth to do that. And how do you think would you get the ecosystem back going after the flood?

And finally, how do you explain the present-day distribution of animals? Why are there marsupials in Australia?

You sick minded person! THat is NOT true at all! Dinosaurs and people lived on the Earth then Noah came and built the Ark and put all the animals in it!
That's a personal attack. I suggest you not lose your cool over this.

I highly doubt that you actually know what is and is not in Scriptures better than the rest of us, dear. Well I'm a CHristian and I have to memerize some of it and I don't think that most of you have to do the same thing!

I'd be cool with that. Just as long as it's not taught as a valid competing theory.

I'm all for teaching that it's a primitive belief.

I'm a fundamentalist Christian - but I'm fundamental on how I should behave in my life, not in how the universe sprang into being. It's far more important to me to learn how to treat my "fellow man" than it is to go around saying that creationism is true, or that gays are evil. Probably the most objectionable thing about Christianity that Jesus warned the Pharisees about is this obsession with things that have nothing to do with the worship of God - collecting money, raising temples, making stupid rules, condemning people when you personally feel righteous...

And you know, when Jesus said it's all about how you live your life and treat others, and wouldn't it be nice if we could all be good to each other...

and they nailed him to a tree...

I use my religion to answer questions that science does not. I use science to answer questions that religion does not.

Two completely separate things to me.

Drunk Commies Reborn

I forgot the ;) ... hehe.

There have been debates as to whether or not Creationism should be allowed to be taught in schools. Basically, Creationism states that a God created everything. I am an atheist and have many problems with this.

First, Creationism has no scientific basis at all. Yes, I know that I cant disprove it because I cant prove that God doesnt exist. But it should not be taught in school.

Second, If the government supports this action of teaching Creationism, it means that they would be breaking the principle of Separation of church and state. Also by supporting this, it means that the government is supporting the principle that there is a god and that is offensive, biased and unfair.

Please, I do not mean to offend anyone. I merely want to hear others opinion in this. So if I have offended you or your religion, I sincerely apologize.

This should be all that is taught on creationism: "Several religions have belifes that state that their gods created the world."

That's it.

This should be all that is taught on creationism: "Several religions have belifes that state that their gods created the world."

That's it.

Well, that would be creation, not Creationism, but it would be fine.

Oh now your curious. THe Earth was made with age since Adam and Eve were adults and not babies so couldn't the rest be made with age?

I'm sorry, i don't get it. The bible says nowhere it was a million years. How did you get to that figure?!? And yes, i am curious because you diverge from 'mainstream Creationism'. :p

Well I'm a CHristian and I have to memerize some of it and I don't think that most of you have to do the same thing!
Yes I did ... I was christian myself ... spent 8 years in catholic school

ROTF! There's no evidence whatsoever that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. In fact, the existence of dinosaurs inhibited the evolution of mammals over millions of years. Also, there's no evidence for the existence of your biblical Deluge. Where do you think would the water have come from? There's not enough water on Earth to do that. And how do you think would you get the ecosystem back going after the flood?

And finally, how do you explain the present-day distribution of animals? Why are there marsupials in Australia? then how do you explain about 4 years ago they found a fosilized heart of a dinosaur and a spear through it? and they even showed it.

The Enlightenment is a sadly forgotten time in humanity's history. It is the foundation upon which everything we count as modern is built - from it sprang concepts about liberty, the seeds of the industrial revolution, the rebirth of science, the foundations of modern political and economic theories, reformations of religion and politics, and so on. More revolutionary than the Industrial Revolution (as this would later arise from the thoughts and ideas that the Enlightenment brought [back, in some cases] into the world), perhaps only the Agricultural Revolution is more so (some 8000-10000+ years ago, when domestication of certain animals and grains are thought to have allowed the very first permanent large human settlements, eventually allowing for the creation of the first human civilizations).

Amen to that!

It's a personal choice if someone deliberately refuses to be dragged into the Age of Reason, but children should not be forcibly kept in ignorance. Teaching creationism as if it were science is exactly that.

Well I'm a CHristian and I have to memerize some of it and I don't think that most of you have to do the same thing!

Memorize and learn are not the same thing. Memorize and correctly interpret are not the same thing.

What version are you memorizing from? It may have been mistranslated.

And I have been required to memorize Bible verses. None of that leads to understanding.

A constructive way to do it would be to let students debate this in 'Debate Class' and let them formulate their own opinions.

then how do you explain about 4 years ago they found a fosilized heart of a dinosaur and a spear through it? and they even showed it.
Because they did not find one

lol

Believe me, i know what evolution is....

MY POINT WAS that there could BE no evolution if there FIRST hadn't been CREATION, you FUCKING MORON. Do NOT patronize me or my intelligence.
We're discussing evolution vs. creationism. You brought up the genesis of life and of the universe. Why? They don't enter into it. That's like discussing cars and bringing up iron mining because iron goes into building cars. It's irrelevant to the discussion.

Its fine in school just not SCIENCE class … being a competing worldview does not make it a scientific theory

Thats a nice idea from a political perspective but not from a pedagogical one. Separating classes into broad subjects like history and science is meant as a way of matching teachers with their area of expertise. It is not a pedadogical model based on how children learn. The fact is if you teach everything about a a certain topic in the series of lessons, kids will learn it far better than if you separated it into unrelated classes with different teachers. Thats why you dont just teach about the current model of the atom in science class and leave it up to the history teacher to cover the Rutherford model, the Bohr model, and all the others. Kids wont learn it that way. You are unknowingly promoting the politication of the classroom. Politics should have no part in it, everything should be based solely on how to teach best.

then how do you explain about 4 years ago they found a fosilized heart of a dinosaur and a spear through it? and they even showed it. AHAHAHAHAHA!

Because they did not find one how do you know? you didn't watch it

then how do you explain about 4 years ago they found a fosilized heart of a dinosaur and a spear through it? and they even showed it.

Unless you show that to me, i'd believe you've picked it up at some dubious creationist website. If it was real, it would be a scientific sensation. But since i highly doubt it would be real, i think it's a hoax by zealous Creationists. Anyways, you haven't even touched my other questions...

how do you know? you didn't watch it
I am betting neither did you … come on find some evidence and show us … how about just where you heard this

Simple as that tell us where you heard this story

Thats a nice idea from a political perspective but not from a pedagogical one. Separating classes into broad subjects like history and science is meant as a way of matching teachers with their area of expertise. It is not a pedadogical model based on how children learn. The fact is if you teach everything about a a certain topic in the series of lessons, kids will learn it far better than if you separated it into unrelated classes with different teachers. Thats why you dont just teach about the current model of the atom in science class and leave it up to the history teacher to cover the Rutherford model, the Bohr model, and all the others. Kids wont learn it that way. You are unknowingly promoting the politication of the classroom. Politics should have no part in it, everything should be based solely on how to teach best.
Creationism is not science, it is not a theory. It does not belong in a science class. There is enough to teach in highschool biology, time should not be wasted on unscientific fairytales.

OH YEAH THINK! I think I know it better than you since I know what's in the Bible and you don't!
Clearly you don't Amber. By adding up the ages of the people in the OT, then adding the number of years since Jesus was born you get about 6000 years. That's from Adam to now.

You sick minded person! THat is NOT true at all! Dinosaurs and people lived on the Earth then Noah came and built the Ark and put all the animals in it!
Oh, that's why the OT is filled with descriptions of dinosaurs. Now I undestand.

I am betting neither did you … come on find some evidence and show us … how about just where you heard this

Simple as that tell us where you heard this story

Btw, i have to admit i have heard about a fossilized dinosaur heart (the genus was Thescelosaurus, i think). I've heard that physicists have argued that there would be evidence in the fossilized heart that dinosaurs had four-chambered hearts, but i've never heard anything about it being impaled by a spear... :rolleyes:

I am betting neither did you … come on find some evidence and show us … how about just where you heard this

Simple as that tell us where you heard this story No I watch it in my Grandparents house with my dad when I was 8.

That's a personal attack. I suggest you not lose your cool over this.
It's cool. This discussion has long since moved passed civil.

No I watch it in my Grandparents house with my dad when I was 8.

LOL! 8 years old! Don't believe everything when you are 8... btw, how old are you know?

Well I'm a CHristian and I have to memerize some of it and I don't think that most of you have to do the same thing!
What makes you think I wasn't a christian? I went through a phase when I read the bible for fun.

No I watch it in my Grandparents house with my dad when I was 8.
Jeez, you're 12. Although you're entitled to your opinion, I'm afraid you're just not seeing the whole picture.

Clearly you don't Amber. By adding up the ages of the people in the OT, then adding the number of years since Jesus was born you get about 6000 years. That's from Adam to now. Adam and Eve were adults when they came to the earth noto babies right? ANd the had age to them right? So couldn't ht earth have age to it just like Adam and Eve?

The fact is if you teach everything about a a certain topic in the series of lessons, kids will learn it far better than if you separated it into unrelated classes with different teachers.
That's why christian creationism should be taught together with all other myths, in religion or theology class.

No I watch it in my Grandparents house with my dad when I was 8.
Lol if you were only 8 I do not blame you for being either confused or tricked into believing it
That happens to kids

Find us some proof
You have no support and no evidence … don’t expect us to take us seriously

We know facts better we know statistics better and we know (apparently) the bible and your religion better … most of us either are or have been Christian of some denomination and some (like me) have spent years in religious schools

We do not mean to come down on you but you are making silly and un supported claims

Lousy points. He's comparing a religious beleif to a scientific theory (which has been confirmed to the point that it's almost certainly fact). Religion doesn't belong in a science classroom.


Realy??? wheres your evidence because every Biologist I've talked to has said that the Theory of the Evolution of Man has been thuroughly disproven (and yes I have talked with a large number of Biologists in both the US and arround the world. My father is one of the premier Ornithologists in the US and I have attended many of the conferences he has) it has very little evidence to support it and most of what has been found has been proven fraudulent, causing even more doubt as to the validity of the theory.

Well I'm a CHristian and I have to memerize some of it and I don't think that most of you have to do the same thing!
memorization =! understanding.

Just because someone can receite Shakespeare's famous "To be or not to be" monologue does not mean that they know what the hell he's talking about.

Adam and Eve were adults when they came to the earth noto babies right? ANd the had age to them right? So couldn't ht earth have age to it just like Adam and Eve?
But why does that make you believe it is 1 million years old? There is NO support for that Idea in the bible ANYWHERE

Jeez, you're 12. Although you're entitled to your opinion, I'm afraid you're just not seeing the whole picture. I am seeing the whole picture. Read the rest I wrote.

Realy??? wheres your evidence because every Biologist I've talked to has said that the Theory of the Evolution of Man has been thuroughly disproven (and yes I have talked with a large number of Biologists in both the US and arround the world. My father is one of the premier Ornithologists in the US and I have attended many of the conferences he has) it has very little evidence to support it and most of what has been found has been proven fraudulent, causing even more doubt as to the validity of the theory.

I mentioned it before that at least 1/3 of Biology teachers in North America support teaching Creationism.

No, we shouldn't teach Creationism, as Creationism is about belief. However, Intelligent design is a totally different matter. Intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, just like the theory of Evolution. That's something that has always bugged me about that. They call it a theory and teach it as fact. If you are going to present as a theory, then you must present it as a theory, and present the opposing theory, so that pupils can make up their own minds. And both theories must be equally and fairly taught.

Only then will students be able to make up their own minds on what they think is right.

And anyone who says students are unable to make up their minds should be shot.

To close, has anyone heard the saying 'An atheist is a man who believes he was an accident.'

Realy??? wheres your evidence because every Biologist I've talked to has said that the Theory of the Evolution of Man has been thuroughly disproven (and yes I have talked with a large number of Biologists in both the US and arround the world. My father is one of the premier Ornithologists in the US and I have attended many of the conferences he has) it has very little evidence to support it and most of what has been found has been proven fraudulent, causing even more doubt as to the validity of the theory.
Then the theory will change (by the way which of the big three are you talking about ?)

Not to mention your logical fallacy at making a non supported or verified appeal to an expert (“biologists you have talked to”) Sorry anecdotal evidence is not enough

then how do you explain about 4 years ago they found a fosilized heart of a dinosaur and a spear through it? and they even showed it.
Proof?

I can probably tell you that you're full of shit on this point.

I am seeing the whole picture. Read the rest I wrote.
That is what lead us to believe you are not

creationism cant be taught in public schools because of the separation of church and state but at private schools they can teach whatever they feel like

Realy??? wheres your evidence because every Biologist I've talked to has said that the Theory of the Evolution of Man has been thuroughly disproven.
Well, now you've talked with one (well, 1 year to go) who has said just the opposite.

I am an atheist and have many problems with this.
Who the fuck cares?

First of all I believe creationtism is bullcrap.
Get down with the devil!

Secondly, even though I wouldn't want it taught in schools because that is a religous viewpoint and there IS suppose to be a seperation of church and state.. it's not that big a deal..

Evolution is bullshit too, infact 75% of what they teach our kids is utter dirreah. And yet you don't seem to care about that. You only put your chest out and raise your chin because the word "God" was meationed. Real mature, that'll SURELY make our kids smarter and the goverment less corrupt.. jackass..

creationism cant be taught in public schools because of the separation of church and state but at private schools they can teach whatever they feel like
It could very well be taught in a theology class along with other creation stories

Proof?

I can probably tell you that you're full of shit on this point. OH! That hurt! If you really think that then just pour it out!

Who the fuck cares?

First of all I believe creationtism is bullcrap.
Get down with the devil!

Secondly, even though I wouldn't want it taught in schools because that is a religous viewpoint and there IS suppose to be a seperation of church and state.. it's not that big a deal..

Evolution is bullshit too, infact 75% of what they teach our kids is utter dirreah. And yet you don't seem to care about that. You only put your chest out and raise your chin because the word "God" was meationed. Real mature, that'll SURELY make our kids smarter and the goverment less corrupt.. jackass..
Stop the flaming please

Listen Up peoples, its not a one or the other argument, and i'd just like to clear a few things up if i can.
Firstly, creationism is a both a scientific and theological argument/theory call it what u will. Both theory's are supported by a wide range of scientific specialists, however as evolution as stated is a process occuring of millions of years its almost impossible to prove and thats a mistake many of its supporters make, they assume that its proven, it is after all the "Theory of Evolution", However Creationism is just the same while there is a lot of supporting evidence ie:intelligent design , it is still a theory.
Secondly, Both theories are not mutually exclusive, who is to say that some omnipresent diety/ Alien Intelligence / whatever, has not had partthereof or total control of all things as we know it, for all we know evolution is part of intelligent design, i mean why not create something that by design instinctually attempts to self improve, through evolution. Of course neither theory will ever accept this becuase they are researched and ultimately controled by academics seeking their own advancement. Now i'd like to say that i believe creationism is the realm of religion and faith, and that i can see no other logical argument that makes more sense than evolution, but the fact is that is just my opinion, and its not my right to force others to understand it at exclusion of their own.

However, Intelligent design is a totally different matter. Intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, just like the theory of Evolution.
No, it isn't. Intelligent design includes the belief in an unprovable creator/designer. It is not possible to test the possibility of the existence of this creator/designer, so it is not scientific.

That's something that has always bugged me about that. They call it a theory and teach it as fact. If you are going to present as a theory, then you must present it as a theory, and present the opposing theory, so that pupils can make up their own minds. And both theories must be equally and fairly taught.
1. There is no opposing theory to evolution. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.
2. Evolution should be presented with "This is what the evidence tells us happened and is still happening" as it usually is.

Only then will students be able to make up their own minds on what they think is right.

To close, has anyone heard the saying 'An atheist is a man who believes he was an accident.'
No. But let's just add some wood to the fire here.

Stop the flaming please
Honestly, this is just pointless childishness now.

That is what lead us to believe you are not Well you don't know who I am and what I do for a 12 year old. SO if I were you I wouldn't be jumping to conclusions

Drunk Commies Reborn

I forgot the ;) ... hehe.
I don't take forum insults all that seriously.

Well you don't know who I am and what I do for a 12 year old. SO if I were you I wouldn't be jumping to conclusions
I did not say I made a conclusion I said that is what lead me to the belief

Clearly you don't Amber. By adding up the ages of the people in the OT, then adding the number of years since Jesus was born you get about 6000 years. That's from Adam to now.


Do the math again and this time try using the actual amounts instead of the cut and paste of the bible. In Hebrew tradition it was considered apropriate to leave out the less apeasing characters in your geneologies. like uncle fred who sat on the couch his whole life and is still in the fith grade.

here's someone you should look into talking to about the datings of things in the bible.

Dr. John Fortner (http://www.harding.edu/USER/jdfortner/WWW/)

I find it interesting that the same people that want to say that "evolution is just a theory" or that "evolution is wrong" are the same people who won't touch quantum physics with a ten meter pole.

Try the math, dearie. We're talking about a non-deterministic system where effect can and sometimes does precede cause. Or where you can't know everything. No one can. Not even God. It's all in the math.

And if you think the math is wrong, then stop right now and dispose of everything that relies on a tunnel diode to work correctly.

You can start by unplugging your computer, and taking off your watch. Throw away your cell phone.

Honestly, this is just pointless childishness now.
Now just because he was flaming does not make it right to flame bate (mild I know)

I did not say I made a conclusion I said that is what lead me to the belief Well you don't know who I am!

then how do you explain about 4 years ago they found a fosilized heart of a dinosaur and a spear through it? and they even showed it.
No, they didn't. You've been lied to. Also soft tissue almost never fossilizes. Even if humans and dinosaurs did live at the same time, and they didn't, finding something like that would be damn near impossible.