|
|
Post by firemancheesehead on Mar 27, 2009 10:10:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Mar 27, 2009 11:15:49 GMT -5
So, you're stomping your foot because someone "might" get the impression that creationism is right?
Well, I guess people are going to have to live with it. You aren't going to outlaw faith any more than you can outlaw atheism.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerbap on Mar 27, 2009 11:36:14 GMT -5
Does it matter how it all happened? That question doesn't cause me to lose sleep. I'll believe what I want to believe and others can believe what they want to believe. I'm not trying to change their minds; they won't change mine. I just know where I'll be when it's all over. Have a blessed day.
|
|
|
|
Post by firemancheesehead on Mar 27, 2009 14:00:56 GMT -5
So, you're stomping your foot because someone "might" get the impression that creationism is right? Well, I guess people are going to have to live with it. You aren't going to outlaw faith any more than you can outlaw atheism. No TW, it doesn't belong in schools. It's religion, pure and simple. If you want religion, then take a class on religion. Do not bring "your" particular brand of relgious wackaloonery into public schools. Creationism is NOT right. It cannot be tested. It is, in fact simply ,"goddidit!" You're a Catholic, you want some far right wing ideology religious view taught in school? Especially if it contradicts everything you are brought up to believe in? I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreenmeanie on Mar 27, 2009 14:13:32 GMT -5
If you want religion taught in schools go to a religious school.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Mar 27, 2009 16:21:40 GMT -5
I didn't say I wanted religion taught in schools. I stated that there is an alternate view to the so-called scientific point of view, which many people believe. I stated that kids should be told that there is that view as well, and it's up to them to make their own decisions as to what is, and isn't the way it is.
I would not tolerate religion taught in public schools, and I don't want atheism taught in public schools either, and when you slam your fist down and say "this is the way it is," and indicate there is no God, that's exactly what you're doing by refusing the right of kids to know the creationist point of view.
I'm tired of blinders being put on people so they can't pick and choose what is, and isn't right, or what is, and isn't fact, on their own, without someone force feeding them their agenda.
I want the kids to hear about creationism too. If you have a problem with that, let's put it up to a referendum, and find out exactly what it is "we - the people" want to be taught. Let's take it out of the hands of the Supreme Court.
I'll bet those who are against religion in school will run and hide on that one... they don't want that referendum, because too many people would support creationism taught in schools.
|
|
|
|
Post by firemancheesehead on Mar 27, 2009 21:46:20 GMT -5
I didn't say I wanted religion taught in schools. I stated that there is an alternate view to the so-called scientific point of view, which many people believe. I stated that kids should be told that there is that view as well, and it's up to them to make their own decisions as to what is, and isn't the way it is. I would not tolerate religion taught in public schools, and I don't want atheism taught in public schools either, and when you slam your fist down and say "this is the way it is," and indicate there is no God, that's exactly what you're doing by refusing the right of kids to know the creationist point of view. I'm tired of blinders being put on people so they can't pick and choose what is, and isn't right, or what is, and isn't fact, on their own, without someone force feeding them their agenda. I want the kids to hear about creationism too. If you have a problem with that, let's put it up to a referendum, and find out exactly what it is "we - the people" want to be taught. Let's take it out of the hands of the Supreme Court. I'll bet those who are against religion in school will run and hide on that one... they don't want that referendum, because too many people would support creationism taught in schools. The problem is TW, that creationism is not science. Despite all the rhetoric you hear from IDiots, there is no controversy. Evolution is fully supported ( and tested etc ) by the scientific community. It really is this simple: If you full believe in creationism/ID and that evolution is false, the next time you are sick, pray and do not call the doctor or take any medication-they are all products of evolution. |
|
mag7ue
Practice Squad
Guru - Week #3 - 2008, #16 - 2009
Posts: 419
|
Post by mag7ue on Mar 28, 2009 6:52:01 GMT -5
Creationism is NOT right. It cannot be tested. It is, in fact simply ,"goddidit!" You don't believe in any form of creationism because you don't believe in any form of a god. For the rest of the world that does believe in some sort of higher power, that higher power having something to do with the forming of the world makes a HECK of a lot more sense than "it just happened randomly." But I find your arrogance refreshing. It never ceases to amaze me how people of a certain belief system can look so far down on people of another. |
|
|
|
Post by TW on Mar 28, 2009 7:27:07 GMT -5
Probably the most important thing to realize about science is that it is
not exact.
For that very reason, there is a constant changing of what the science community calls facts.
I believe one of the points they are not exact in is the stance of "some scientists" believing that creationism isn't possible.
At the same time, if it isn't possible, why do some members of the scientific community believe in creationism?
|
|
|
|
Post by firemancheesehead on Mar 28, 2009 8:09:32 GMT -5
Probably the most important thing to realize about science is that it is not exact.For that very reason, there is a constant changing of what the science community calls facts. I believe one of the points they are not exact in is the stance of "some scientists" believing that creationism isn't possible. At the same time, if it isn't possible, why do some members of the scientific community believe in creationism? |
|
|
|
Post by firemancheesehead on Mar 28, 2009 8:16:13 GMT -5
For some reason, my reply didn't post. Please understand, that that Creationism/ID has been proven to be scientifically false. In fact, Mike Behe got his ass handed to him in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trail. His (Behe) "irreducible complexity" was thoughly destroyed.
Check this video out...
The maker of video uses the DIs own list to impeach itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by firemancheesehead on Mar 28, 2009 8:23:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Mar 28, 2009 9:26:37 GMT -5
Darwin's natural selection is flawed - so say scientists. The search for matter, inorganic, and organic, is ongoing. The source of that existence itself is unknown. It also states, in it's nature, that the strength of religion is based on the premise that existence itself did not just "start" on its own, but was a creation of a higher being. To say differently is ridiculous, because of the imperfection of science.
Real scientists know there is no "hard evidence" that there isn't a creator. Even Wehrner von Braun, noted scientist had his reference points.
Is it reasonable to acknowledge a Creator? When challenged by skeptics to prove the existence of a Creator scientifically, Dr. Wernher von Braun, the "Father of the American Rocket and Space Program," replied, "Must we really light a candle to see the Sun? …The electron is materially inconceivable, and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him? …The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which always will lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction." [5] To simply dismiss the concept of a Creator as being unscientific is to "violate the very objectivity of science itself." [5] While we may not be able to comprehend knowledge of a Creator, we certainly can apprehend it.
Years ago, after listening to what scientists were saying, I saw a skepticism in some of their voices, and statements that were made to hedge their bets on their not being a creator, by saying that there was always the possibility that it was reality. Even Voltaire, as he grew older, commented that he hoped there was no God, but did not know with certainty that there wasn't, because he feared God's reprisal against him for his lack of faith.
What puzzles me is how atheists always want to lump agnostics in with them, as if it gives them more strength. In fact, agnostics are absolutely nothing like atheists, in as much as they do not deny, nor support the existence of God.
|
|
|
|
Post by firemancheesehead on Mar 28, 2009 11:07:44 GMT -5
Yes, there were things that darwin proposed that have turned out to be wrong. But on the whole, Darwinian Evolution is true and is a FACT. A big problem the creationist camp has, is that they forget that Darwin didn't have the benefit of modern science to help him. He couldn't look into cells to see the DNA etc.
You also said
Real scientists know there is no "hard evidence" that there isn't a creator.
You cannot prove a negative.
It's all good and well that you quote von Braun, but in reality all boils down to this : ID is repackaged creationism and it violates federal to teach religion in public schools. It is also discriminatory since it only promotes one brand of religion. Can you say with 100% certainty the Hindu version of creation is wrong?
Again, if you want religion, go to a religious school.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Mar 28, 2009 11:20:26 GMT -5
"Real" Scientists are those that believe there is so much more to explore, and understand, that they have only scratched the surface of existence.
Those are the people that are constantly exploring the vastness of everything laid out in front of them.
Those who have closed minds, and preconceived ideologies of specifically how things came to be have closed their minds to any possibility of anything other than their own concept of how things are.
|
|
