|
|
Post by firemancheesehead on Mar 28, 2009 17:42:24 GMT -5
The only ones who are closed minded, are those that support only their brand of religious belief.
And I highly doubt that the overwhelming number of them are scientists.
Evolutionary biologists fully admit the field still needs study. But they know evolution does happen, that micro changes lead to marco changes. They know that genes and alleles evolve over time.
As I have said before, even the courts have ruled that ID/creationism is not science and it is religion.
Just as you wouldn't want or expect astrology to be taught as fact or as a 'competing theory' to astronomy, ID and creationism need to be sent to the religious studies classes.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Mar 28, 2009 18:07:55 GMT -5
Astrology vs astronomy is not a comparison to the issue we're discussing.
|
|
mag7ue
Practice Squad
Guru - Week #3 - 2008, #16 - 2009
Posts: 419
|
Post by mag7ue on Mar 28, 2009 19:31:23 GMT -5
As I have said before, even the courts have ruled that ID/creationism is not science and it is religion. Yes, because our court system is perfect.  What kind of argument is that? |
|
|
|
Post by thegreenmeanie on Mar 28, 2009 20:55:02 GMT -5
You are totally ignoring everything he just said about what science knows about evolution. You guys are picking on sentence and ignoring the rest. What he stated can be shown, what creationists believe cannot. That is the big difference. If you choose to believe in that, it's cool. It still belongs in a religious school, and not in a public school.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Mar 28, 2009 21:04:08 GMT -5
You're trying to separate religion from schools. Great.
You're going to have to throw out the Declaration of Independence as well, aren't you? It refers to a "creator," therefore it is not acceptable for teaching.
No. The fact is, we are a nation that is more religious than atheist, and as long as we are, don't expect us to roll over on this issue. We won't.
I personally want kids told that there's a school of thought that believes in creationism.
Anyhow, in all the arguments I've heard to this point, you haven't "proven" that there is no God.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreenmeanie on Mar 29, 2009 10:49:21 GMT -5
I agree , but you haven't proven there is one. The God that you are referring to in the deceleration of independence is not the Christian God, it is the God from the deist religion, which is a more natural God. If the framers were ever referring to the Christian God, and if they ever intended this to be a Christian country you would of seen Jesus talked about, and he never was. After all that is the most important aspect of the Christian religion.
Now if you want people to know about that view that is more than fine by me. However this country is not just Christian, so are you going to talk about what the Eastern Religions believe in as well? If you are then what you have is a world religions class, and not a science class, and that is where those discussions belong. Until there is a way to prove there is a God religious aspects do not need to be taught with science. I never said I could personally prove there isn't one, however science can at this moment because you can not test faith. That is where and why religion and science can never go together. If you live your life off of faith that is fine by me, and I respect that, but I do not agree it belongs in a science class.
|
|
|
|
Post by firemancheesehead on Mar 29, 2009 13:01:25 GMT -5
You're trying to separate religion from schools. Great. You're going to have to throw out the Declaration of Independence as well, aren't you? It refers to a "creator," therefore it is not acceptable for teaching. No. The fact is, we are a nation that is more religious than atheist, and as long as we are, don't expect us to roll over on this issue. We won't. I personally want kids told that there's a school of thought that believes in creationism. Anyhow, in all the arguments I've heard to this point, you haven't "proven" that there is no God. Again, the onus is on the religious. "You" have to prove your god exists. Do not use the bible, that in itself is circular logic and it won't fly. Show "us" the testable verifiable evidence that supports your claim that there is a diety that controlls everything. And yes, the astrology/astronomy point is valid. Astrology is made up hooey where as astronomy is scientific fact. Creationism is made up religious belief where as evolution is sceintific fact. |
|
|
|
Post by TW on Mar 29, 2009 13:19:21 GMT -5
I don't have to prove anything. It states, in the Declaration of Independence, of our nation, that we are under God's protection.
Ergo, if you don't like what our nation is, speak out, that's fine, but don't tell me I cannot believe in God, or state my belief in God in schools.
I think the biggest problem atheists have is that they fear they might be wrong, and someone speaking about God scares them.
Since those who disagree with Mags and I will always disagree, and we won't give you "your way" because you stomp your foot, there's really not much sense in continuing this thread, is there?
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreenmeanie on Mar 29, 2009 13:22:05 GMT -5
Wow... Good talk.
Sounds like you are being a little stubborn here sir. I don't know how into science you are, but you should know that you can't prove religion, and fireman is right in regards to the bible. No one here has said you can't believe in God or share that opinion, but it does not belong in a PUBLIC school. Nor does it belong in a science class if it is a real science class. I don't have any problems with religious schools and what they teach, after all that is why they are there, but that doesn't need to cross over into the public school.
Also once again the framers were not referring to the Christian God. I don't know if you know that or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Mar 29, 2009 13:27:54 GMT -5
Nothing to talk about. We're all spinning our wheels, and there's only four of us posting, at it's getting a little hot in what's said.
Since I'm actually in favor of separation of Church and State, as well as keeping religion under control in the classrooms, I find the attitude that anyone who is religious, or believes, is a moron who should be silenced, quite intolerable.
Ergo, I say teach religion as an alternate to the attempts by some to teach anti-religion through their interpretation of science.
That's my stand, and there's more of us than those that disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreenmeanie on Mar 29, 2009 13:34:35 GMT -5
When have I ever said you were stupid or anything like that? I want to see a quote on that one. You have to remember this is a message board too. It's easy to misconstrue the context of what's typed. I have just tried to have a conversation in here, and have never named called or judged either of you. I simply stated from a scientific standpoint what is possible at this time, and also wanted to make it known about the framers, because that is something important more people need to know. No doubt today the majority in this country are Christians, however America was not founded as a Christian country. If you guys want to quit discussing this than fine, but if you took something I said offensive I am sorry that is how you interpreted it.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Mar 29, 2009 13:37:54 GMT -5
There's one hell of a lot of references to God, and a creator, throughout the documentation of record for this nation to say religion wasn't a factor.
Also, the reason people came was to escape religious persecution from religions other than their own, not to avoid religion itself. They wanted to worship as they felt was their right.
I get tired of hearing that the nation was founded to "avoid" religion. That's a load of crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreenmeanie on Mar 29, 2009 13:43:32 GMT -5
Never said that. The framers were deist. They believed in a God, but were not a fan of organized religion, and as you said came from a place where religion was merged with politics to control the people. I think you should look at what a deist believes in because that is the God they speak of. Some of them such as Jefferson also have some interesting comments on the bible. The last point I want to make is that if this was in fact founded on the basis of the Christian religion, and was meant to be a Christian country than you would say Jesus being spoken of and referenced in documents. He is not mentioned. There are elements that are similar to the Christian religion mentioned that I would say could of been taken from it, but once again that is an example of them taking something good and combining it with other ideas to make something completely knew and safe to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by firemancheesehead on Mar 29, 2009 14:37:50 GMT -5
Nothing to talk about. We're all spinning our wheels, and there's only four of us posting, at it's getting a little hot in what's said. Since I'm actually in favor of separation of Church and State, as well as keeping religion under control in the classrooms, I find the attitude that anyone who is religious, or believes, is a moron who should be silenced, quite intolerable. Ergo, I say teach religion as an alternate to the attempts by some to teach anti-religion through their interpretation of science. That's my stand, and there's more of us than those that disagree. Those are seperate things TW. Sceince belongs in school since it is a fundamental truth and the reason we have some many of the things we have today. In places like Texas, where the BOE is made of non teachers, and the majority are creationists-including 'uncle' Don-who is a dentist, they are try to get their brand of religion taught as sceintific fact. There is no 'debate' as the IDists wuold have you believe. Their take on it is typical of crap they're pushing. they misquote and use old talking points that sceince repeatedly and soundly squishes because, it is not true. Science by its very nature cannot comment of the super natural. Anti-religion is not being taught. What is taught is everything that is known to be true and testifiable under the scientific method. Reason alone is the greatest enemy of faith. If the teaching of science causes some to question the validity of their personal god(s) then so be it. Just as if science causes someone to believe that there is a god(s). It doesn't belong in a science class. I will be very willing to bet that none of the biology textbooks make any claim either way. |
|
mag7ue
Practice Squad
Guru - Week #3 - 2008, #16 - 2009
Posts: 419
|
Post by mag7ue on Mar 29, 2009 17:32:51 GMT -5
The only reason it's proposed that creation be in a science class is because it's an alternate view to how the universe came to be - something I thought science welcomed.
And I don't care how many times you say it, evolution has NOT been "proved." You can call creationists stupid as loudly and repeatedly as you like, but the fact of the matter is they aren't (I'm sure you can find A stupid creationist just the same as you could find A stupid evolutionist though).
I know you'll never consider the idea that a higher power could have ever done anything like create the universe, since you refuse to consider that higher power could exist. But to say no one should ever have the chance to CONSIDER that option is the worst kind of arrogance.
|
|
What kind of argument is that?