(merged) Creationism

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by SkinsFan2456

I have a question......what is worse?

Teaching your children ONLY the Bible, and leaving out theories that you feel conflict with it......or exposing them to the Bible, and letting them go to public school, learn SCIENTIFIC theories, thereby letting them decide for themselves what is truth?

Theories (plural)? :doh:

Answer: I'll keep my kids home, teach them the Bible and how to be wholesome, courteous, respectful citizens in society while you send your kid to public school to be indoctrinated with a THEORY (singular) that tells them that there is no purpose to life, they are animals (which they will gladly receive and then take the dance floor to do their "freak dance" and act like animals), and watch many of them commit suicide because they see no reason to live.

Help yourself.

[MrWill]

Originally posted by skinsfan51

Theories (plural)? :doh:

Answer: I'll keep my kids home, teach them the Bible and how to be wholesome, courteous, respectful citizens in society while you send your kid to public school to be indoctrinated with a THEORY (singular) that tells them that there is no purpose to life, they are animals (which they will gladly receive and then take the dance floor to do their "freak dance" and act like animals), and watch many of them commit suicide because they see no reason to live.

Help yourself.

I can see why you responded that way. It is clear that you think the theory of evolution presupposes that there is no meaning to life, that we are just animals with no purpose in life, and that those of us who believe it may be true are close to suicide. I hit a nerve there and I know you won't admit it.......but your response KILLS any possibility that you are an open minded individual. Teach them the Bible......and how to be courteous, respectful citizens.....please. One thing is for sure.....you are not qualified to teach your children ANYTHING scientific. So, yeah......just weaken their minds by telling them only what YOU want them to hear. Are you going to seriously deny that you are an imperfect being, just like the rest of us......and that maybe your children need more than your narrow minded little views?

[CandaceM23]

You guys are some debatin' mo-fo's.

[@DCGoldPants]

Momma says that Gators are so mean is because they've got all them teeth.....and no toothbrush.

[MrWill]

sf51,

You are creating weak human beings in that home of yours.......ones that will have few references for how things work in this life.......and maybe you will find out that someday, when they eventually figure out you were shielding them from other ideas, they might feel suicidal. Because why would you hide a 'theory' from them? Because you are fearful of it.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by SkinsFan2456

I can see why you responded that way. It is clear that you think the theory of evolution presupposes that there is no meaning to life, that we are just animals with no purpose in life, and that those of us who believe it may be true are close to suicide. I hit a nerve there and I know you won't admit it.......but your response KILLS any possibility that you are an open minded individual. Teach them the Bible......and how to be courteous, respectful citizens.....please. One thing is for sure.....you are not qualified to teach your children ANYTHING scientific. So, yeah......just weaken their minds by telling them only what YOU want them to hear. Are you going to seriously deny that you are an imperfect being, just like the rest of us......and that maybe your children need more than your narrow minded little views?

:doh: It's obvious what you know nothing of either evolution or creation. Tell you what, you teach your children what you want and I'll teach mine what I want. We'll see in the end who was right, ok? Help yourself. Until then maybe you could brush up on your knowledge of both sciences.

[Baculus]

I am open minded-open to explore some of the links you provided, skinsfan51, and , as in a previous post, I mentioned that I didn't believe all Creationists are of the same ilk, necessarily. I guess what I am discussing is the more popular mainstream Creationist views.

Much of the Bible, and the belief in it, is based upon Fantastical beliefs. That isn't to say it's wrong - I believe in Aliens. And though there are much scientific study in this area, for now, it is merely a theory. But that doesn't mean I want my theories are aliens to be taught in schools. That's left up the the individual (and for the government to release information if many of the alien-related theories are correct).

Creationism is based upon theology, and while you have pointed out the scientific efforts to research the subject, I just think it is a bad idea to start introducing theology into the science classroom.

So getting back to the topic at hand, I do not believe that Creationism should be taught as a science. Who knows - maybe the entire branch of evolution is wrong and this may change, but that is my current feelings on the subject.

I cannot remember which question you posed about dinosaurs, so I'll take a pass on it. But I really won't take a theory seriously when it comes to statements that man and dinosaurs walked at the same time. I'll need a paradigm shift to truly believe that.

You mentioned "Piltdown Man" - this was a hoax, as you mentioned. It has nothing to do with the serious study of Evolution. There has been lots of religious-based hoaxes - some believe the Shroud of Turin is a hoax. But this doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus never existed as well.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by SkinsFan2456

sf51,

You are creating weak human beings in that home of yours.......ones that will have few references for how things work in this life.......and maybe you will find out that someday, when they eventually figure out you were shielding them from other ideas, they might feel suicidal. Because why would you hide a 'theory' from them? Because you are fearful of it.

You forgot that we would be sucking their blood, spanking them silly and locking them in cages until puberty. Get the story straight!

[SnyderShrugged]

Teach all theories or none. They are all THEORIES at this point because neither can be proven nor has been.

I'd rather see none, to be honest, because of social biases in the scope as a whole.

[Baculus]

Answer: I'll keep my kids home, teach them the Bible and how to be wholesome, courteous, respectful citizens in society while you send your kid to public school to be indoctrinated with a THEORY (singular) that tells them that there is no purpose to life, they are animals (which they will gladly receive and then take the dance floor to do their "freak dance" and act like animals), and watch many of them commit suicide because they see no reason to live.

Help yourself.

Oh lord.

Evolution does not say ANYTHING about humans having "no purpose to life." I would venture that you have never, ever taken a single physical anthropology or archaelogy class in your lift, right? The study of evolution often studies the exact PURPOSE in life - I actually gained MORE of a purpose when I studied evolution, since it also included the evolution of human societies.

And to infer that someone who does not get taught the Bible won't be "wholesome, courteous, respectful citizens in society" is sheer nonesense and ignorance. I've know very polite aetheists, just like I have know rude Christians. So, I guess the million of folks who aren't Christians are just discourteous, unwholeseome barbarians? And you wonder why some people do not like Christians....your statement demonstrates that reason.

Absence of the Bible does not mine absence of purpose, manners, civility, or culture.

BTW, I have been known to be a crazy dancer at times in my youth. It is not our fault that someone may be too tightly wound to actually have any sort of physical release other than doing some robotic, boring dance style. There is nothing better than the sheer release of energy when one can dance with wild abandon. But that is a generalization that you have created, since most folks are too sheepish, or think it looks goofy, to "dance like an animal."

Your comment reminded me of the "goat dance" from that one Dan Ackryod movie - I guess that is what you think that "non-Christian" dances must appear, eh? Haha.

BTW, have you ever seen the pictures from Bohemian Grove that shows our "Christian leaders" at ceremonies that involved huge owls?

http://www.infowars.com/Images/bg/prisonplanetbohemian_burncare.jpg

It was amazing the number of suppositions you made in this one paragraph. And it shows that you are uninformed of your fellow citizens that don't fit in your Christian views, skinsfan51.

Sorry, but the Christian way is not the only way to live for some folks.

[FBChick]

Wow, that was a lot to read, but a good chunk of it good reading.

So first and foremost to the question at hand. Which I would argue is anything but simple. Mainly from the standpoint of the point we would have to be at to prove beyond doubt that creationism was true. To prove this point, would be to prove that God exist. Not only would we have proven God exist, we would have proven which "version" of god existed and which "version" of creationism is true. For this to all come to pass, would litterally change the entire world and it's way of thinking. Would a "public" school even exist and what would it be for? Would we still even have a government to regulate schools? The decisive knowledge of our creation will have vast consequences reaching much farther then simply what we teach in our schools. Imagine trying to answer what you would do with your religion if you found beyond a shadow of a doubt that the big bang theory was true. It would be conclusive evidence that god does not exist, what would you do then?

But I haven't answered the question, have I? But yet I think I actually gave you what you were looking for in the end. Which is not really an answer per say, but to identify the individals who still believe that the possibility of creationism could be, at least in some form true. Obviously a person who does not believe in a higher power will not be able to answer yes, because they have already ruled it a mute point. While they may someday concede that evolution may not be the cause, that can not grasp a reality that would prove "God" to be true. Just as you can not grasp a reality were "God" may be false.

That is all that this type of debate can lead to. Those of us who can argue the variations of either side can actually envision both possible outcomes. We may not believe in "God", or at least not the "God" you believe to be true, but we can concede that the possibility exist for one. BUT we can also comprehend the meaning of life if "God" turned out to be false and therefore can fill in the holes of both theories with many possibilities.. which is where true science is born. And until there is no other plausable explanination, neither theory can be viewed as the end all be all of reality.

So then back to the circular arguement as to whether Creationism can and/or should be taught in a public school. The first problem is which Creationism theory should be taught? There is nothing from which one can claim truth over any one creationism theory and you use of order in the world doesn't change that fact. Would you object if a teacher taught creationism of one religion over yours? If you answer yes, then you have to object to teaching your version of it as well.

So then maybe the actual arguement is why teach the beginning of creation in school at all?

[Baculus]

FBChick, that was an excellent post. And it brought up some very valid points. If you start teaching Creationsim, then what is the next step - teaching Theology as fact and science, since that seems to be related? Instead of teaching natural sciences, it is replaced by Theological scieneces? Do we start to pick and choose which sciences we can teach if it does, or does not, align with theological beliefs? And where does this road lead to, the entire dismantling of anything outside of the religious sphere? Do we then start with interpretations of the Bible and start implementing this via law?

This is a little OT from you post, FBChick, but I always fear a theological fascism in this nation. Now, back to the debate....

The teaching of Creationism, to me, would open up a whole new can of worms. But I have a feeling that may be the objective of *some* Creationist adherents.

Again, good post, FBChick.

[rebornempowered]

The problem is we do have religion being taught in our schools. It is just an anti-God religion.

You ask what's the next step if creation is taught. We have well seen what the steps are if secular humanism is taught. Let's just stick to the basics: operational science, the arts, math, reading, etc.

[Baculus]

The problem is we do have religion being taught in our schools. It is just an anti-God religion.

Hmmm, I must have missed that

"anti-god" class when I went to public schools. Man! It is funny the things I hear about public schools that I do not see in my experiences. That's right, it is that whole santanic secular humanism they are teaching in school! (Which, judging from my nephews, isn't even the case anymore, since the basic studies I remember from my early school days aren't even taught as much. Humanism often means social sciences, and a lot of those programs have been cut from the school systems.)

Just beause someone does not teach "of God" means that it is anti-God. That is the assumption I have heard from some of you: If you are not taught the Bible, you are souless heathens, and if you do not teach the Bible in school, you are teaching anti-god.

If you are not with us, you are against us.

I hate to say it, but some of you are not convincing me that we are better of with your sentiments being taught in school.

We have well seen what the steps are if secular humanism is taught. Let's just stick to the basics: operational science, the arts, math, reading, etc.

Well, not much secular humanism itself isn't actually taught in schools. The separation of Church and State has been retained, but that does not mean that actual secular humanism itself is being taught.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by FBChick

Wow, that was a lot to read, but a good chunk of it good reading.

So first and foremost to the question at hand. Which I would argue is anything but simple. Mainly from the standpoint of the point we would have to be at to prove beyond doubt that creationism was true. To prove this point, would be to prove that God exist. Not only would we have proven God exist, we would have proven which "version" of god existed and which "version" of creationism is true. For this to all come to pass, would litterally change the entire world and it's way of thinking. Would a "public" school even exist and what would it be for? Would we still even have a government to regulate schools? The decisive knowledge of our creation will have vast consequences reaching much farther then simply what we teach in our schools. Imagine trying to answer what you would do with your religion if you found beyond a shadow of a doubt that the big bang theory was true. It would be conclusive evidence that god does not exist, what would you do then?

But I haven't answered the question, have I? But yet I think I actually gave you what you were looking for in the end. Which is not really an answer per say, but to identify the individals who still believe that the possibility of creationism could be, at least in some form true. Obviously a person who does not believe in a higher power will not be able to answer yes, because they have already ruled it a mute point. While they may someday concede that evolution may not be the cause, that can not grasp a reality that would prove "God" to be true. Just as you can not grasp a reality were "God" may be false.

That is all that this type of debate can lead to. Those of us who can argue the variations of either side can actually envision both possible outcomes. We may not believe in "God", or at least not the "God" you believe to be true, but we can concede that the possibility exist for one. BUT we can also comprehend the meaning of life if "God" turned out to be false and therefore can fill in the holes of both theories with many possibilities.. which is where true science is born. And until there is no other plausable explanination, neither theory can be viewed as the end all be all of reality.

So then back to the circular arguement as to whether Creationism can and/or should be taught in a public school. The first problem is which Creationism theory should be taught? There is nothing from which one can claim truth over any one creationism theory and you use of order in the world doesn't change that fact. Would you object if a teacher taught creationism of one religion over yours? If you answer yes, then you have to object to teaching your version of it as well.

So then maybe the actual arguement is why teach the beginning of creation in school at all?

By the exact same rationale, which theory of evolution should then be taught ? If at all? Would you support the elimination of Evolutional theory as taught in schools today?

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Baculus

Hmmm, I must have missed that

"anti-god" class when I went to public schools. Man! It is funny the things I hear about public schools that I do not see in my experiences. That's right, it is that whole santanic secular humanism they are teaching in school! (Which, judging from my nephews, isn't even the case anymore, since the basic studies I remember from my early school days aren't even taught as much. Humanism often means social sciences, and a lot of those programs have been cut from the school systems.)

Just beause someone does not teach "of God" means that it is anti-God. That is the assumption I have heard from some of you: If you are not taught the Bible, you are souless heathens, and if you do not teach the Bible in school, you are teaching anti-god.

If you are not with us, you are against us.

I hate to say it, but some of you are not convincing me that we are better of with your sentiments being taught in school.

Well, not much secular humanism itself isn't actually taught in schools. The separation of Church and State has been retained, but that does not mean that actual secular humanism itself is being taught.

Seperation of Church and state in the constitution is a myth. There is only an anti-establishment clause that has been twisted into the ACLU's mantra for no mention of faith of any kind. Funny though, my 5 yr old dughter has learned all about islam in her school, but nothing else. hmmmm

[Prosperity]

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

Seperation of Church and State are not there verbatim, but it clearly means that.

If you wan't you 5 year old daughter to learn about other religions go complain to the school. (What the hell this has to do with what you are talking about I have no idea).

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Liberty

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

Seperation of Church and State are not there verbatim, but it clearly means that.

Liberty, are the words "separation of church and state" in the Constitution?

It's not as "clear" as you try to make it. If we want to learn what the founders meant then we need to go see what they said at that time about it, and consider where they came from and why. If one does that than one will clearly see that it only means a STATE CHURCH DENOMINATION (i.e. Batist, Church of England, Catholic, etc.) and not that all religion be cast out or kept out of government. They left England for religious freedoms from the oppression of the Church of England. It makes all the sense in the world that when they had the chance to set up their own government, they would make sure there was no state church. But you won't find these religion men saying anything about keeping religion out of civil life. It's quite the contrary.

But seems no one hears that any more. It doesn't fit the agenda.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by skinsfan51

Liberty, are the words "separation of church and state" in the Constitution?

It's not as "clear" as you try to make it. If we want to learn what the founders meant then we need to go see what they said at that time about it, and consider where they came from and why. If one does that than one will clearly see that it only means a STATE CHURCH DENOMINATION (i.e. Batist, Church of England, Catholic, etc.) and not that all religion be cast out or kept out of government. They left England for religious freedoms from the oppression of the Church of England. It makes all the sense in the world that when they had the chance to set up their own government, they would make sure there was no state church. But you won't find these religion men saying anything about keeping religion out of civil life. It's quite the contrary.

But seems no one hears that any more. It doesn't fit the agenda.

It says religion it doesn't mention sect all. It is very clear.

I don't know why you would dispute it anyway, you yourself said that Christianity is a religion based on the personal relationship between the worshipper and the god, so why would you even want government in it?

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Baculus

Oh lord.

Evolution does not say ANYTHING about humans having "no purpose to life." I would venture that you have never, ever taken a single physical anthropology or archaelogy class in your lift, right? The study of evolution often studies the exact PURPOSE in life - I actually gained MORE of a purpose when I studied evolution, since it also included the evolution of human societies.

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either."

-Dr William B. Provine, Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University

Perhaps Dr. Provine should go back to school to learn the real meaning of evolution?

[unsonny]

am I drunk sitting on a porch...isnt this one of the things we're not supposed to be talking about.......and politics

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Liberty

It says religion it doesn't mention sect all. It is very clear.

I don't know why you would dispute it anyway, you yourself said that Christianity is a religion based on the personal relationship between the worshipper and the god, so why would you even want government in it?

It's very clear to a 21st century, 17 year old extreme liberal who hates religion. But step back in the 18th century and see what our Founders believed about religion and it's importance in our nation. You cannot argue this point intellectually unless you see it from their viewpoint. They are the true authority since they are the authors. They knew what they meant. It is THAT interpretation that we must retain today.

Do you agree with this paragraph, Liberty?

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, "where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

[dchogs]

so which creation story should we teach along with evolution as theories?

[unsonny]

Originally posted by skinsfan51

It's very clear to a 21st century, 17 year old extreme liberal who hates religion. But step back in the 18th century and see what our Founders believed about religion and it's importance in our nation. You cannot argue this point intellectually unless you see it from their viewpoint. They are the true authority since they are the authors. They knew what they meant. It is THAT interpretation that we must retain today.

Do you agree with this paragraph, Liberty?

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, "where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

I missed something in the paragraph our founding fathers wrote, I missed all the parts about slavery, sexism, racism, lynching, genocide and greed.

I do believe, a high percentage of them practiced most of the above.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by skinsfan51

It's very clear to a 21st century, 17 year old extreme liberal who hates religion. But step back in the 18th century and see what our Founders believed about religion and it's importance in our nation. You cannot argue this point intellectually unless you see it from their viewpoint. They are the true authority since they are the authors. They knew what they meant. It is THAT interpretation that we must retain today.

Do you agree with this paragraph, Liberty?

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, "where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

I know George Washington was religious, but that does not change what the Constitution says.

Here are some quotes by the man who is reponsible for our Bill of Rights in the first place, James Madison.

I think you will find clearly what the 1st amendment means now, and in the 18th century, not surprisngly they are very similar.

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together." -- Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822.

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State." -- Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819.

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history -- Detached Memoranda, circa 1820. (The Detached Memoranda were writings of Madison discovered in 1946 in the possession of his biographer. The document has even been cited by Supreme Court Justices in certain opinions.)

"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others." -- Letter to Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832.

"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself." -- Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811.