Give me ONE reason...

[Jakeic]

I would think that glaciers would be able to discredit the theory of creationism.

 

[Yakuza]

Yes, I read your posts. Your are advocating the use of religion in schools. I used the verb "taught" because in a school environment anything the children are exposed to is in essence "taught" to them.

No I am not talking about "using" religion in school. I am talking about letting people of faith have the freedom express there faith in a reasonable way.

No, I said I found your view to be in contradiction to the laws and provision of this country which gives you the right to religious freedom. I would seriously suggest you do some research into the subject before supporting things like that.

I really dont think I did, I believe you just misunderstood me.




[quoteYou know why? Because luckily we live in a free country that does accept them. Or would you prefer that everyone who disagreed with your view of the world leave the country?[/quote]

No but it appears we should be forced to go to other schools or places were we can be accepted.

 

[Jakeic]

No I am not talking about "using" religion in school. I am talking about letting people of faith have the freedom express there faith in a reasonable way

don't you have a church?

 

[Ikerous]

I went to church today...
I learned that Jesus used
Teleportation... My pastor
Is a lil on the psycho side..

 

[Neutrino]

No I am not talking about "using" religion in school. I am talking about letting people of faith have the freedom express there faith in a reasonable way.

As was pointed out, that's what church is for, not school.

I really dont think I did, I believe you just misunderstood me.

You said you wanted creationism taught in schools. I don't think I misunderstood you.

No but it appears we should be forced to go to other schools or places were we can be accepted.

You are just as accepted in public shools as every other person in this country. That is the point. No specific group can be catered to.

 

[Yakuza]

don't you have a church?

Sorry, but I do continue to be a christian after sunday.

 

[Jakeic]

Sorry, but I do continue to be a christian after sunday.

church is closed except on sundays?

 

[Yakuza]

As was pointed out, that's what church is for, not school.

So I am not allowed to be a Christian and share my faith with other christians at school.

You said you wanted creationism taught in schools. I don't think I misunderstood you.

It doesn't have to be "taught" but offered as a possibility or an allternative to the belief that "Science" has.

You are just as accepted in public shools as every other person in this country. That is the point. No specific group can be catered to.

Only untile some one voices their opion about what else we should take out of pledge of allegence or any other fundemental belief of this country.

 

[Yakuza]

church is closed except on sundays?

I am a Christian no matter were, what time of day, or where ever I may be.

Christianity is not some building with brick walls. Christianity is a state of being, a continual walking after Jesus.

 

[qckbeam]

Only untile some one voices their opion about what else we should take out of pledge of allegence or any other fundemental belief of this country.

I guess you are talking about the words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance, which aren't quite what I'd call fundamental, you know, considering they were added in 1954. Of course, lets just forget that having any mention of god in the pledge is actually catering to the religious, and goes against some of the true fundamental ideas our country was founded upon...

 

[Jakeic]

I am a Christian no matter were, what time of day, or where ever I may be.

Christianity is not some building with brick walls. Christianity is a state of being, a continual walking after Jesus.

so then what does it matter if you don't pray in school? Or if you don't have get togethers with other christian's in school, or if creationism is taught in school?

if being christian is about a state of being, then it doesn't matter.

 

[Neutrino]

So I am not allowed to be a Christian and share my faith with other christians at school.

Both of us should probably look into what exactly the laws say about this. I don't think there is anything saying you can't talk about your religion. If you want to have a discussion about God with another student of the same faith during a break from classes, I doubt there is anything stopping you.

It doesn't have to be "taught" but offered as a possibility or an alternative to the belief that "Science" has

You don't want it "taught" you want it "offered as a possibility". Sorry, same thing.

The reason it is not taught or "offered" in schools is that it is purely a religious belief and not backed up by scientific evidence. True creationism violates about a dozen different field of science including paleontology, physics, and chemistry to name but a few. It is a religious belief, period. If a school offered creationism as an option they would have to also cover every single other religious view of the world as well. Not possible or desireable.

Only untile some one voices their opion about what else we should take out of pledge of allegence or any other fundemental belief of this country.

There is no "fundamental belief of this country". This country has freedom of religion meaning as far as the government is concerned no one religion is any better than another and it should not interfere with any one of them. The pledge of allegence is a patriotic pledge to the country not to any one god or religion. When I was in school I had to recite it as well. I was an atheist but I had to pledge allegence to the country by say "under god". Where's my religious rights? Would you like to be force to say "One country, under Satan"? No, I don't think you would.

If you promote any one religion in school you automatically discriminate against another one. There is no other option but for schools to remain completely secular.

 

[Pauly]

Give me one reason why i shouldn't vote to re-elect george bush... in your own words, not a copy and paste job. come on... give me one valid reason.

He called on war because of threats of "weapons of mass destruction" yet there were none. I don't care if he went in for any reason to war. Just don't LIE saying they have weapons of 'mass destruction when they don't.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Both of us should probably look into what exactly the laws say about this. I don't think there is anything saying you can't talk about your religion. If you want to have a discussion about God with another student of the same faith during a break from classes, I doubt there is anything stopping you.



You don't want it "taught" you want it "offered as a possibility". Sorry, same thing.

The reason it is not taught or "offered" in schools is that it is purely a religious belief and not backed up by scientific evidence. True creationism violates about a dozen different field of science including paleontology, physics, and chemistry to name but a few. It is a religious belief, period. If a school offered creationism as an option they would have to also cover every single other religious view of the world as well. Not possible or desireable.



There is no "fundamental belief of this country". This country has freedom of religion meaning as far as the government is concerned no one religion is any better than another and it should not interfere with any one of them. The pledge of allegence is a patriotic pledge to the country not to any one god or religion. When I was in school I had to recite it as well. I was an atheist but I had to pledge allegence to the country by say "under god". Where's my religious rights? Would you like to be force to say "One country, under Satan"? No, I don't think you would.

If you promote any one religion in school you automatically discriminate against another one. There is no other option but for schools to remain completely secular.

Well, I was going to respond, but Neut got here first and said everything I was going to say. Again.
So, just re-read his post and pretent that I'm saying it.

 

[blahblahblah]

Both of us should probably look into what exactly the laws say about this. I don't think there is anything saying you can't talk about your religion. If you want to have a discussion about God with another student of the same faith during a break from classes, I doubt there is anything stopping you.

You would be surprised. School administrators are horrified of having to deal with religion and school issues. So horrified that they go to great extents to curb any religious activities on school grounds.

Heaven help you if you want to use a school class room as well. Not only does the teacher have to consent for usage of a classrom for a Christian club, he actually has to leave the room while the club is in "session". On top of that, they discourage you from advertising in the school bulltein as well.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You would be surprised. School administrators are horrified of having to deal with religion and school issues. So horrified that they go to great extents to curb any religious activities on school grounds.

Heaven help you if you want to use a school class room as well. Not only does the teacher have to consent for usage of a classrom for a Christian club, he actually has to leave the room while the club is in "session". On top of that, they discourage you from advertising in the school bulltein as well.

I've never experienced that during my studies, but that sort of attitude would definitely be out of line.

What me and Neut oppose to though is having children of all religions being made to participate in the religious teachings of another religion.
The actual teaching should be secular, but the activities that the students organise on their own time should remain up to them.

 

[ªÑ†I~ƒ£åG]

there is no reason not to vote for bush...kerry is a bunch of talk...all you hear out of his mouth is i have aplan for this and that too...has he ever explained his plans?..why change plans...changing plans costs more money then following threw with one...the ONLY thing i can see wrong about bush is his drug policies....he needs to get rid of them...there are murderers getting loose because the jails or stuffed with harmless drug effenders SOMEONE STOP THAT CRAP!

 

[Neutrino]

You would be surprised. School administrators are horrified of having to deal with religion and school issues. So horrified that they go to great extents to curb any religious activities on school grounds.

Heaven help you if you want to use a school class room as well. Not only does the teacher have to consent for usage of a classrom for a Christian club, he actually has to leave the room while the club is in "session". On top of that, they discourage you from advertising in the school bulltein as well.

Mech already said it, but yes that sounds more like nervous administrators and teachers going a bit out of line to try to protect themselves I'm assuming.

So although perhaps there might need to be some changes in administrative policy the basic laws should not be changed. They exist to protect everybody.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

there is no reason not to vote for bush...kerry is a bunch of talk...all you hear out of his mouth is i have aplan for this and that too...has he ever explained his plans?..why change plans...changing plans costs more money then following threw with one...the ONLY thing i can see wrong about bush is his drug policies....he needs to get rid of them...there are murderers getting loose because the jails or stuffed with harmless drug effenders SOMEONE STOP THAT CRAP!

Punk's not dead.



Oh, and so what if change is expensive? As long as the change is for a good reason, it's probably worth it.

It's not like Kerry's spending it all on musical chairs or something.

 

[Tr0n]

there is no reason not to vote for bush...kerry is a bunch of talk...all you hear out of his mouth is i have aplan for this and that too...has he ever explained his plans?..why change plans...changing plans costs more money then following threw with one...the ONLY thing i can see wrong about bush is his drug policies....he needs to get rid of them...there are murderers getting loose because the jails or stuffed with harmless drug effenders SOMEONE STOP THAT CRAP!

Coming from someone with an Anarchy symbol as his avatar?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Coming from someone with an Anarchy symbol as his avatar?

He's raging for the machine.

 

[Jakeic]

war is expensive does that stop us from waging it?

 

[OCybrManO]

He's raging for the machine.

Somebody watches the Daily Show...

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Somebody watches the Daily Show...

It shows, doesn't it? I was waiting for someone to point it out.
Their jokes are funniest because they're true.

 

[Yakuza]

You don't want it "taught" you want it "offered as a possibility". Sorry, same thing.

The reason it is not taught or "offered" in schools is that it is purely a religious belief and not backed up by scientific evidence. True creationism violates about a dozen different field of science including paleontology, physics, and chemistry to name but a few. It is a religious belief, period. If a school offered creationism as an option they would have to also cover every single other religious view of the world as well. Not possible or desireable.

Really, maybe you can enlighten me on these scientific contradictions...

here are also some scientific facts in the bible.

The Shape of the Earth
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in" (Isaiah 40:22, NIV).
This may or may not be construed to support the spherical shape of the earth. The horizon is a circle and a circle is flat.

The Earth is suspended in nothing
"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job. 26:7, NIV).
This is particularly interesting considering that the cosmology of other cultures at that time did not have the earth suspended in nothing, but rather upon pillars, or people, or animals.

The Stars are Innumerable
"He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars -- if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be" (Gen. 15:5, NIV).
The Existence of Valleys in the Seas
"The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils" (2 Sam. 22:16, NIV).

The Existence of Springs and Fountains in the Seas
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened" (Genesis 7:11, NIV). See also Gen. 8:2; Prov. 8:28.
The Existence of Water Paths (Ocean Currents) in the Seas
"O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!...When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,...You made him [man] ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet...the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas" (Psalm 8:1,3,6,8, NIV).

The Hydrologic Cycle
"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (Job. 26:8, NIV).
"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job. 36:27-28, NIV)
"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).

The Concept of Entropy
"In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded" (Psalm 102:22-26, NIV).
The Nature of Health, Sanitation, and Sickness
The listing for this section is too large for this page. But the scriptural references are Leviticus 12-14.

There is no "fundamental belief of this country". This country has freedom of religion meaning as far as the government is concerned no one religion is any better than another and it should not interfere with any one of them. The pledge of allegence is a patriotic pledge to the country not to any one god or religion. When I was in school I had to recite it as well. I was an atheist but I had to pledge allegence to the country by say "under god". Where's my religious rights? Would you like to be force to say "One country, under Satan"? No, I don't think you would.

hmmm. "We our endowed by our creator".....

"done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

I guess you will have to amend the constitution then...

 

[rkef]

The Stars are Innumerable
"He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars -- if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be" (Gen. 15:5, NIV).

Yes, it's a scientific fact that "there are a hell of a lotta stars up there" .

 

[DoctorGordon]

Creationism clearly breaks the laws of physics. It is one of the stupidest proposals ever; evolution is all around us.

Physics=Evolution

 

[Neutrino]

Really, maybe you can enlighten me on these scientific contradictions...

Alright. I'll just discuss a few things about creationism.

1)Creationism is not a science.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_cre_scientific.htm

2)Creationism contradicts itself. (To list but a few examples.)

a.

Biblical literalism. Those who take the English translations of Genesis literally insist that the bible is not open to interpretation. However, it is impossible to take the Genesis literally because the sequence of creation events in Genesis 1 is different from the sequence in Genesis 2. The creationists get around this by claiming that it is not the purpose of Genesis 2 to give the sequence of events. Is that not an interpretation?

b.

Abiogenesis. Creationists often boldly state that evolutionists cannot explain the origin of life. It is true that science has yet to discover the mechanisms and process by which life originated from an inorganic source – a process called abiogenesis. On the other hand, creationists of cite figures on the improbability of abiogenesis, usually an infinitesimally small number such as 1 in 104,478,296 (miscalculation courtesy of Joseph Mastropaolo of the Institute for Creation Research). But how can any such calculation be made unless one knows the process of abiogenesis?

c.

Intelligent Design. Creationists have recently resurrected an idea from the early 1800s that the complexity of life shows evidence of Intelligent Design. The idea is that life is "irreducibly complex" and therefore could not have evolved. In an attempt to hide their religious motivation, they state that the "Intelligent Designer" need not be God. But any designer or creator must be much more complex and intelligent than any known living being, i.e. the designer must be "irreducibly complex." Does it now follow that the designer must have been designed as well? This paradox reminds me of the story of the lady who believed the earth was held up on the back of a turtle. When asked what the turtle stood on, she answered "The back of another turtle." What did it stand on? "It’s turtles all the way down!"

d.

Speaking of Geologic dating ... Creationists often cite examples of fast erosion to demonstrate that the Grand Canyon could have been created quickly (such as in a catastrophic flood.) Fine ... but then how do they explain the multitude of layers that the canyon cuts through? And for those who claim that all fossils were laid down by the flood, how can they explain the same event creating the layers (which incidentally, contain fossils showing evolutionary sequences), and creating the canyon? Hmmmmm ....

e.

Noah’s Ark. In order to fit all of earth’s biodiversity fit on the gopher-wood ark -- prescribed as 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high -- creationist say that modern species evolved through microevolution from basic "kinds" put on the ark. Thus they accept "microevolution" of similar species from a common ancestor, but not "macroevolution" of vastly different animals. For example, lions, leopards, and cheetahs all evolved from a basic "kind" of cat, but a dog and a cat could not have a common ancestor. Could humans and chimps therefore be a "kind?" Absolutely not, claim the creationists. But a lion is as distinct morphologically from a cheetah as a human is from a chimp! (By the way, whereas creationists do not accept macroevolution, they fail to note that by definition, speciation is macroevolution.)

3)Creationism contradicts science. (Examples off the top of my head.)

a. Evolution: Evolution is backed up by biology, genetics, physics, geology, and palentology.
Creationism rejects evolution.

Thus creationism contradicts all these fields.

b. Astronomy/physics: The universe is about 15 billion years old.
Creationism denies this.

Thus creationism contradicts astronomy and physics.

c. Chemistry: The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Numerous other objects are millions of years old.
Creationism disagrees.

Thus creationism contradicts chemistry.

There are many more examples of specific things in science that it contradicts, but those will do for now.


But hey, even with all that going against it, I like to think I'm a pretty reasonable guy. So I'll tell you what, I'll seriously consider the idea of creationism taught in schools if you can answer the following questions:

1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism?

1a. If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect.

1b. Why are many Christians evolutionists?

1c. If you are a young-earth creationist: Why are many creationists old-earth creationists?

1d. If you are a young-life creationist: Why are many creationists old-life creationists?

1e. Some people say that scientific creationism does a disservice to Christianity by holding Christianity up to ridicule. How would you answer that charge?

2. Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false. Something which appears to support Lamarkian evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism is not enough. Also, the observation must be something which can be checked by an independent observer.)

2a. Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?

3. Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory? (The suggestion that major points are still under investigation will only be accepted for theories that are relatively recent. Any exposition which cannot be distinguished from solipsism or nihilism will not be accepted.)

3a. Is there any statement of the scientific (or other) rules of evidence which you accept? (If your answer is that some document is your guide, explain the rules for interpreting the document, and your rules for determining which document is your guide.)

4. Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

4a. Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.

5. Is there any feature of your theory which is subject to scientific test? This is often stated: is creationism scientific in the sense that it could be falsified? (After Karl Popper's criterion.) Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change your theory?

5a. Is there any observation which has changed your theory?

5b. Is your theory open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?

6. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

7. Is there a consistent reading of the Flood story of Genesis? How many of each kind of clean animal went on the Ark? Present a calendar of the events of the Flood from the birth of Noah through the birth of Arpachshad (sometimes called Arphaxad, grandson of Noah), paying special attention as to the day when Noah entered the Ark and how long the Flood lasted. If you change the text of Genesis, give a reason for the change other than the need to fit your beliefs.

7a. Why does the Flood story need to be consistent?

8. Where did all of the water come from and go to? (This is a very old problem for the Flood story, and it may be the most frequently asked. Quantitative answers are required.)

9. What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.

9a. Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.

9b. Explain how a viable population was established for all of those animal kinds from only a single pair of each.

9c. Discuss how symbiotic animals and parasites survived immediately after the Flood.

10. Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle. Explain the meaning of the word "kind".

10a. Calculate the structural soundness and stability of the Ark, both loaded and unloaded, on land and on the Flood waters.

10b. Explain the logistics of loading and unloading the Ark. Relate this to the time available given in the answer to question (7) and to the distribution referred to in questions (6) and (9).

10c. Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals.

11. Why do you feel that there must be a mechanistic, naturalistic or materialist exposition of the wondrous events described in the Bible?

12. Why has God given us all the evidence for an earth more than 100,000 years old and for evolution and the intelligence to infer that? Why has God given us a Bible with all of the evidence that it is not to be read according to the norms of modern western historical and scientific writing?

Have fun.

here are also some scientific facts in the bible.

I don't get what your trying to prove with these biblical quotes. What's your point?

hmmm. "We our endowed by our creator".....

"done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

I guess you will have to amend the constitution then...

First, yes I agree that the constitution should not include reference to god. However, the fact that it does is not relevant as it's merely a reference and the laws of the constitution are not based on god. In other words, there is no state religion. This is why we have the first amendment.

Second, the word "Lord" does not automatically refer to any one religion's interpretation of God. Every religion has a slightly different take on God so just saying "Lord" does not single out any specific religion.

 

[DoctorGordon]

b. Astronomy/physics: The universe is about 15 billion years old.
Creationism denies this.

Thus creationism contradicts astronomy and physics.

Allow me to reemphasize this by saying that many of the stars we see in the sky are millions and billions of light years away. That alone proves that the universe is at least many billions of years old.

 

[Neutrino]

Allow me to reemphasize this by saying that many of the stars we see in the sky are millions and billions of light years away. That alone proves that the universe is at least many billions of years old.

Just to add to that, the common creationist response is that the velocity of light (c) has changed over time or changes in different regions of space.

This "theory" has been debunked.