Quote:
Originally Posted by XXdarkclarityXX
*Looks up at previous post* Looks like someone's disagreeing about calling a draw :( . Please!!! Stop the carnage!
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXdarkclarityXX
*Looks up at previous post* Looks like someone's disagreeing about calling a draw :( . Please!!! Stop the carnage!
Since when did a score of 53.85 to 36.81 constitute a draw? I claim victory for evolution! And a very respectable runners-up score for the creationists.
It's the 9% that don't know what to think that worries me. Are they waiting for someone to tell them? Or do they just prefer not to think?
And why have we heard nothing from the 'none of the above' faction? I'm sure they have lots of interesting theories as to how we got here - why didn't they share them?
Anyway, if we stop now, someone'll just start another similar thread in a week or two. May as well just keep going and avoid the déja vu. ;)
They might prefer not to think. They might also be weighing their options still, looking at evidence and trying to figure out what is most compelling. It was a long time before I figured out what I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
I used to think that there was no beginning, that everything just always was and always would be, but that was when I was a little kid and the present was all that mattered. Ah, those were the good days.
Well, not really. I prefer knowledge to ignorance, even blissful ignorance.
So if anyone is wondering, I go with evolution.
There seems no reason to believe in Creationism. All evidence seems against the idea of the Biblical account. I was holding an ammonite in my hands only yesterday thinking, how incredible it is that anyone with any sense could imagine this to have lived less than 6000 years ago. But, of course, though we live in a world that has had 400 years of science and 3,000 years or more of philosophy, society is still ruled by irrational superstition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
I put 'none of the above' and I gave my opinion. I couldn't just pick one (creationism, evolution) 'cause I believe in both.
And I do believe we should call it a draw, even if another thread is brought up. This one's getting so long it's giving me a headache.
l believe in the two ..too.. i guess
So,
Green Lady & Falling Moon,
I guess what you're sayng is not "None of the above" but "All of the above" - an obvious oversight by the thread's founder. I can respect that (while disagreeing of course). :nod:
Do we have any "Prefer not to think"s out there - will they own up?
Excuse me if "hijack" the thread and make a comment about creationism and natural diversity. that is the topic here is it not?
I think that it is absolutely naive for anyone to selfishly consider the planet earth to be a christians only mechanism, where all the creatures and resources on the planet were created to benefit one species that christians chauvanistically call "man".
Were all the animals were created to be used or eaten by "man"?
Were all the trees were created by a supreme entity for the exclusive use of "man"?
the earth may be polluted, raped and destroyed just as long as 'man' is benefitting from this outcome?
maybe god is in the form of a cockroach who created "MAN" for the sole purpose of carelessly discarding pizza boxes, so that the cockroach race, created by the cockroach god in His likeness, would have free food to eat forever, and "man" is just a supporting character, insignificant and disposable? Hmm?
there are too many genetically unique species out there to think selfishly that everything was created for "mans" exclusive use and abuse alone, regardless of the needs of the millions of other threatened species that are forced to share the world with "man"; the taker, the destroyer.
Creationism is antiquated sentiment, just like the idea that the earth was created in less than a fortnight.
this idea is disrespectful to the creatures with whom we share this planet, and who's destiny is ultmately our own.
om
I just got back from a talk given by Dr. Pigliucci at EKU, so I'm revved up for this one!
Creationism or evolutionism? First off, it's a false question. Science is a method that is applied to certain questions that can be answered empirically. And frankly, being a lit-hack-wannabe, I'm amazed that there seems to be this attitude out there that if something isn't science, it isn't worth studying. Out of the whole pie of human knowledge and experience, that which can be called "science" is a tiny sliver!
Still, the Creationists, at least the hardcore ones, want "Intelligent Design" taught as science. Well, it isn't science 'cause you can't empirically prove or disprove the existence of God. And that's not saying that the idea of Creationism isn't worth studying. It's saying it isn't science, which is totally different. And to me, as a lit-hack-wannabe, the question of "Why was it so easy for Iago to make Othello jealous over Desdemona on such flimsy evidence?" is WAY more interesting than science. So is the whole "is there a God?" thing, though nothing groundbreaking has been done on that since the Existentialists. And so, for that matter, is the question of "Intelligent Design".
So, that's me on my fourth beer. Man, I'm gonna be **** at work tomorrow! And why the **** can't I sleep?!?
Pretty dag nab quite round here. Must be that there is no debate (imagine that). We can once again hoist the victorious on our shoulders.
Darwin rules from beyond the grave!
Excuse me while I gloat.
Oh my, why debate?
If you are Christian be content that God made you, if not be content that apes appropriated you.
And if your an Anarchist be in-content with everything.
The more you tell either that they are wrong, the harder they will stiffen their resolves toward their ideals.
It like beating the waves of the sea with a bat.
Just as long as you dont beat any people with that bat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theshizznigg
What if someone doesnt have a category? Does one have to be christian or not christian? Antichrist? Is there another choice? You got somethin against apes? you refute your prehistoric ancestry for what? So that you can wear your hair like a god? I spose its easier for someone to torture a primate in captivity if they refute thier genetic similarity. Fish dont have feelings right? So givem another bash with your bat.
I am a part of this earth, related to rock and stone, bee and fluff, ape and man. A book of scriptures doesnt make me better or worse than a wombat or a slug. we all share this earth in union with all its living creatures. when we place ourselves above other tenants here, we ultimately are alone and alien, unforgiven for our destrutive capabilities. Part of the entropic process: Part of the problem.
How many molecules of carbon dioxide did you liberate last year?
looks like ther is no debate. Victory is ours!Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyollie
you know...there IS a good solution for this....would someone create a time machine to send a group of people back in the beginnings of time and see, feel, hear, smell err...taste..(uh whatever) just experience it all with his five senses?...and then when they come back with the info we can all relax while battering one another yelling "I told you so!" :lol:
Hmmm...It seems like this whole question has a lot to do with another thread in this forum, about what was before God...
The basic questions which neither evolutionists or creationists can answer are
1. If God created everything, where did God come from?
2. If the universe was created by the eruption of the 'cosmic egg', where did the cosmic egg come from?
If you consider it, the questions are identical: Where does the beginning begin? Something creates something else. Why not postulate a God? It's as logical as a cosmic egg... ;)
Yeah. Hmmm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geochelonian
Anyways, what is the right thing to teach children in a world that has more than one religion? DO you teach them in science class that God made the earth in six days? DO you teach them in English class that the bible is the only worthwhile read? If dolphins could talk, would you convince them to adapt to ID? Is this responsible? Would they believe you. And what if they didnt, what could you do? SO much for the dolphins. Maybe theyre just stupid anyways right?
This is the point here. It is not a discussion for the hell of it. There are people out there who need to know what scientific thought is based on. Linear thinking sets dangerous principles.
The earth and the universe are unique opportunities to observe and learn about things we have no idea about. To lump all mysteries into the "ask god" categaory is kinda silly. We need to teach our next generations to speculate effectively about things we accept as truth without fear of recrimination. This is a shared responsibilty.
You seem to read a lot more into what i said than i actually said. And, of course this is a conversation just for the hell of it! All conversations on this site are just that, since no one here has the power to do anything.
Children need to be taught science as science. Unless the school is a religious school, religion should not be taught. But that's very different from ignoring what's probably the most influential text in Western literature - the Bible.
Ultimately, and no matter what they've been taught, they will believe what they want to believe, what they choose to believe. But they must be taught to think . Unfortunately, education - especially in college - is often more a matter of indoctrination than teaching. And too often, science has become something of a religion in itself, with the general public believing, without serious questioning on their part, what a prominent scientist says, just because he is a scientist...and prominent. Consider Piltdown Man...
I have to disagree that religion should not be taught in schools, I think it should. Learning the religion of another group of people is the best way to understand secular thinking of that culture. I think a world realigion class should be on the curriculum for highschool, even if you don't believe in the religion, it still is important to realize the different points of view.
I like what you said about post-secondary indoctrination. nice choice of words. :thumbs_up
It's a very good idea to teach religion as an information class, as long as it's kept as pure information. When I was young, it was very common for public school teachers to expound on their religious views (all Christian) and even to attempt to use their postion in an intimidating way. I had a Jewish friend back then, and I knew this bothered him.
This is the nature of the discussion. This is the reason that it went before the supreme court in the first place, and the reason IDers lost. ID has no place in public school.It is the law ( inthe states)Quote:
Originally Posted by Geochelonian
Aristotle, the father of all modern logical thought, spoke of an "Unmoved Mover" as the center of all creation. While his underlying logic is different from today's usage, the concept is appealingly simple. Can't we leave it at that?
As for the teapot tempest today about how things came to be as they are: The debate is fueled by those with poorly-hidden agendas, unahppily bigoted and vicious. It's no more than that.
In simple (but not simplistic) terms, it's a matter of Faith and Reason, two faces of one coin. There can be no valid argument about supremacy of one or the other, since Faith and Reason speak on two different levels of discourse. We can easily live with two different views of how things came to be "evolved" and/or "created": How lacking in significant difference are these two world views!)
A sense of Wisdom would let the matter rest in peace (RIP). After all, aren't there simply too many REAL problems that need to be faced in daily life, problems for each of us individually and collectively, problems that are frighteningly global in scope? Now, is the "tempest in a teapot" perhaps a mechanism to avoid thinking about what's TRULY important: Peace, justice, an end to violence and to hunger and to all the miseries all too real in our world? Obsessing on other topics pales into selfishness by comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyollie
Why are those not in favour of ID afraid to teach it in public schools, shouldn't the children be allowed to choose what they think is right? to teach that it is the only option is as much as a crime as to not teach it at all.
Because ID, and any other theory which can't be demonstrated by the known laws of the physical universe can't be "taught". Any such teaching would, ultimately, devolve into dogmatic indoctrination into the beliefs of the teacher.
The other side of the coin is that the non-existence of a deity, or deities, should not be taught either. Science should be taught as science, religious dogma as religious dogma. This should not, however, preclude the use of religious texts in education. Wht shouldn't I be able to use the story of the snake in the Garden of Eden as an example of a nature myth that teaches a moral lesson, as much as I use the story of Prometheus to teach essentially the same point (obedience to authority)? And how could I teach the origins of Luther's rebellion against the Church without referring to the Scriptural passages that are the points of difference between Catholics and Protestants?
The whole problem lies in the extremists on either side (fundamentalists vs ultra liberals) who insist on making a major issue (the already referred to tempest in a teapot) out of what shouldn't even be an issue.
While many people find a problem with the fact that evolution couldn't occur because it violates the scriptures rendering of God's creative works being completed in seven days, I'd like to make a note on the word "day" and the implications it irrevocably intimates. There are seven days and God's early creative endeavors are complete (Of course, He rests on the seventh day).
It's interesting to note that the stars aren't created until the fourth day. Our sun is a star. What I am assuming here is that the light in "Let there be Light" isn't the sun. The sun is created along with the rest of the stars in day four. Now, if that is the case, and if we base our solar mean days on the spinning of the earth on its axis with the sun as a reference point(e.g., light-day/dark-night/back to light=1 day), how were the days prior to the sun being created (i.e., days 1-3) calculated? They couldn't be.
This poses an interesting question? What does the word "day" mean then. Interestingly enough, the original Hebrew word is "yom," which can be translated day (literal day). However, it can also be translated aeon, or age. Think about this. 7 yoms or 7 undisclosed periods of time through which God effects reality and everything in it (universe, space, time, light, etc.) Now we can go back to each day and surmise what is being said
[ASIDE: The Bible is neither a book of history nor science (though both can found therein), i.e., it was never intended to written as a scientific or historical work. According to Christians, it is the exhaustive story of the redemptive work of God for man. Also the original Hebrew language of the Old Testament is extremely poetic. These are writers writing with their own individual personalities emanating from their work.]
Day one-Darkness, emptiness, and a mysterious water (no one knows)
"Let there be light"-big bang perhaps?
The rest can be perceived as the story of evolution from the first forms of energy being converted into mass, according to Einstein's E=m(c squared). First formations of stars via interstellar media. Planets evolving from dead star matter...and then Darwinian evolution.
According to the Bible, the first organisms aren't created until the fifth day (yom). The first vegetation was created on the second day. Who knows how long this actually took and how it was effected. Note that the Bible never says. Why could God not have chosen to use evolution as His creative apparatus. And the rest of the story, all the way to the emergence of man in verse 27, follows the same train of thought.
I find this to be the most plausible theory in amalgamating the belief of the scientific erudites and the religious community that affirms creation.
The psalmist addresses God, "Lord,...You turn men back to dust, saying, 'Return to dust, O sons of men.' For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night" (Psalm 90:1-4).
This may seem bizarre and fanciful language to some, but most theologians well affirm that God exists "out of time." That is, they believe that God is not bound by the constraints and confines that time exerts; as time is a creation of God, God necessarily remains unfettered by time's trappings. While this seems a bit mystical and speculative to some, self-avowed atheists who are thoroughly acquainted with the principles of Relativity would have no problem with this maxim of theology. For they note that if something can travel fast enough, space and time can be literally manipulated to any scale (Time dilation & length contraction for those that care).
Theoretically, if someone traveling in a space ship travels to a distant star 20-ly's away (ly-light year, where one light year is defined as the distance light travels in a year--approx. 6 trillion miles, i.e., 6x10^12 miles) with a velocity of 80% of the speed of light, by the time the person in the ship made the round trip, people on earth will have aged 50 yrs., whereas the crew aboard the space ship will have only aged 30 yrs. The math is simple algebra and the explanation is a bit technical, but the idea, famously called the twin paradox, denotes that the faster one travels, the slower time becomes. Again, theoretically if one could travel at the speed of light, time would cease to exist. This is what occurs at the event horizon of black holes (the beginning of curvature toward the black hole's singularity--the escape velocity to escape the pull [gravity] becomes so great that even light at an amazing speed of 186,282.860 miles per second (299,792.458 km/sec) can't escape it).
I have a point with the science lesson, I promise. Most, if not all Christians posit that God possesses attributes which separate Him completely from anyone/anything else. He is omniscient-knows all things. He is omnipresent-everywhere at all times. He is omnipotent-can do all things (ASIDE: all things that do not violate His moral/righteous nature, e.g., God cannot lie or do evil). The last point on His Omnipotence is important. If He can do all things, he can travel infinitely fast if need be to be everywhere always. While I am not stating that this is the case (Most theologians state God as spiritual and not corporeal---though if he wants, he can adopt a corporeal nature, e.g., Jesus Christ's kenosis), I am simply stating He could do this should He so choose. This inevitably leads to the conclusion that if He were bound to the constraints of time/space, He could break free and slow time, freeze time, and/or travel back in time (think about what might happen if, when traveling at the speed of light-time stops, what would happen if you traveled faster than the speed of light. Therefore, the relativity learned atheist would tell you this kind of God could stop time. Then they would tell you He doesn't exist.
Conclusion. Of course a day in God's "time frame" is different from ours. Because God is not bound to time in the sense that we are, it is exactly possible, in fact, more plausible to believe that the enumerated days of the Genesis story are not literal 24-hour periods.
Further food for thought on the matter. Where did the moon come from? Do a little reading and you'll find that the leading theory promulgates that early Earth, in its early formative years some 4.5 billion yrs ago (at this stage, the smaller Earth is called a planetesimal), collided with another smaller planetesimal. Early Earth absorbs much of this colliding planetesimal's matter due to gravity (This augments Earth's mass to its current spherical size) but much of the debris from the collision flies off in all directions which eventually forms an orbiting ring reminiscent of Saturn's rings. Eventually the debris coalesces into a giant satellite we call the moon. At this time, the moon is so close to Earth (39,000 miles away) that the gravitational tidal forces (the same forces that create high/low tides in the ocean) literally squeeze the earth as it spins on its axis. This literally produces an effect like spinning a merry-go-round. Earth spins faster. At the arrival of the moon, the earth made one revolution in six hours. That's right. One day lasted six hours. The reason for our current 24-hour day (actually 23.93 hrs [called a sidereal day] as opposed to the solar mean day of 24.00 hrs) is because the moon has slowly drifted farther away from Earth. It is currently about 239,000 miles away (and drifts about 1.5 inches farther away every year) and therefore exerts less of a gravitational force than it did in the beginning. This means that our 24-hour day will eventually become a 25-hour day, a 26-, 27-, 28-, you get the point. Puts a new perspective on the Genesis story doesn't it? A literal 24-hour day? Not likely, but not a problem for the creationist argument.
Hey, you Creatures of Creationist Belief:
All you folks quoting "Scripture" or "Bible": Have you really Evolved some kind of Intelligent Design that tells you the "True" Word"?
How often are you in personal touch with the Author and Publisher of a single Bible containing The One and Only Truth? Have you rationally and/or spiritually done some fact-checking?
Or, in your terms of reference, "If God had intended that all men would know Truth, wouldn't He have given us this Supreme Gift so that we would all be able to live by His Word peaceably?
(Consider: Bibles and Scriptures galore have been promulgated by all us Earthfolks. You guys out there doing all this arguing: The hatefulness that you preach against has filled your entire Beings!
Would it not be more productive to Humankind if you devoted ALL devoted your every waking hour to simply following the Golden Rule (working to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, decrying with every breath against the promulgators of the Iraqs and Darfurs of this world). If you were to do these things, then, in your own terms, you might be worthy of a Revealed Truth, replace the petty notions on which you now so shamefully spend your energies? (Or, dreadfully, are you the Spiritual Onanists you certainly seem to be?)
Belief, in the sense of Biblical belief - that is, the kind of Belief posited by the Doctrine of the Bible - involves a thing very much misunderstood by all that do not have it: Faith. What is this thing? It is actually sure Knowledge. It is the undercurrent of bedrock to Knowledge, that doesn't waffle with varying illusions. One can be in a relationship with a perfectly devoted lover [I am not meaning an adultery partner by that term], and yet, for lack of Faith, despite every sensible evidence of being the object of Perfect Love, may never rest in that Knowledge, but holds it together with doubt, due to lack of Faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyrwen
No it is not. It is but a theory that its own most qualified proponents admit has so little evidence as to cover a table top. Those that wrote the Bible already believed in the CREATOR. The idea of the belief in Spirit has no perfect explanation apart from the underlying Reality. There is evidence that certain markings all over what was long accepted as the dwellings of "cave men" actually functioned as grammatical writing systems. There is also lack of evidence that a great many caves full of "primitive" paintings were actually lived in by the artists, who more than likely were youths at their usual cave hangout, whose artwork, rather than matching that of better artifacts found in the same vicinity, were equivalent to today's squeegy crowds' subway graffiti. I will say much more at a more convenient time - I'm eating and typing!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyrwen
Not all present a case for one and the same reason. Not all things are equal. For my part, I have borne great abuse from atheists and agnostics for several years, even from those I had never spoken a word of my Faith to, and never did I base my Charity toward them on what they believed, nor my Graciousness to them on how well they treated me. But I do hate to see a lack of Love, and it is painful and irksome to see worthless behavior from falsely so-called "Christians". I hate conflict, but have many a time had to do my uncomfortable duty to challenge ways not of CHRIST manifest by those unworthy of the name "Christian". On the other hand, though, I strive to present a strong case for the Faith I know, not for the sake of conflict, but for the service of all that are seeking for answers, and who may benefit from something that gives my soul solid Peace.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeW
IM belly laughing! lol wont do!Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeW
Im not here to educate anyone, just to shed a responsible example.
All scientist are morons, and have no proof that the bible is 100% correct, in fact I think we should burn all of these heretics and their heretical literature. I am so sorry, you are wrong scientists and believers in Darwin, but you are all just arguing a moot point, God is the answer, genesis occured to the letter, and all you who don't see it are following archaic notions blindly.
...Sounds stupid doesn't it. Science and religion can work together, but probably won't for another couple of hundred years, untill the extremests on both ends learn to play together fairly...that Or kill every muther ****er who believes in christianity...is that your end goal?
"Genesis occurred to the letter." ??? Do you mean you take it literally ?
If so, how do you explain the obvious contradictions? For example, Genesis 1.26 says: "Then [obviously on the 6th day, since all the plants and animals had already been created] God said,'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let him rule over the fish of the sea..." etc. But, in Genesis 2.4: "When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth...the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life..."etc. Since there were, at that time, no plants, and plants were created on the 3rd day (Genesis 1.11), man must have been created on the 3rd day or earlier.
The Bible is full of contradictions like this. While I admire the Bible as a great work of literature, which teaches us much about moral behavior and the best way to lead our lives, I cannot accept a blind, literalist interpretation of it as a whole. One has to recognize that the Bible is many things, drawn from many sources. It was put together by human beings and, as such, will contain the failings of those human beings. Also, attempts to rationalize Biblical writings with current scientific theory are futile. That too, is a human failing.
Again, accept the Bible for what it is and enjoy it, learn from it. But don't try to degrade its value by believing it offers an explanation of how the universe functions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
I was being extremely sarcastic, and perhaps incredibly rude.
It is not my place to try to dissuade people from thier faith. not everyone will agree, but if someone wants to pray to buddha, or mohamed, or jesus, or even to the tranformers, it is thier business. I personally think that some people take religion too far and there would be alot less war on the earth if religion was just left out of the equation.
You can talk about the burning bush any way you want. But when it comes to science and teaching and learning sciences like math, calculus, physics, biochem, leave god out of it. in only a very few circumstances does god come into play when physics professors dicuss big bang THEORY. but evoltution is done deal. there is no debating scientific truth, as few scientific truths as there are.
Example.
your having a birthday cake and theres no almonds in it. You really want almonds in it. YOU CANT UNMAKE THE CAKE just so you can have almonds in it. Maybe next time you can have your precious almonds. But to dissect the cake and manually insert the almonds and patch it back togegther again is not going make Iron Chef Kenichi hapi, is it now. He sgoing to known someone messed up the cake. Evolution is the cake; ID is the almonds. period.
Evolution and its role as scientific truth is a done deal. This is why I say it not debateable. Sensorship of science goes on to this very moment when we attmept to have a clear description of how the planet is responding to all those greenhouse gases. the truth is that scientists have bigger fish to fry than trying to convince bad mannered christians that ID has no place in science class. Scientists are too busy making sure the next generationn of scientists know what they are doing and get it right the first time. they are not trying to change the way the bible was written or restate what it was Aristtotle said 2500 or so years ago. IDers: let it go.
It seems every time I bring up global warming someone swoops in and says a bunch of borderline dumb things in a vain atttempt to smokescreen the truth of the matter. Some of you should thank your lucky stars that scientists have warned us about any of this. without our ozone layer we are toast. we wouldnt know anything about it if it wasnt for "heretical" scientists.
Last: there is no possibility of a partnership between ID and science. they cannot coexist. and will not ever. its trying to put the round peg in the square hole.
I think there should be an added class to a child's schooling, on teaching itself, demonstrating the different reasons things are propagated, tracing all current schools of thought to the parties that passed them onto the present school system, and tracing fields of study to those that first hypothesized them, while encouraging a well-rounded manner of investigation, requiring the personal interest in seeking truth needed to sift through theories to get at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geochelonian
This exists in schools that teach the International Baccalaureate. The course is called ‘Theory of Knowledge’. It only begins at post 16 level however, as the concepts are rather difficult for those younger. I would say though that all good English teachers would always try to encourage students to question not only the facts offered to them but also the authority by which they are offered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mililalil XXIV
This thread has gone far since I last visited it. :nod:
I think it's now debating about whether Evolution and religion should be taught in Schools? Do correct me if I am mistaken.
Mililalil XXIV is right in the sense that we are only debating, there is really nothing any of us here can do, unless of course, we are part of a country's legislation, or a school's principal. (But even then, a Principal must follow rules, unlike the days of Roald Dahl where they can do pretty much what they liked.) :D
You are right, Unnamable. I did, however, as I think you caught, wish aloud for the whole process of schooling to begin with some such elucidation running concurrent with it. For example:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
in grade 1, the very basics being taught, I agree that it is not yet time to say much except that a warning be given that here at school, new ideas will be encountered. In that grade, however, things that are still widely considered mere theory, and not proven fact, ought not to be passed into the consideration of such unprepared little minds so early on. For example, mention dinosaurs, their skeletons, various fossils, and locations of finds, but not yet theories about how they died off, what all of their flesh was like, and other complexities that need verification requiring personal perception skills. Wait until you can go over the means to determine such things.
By grade 6, the ground work for students tending to their education more watchfully can be rather full-speed ahead. Instead of mentioning the analysis of geological strata in passing, then asserting the prevalent ideas concerning their evaluation, let the students hear from the beginning who first eyed these layers, where on earth he did so, and how the layers there compare to those elsewhere. I've met high school kids that entered the workplace thinking they knew everything simply because they had never really thought for themselves. Rather than explain things like self-motivated erudites, they used one-liners memorized at school, to block any thought that went against their artificial education.
Rather than memorize the names of great cultures in a row, from Egypt to Rome, they should be told that the chronologies of all are far from settled, and be shown what the definite limits of knowledge about those civilizations are.
hi, i believe that god was the one who created us, i am a muslim and i dont really know what other people think and the theory behind it. i would like to know and explore other believes.
Whoa, Jollie! You started out your argumement great, let evrybody believe what they want. OK. (I bolded a few of your statements.) Then you express your own belief. Also fine. Even if I do not agree, it is still your right to feel that way, and you express it very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyollie
You blame all war on religion. Hummm. As a descendant of the Native Americans, I will have to point out that greed is a grand cause for war. Even land they never use or couldn't use they took from us just because we had it and they didn't!
But then you call Christians "bad mannered" in a sweeping generalization. I have seen posts on this forum where I thought the religious person rude, and I have even said something about it. I have said that calling names and insulting each other was detrimential to both sides. I do not think a Christian has a right to judge anyone on what they believe, and to think that is being very self-righteous. But not all of us are that way. so please do not generalize.
Then you speak of "borderline dumb things", but I have read enough of your posts to read between the lines when you don't want censored. As a Christian, I do not advocate ignorance as a way of life. Science had to be there. When it became a requirement for man to survive, he had to learn. How do crops grow? What can I eat? If I get sick, what do I do about it? Man discovered how to make many things that had not existed, from things that did. And man began to question, to wonder, why does this stone attract metal? Why just certain types? What's out there, across the water? In the sky? Where did I come from? For many, God was no longer the sole explaination. There had to be more. God resisted proof, man wanted that proof.
Now they have evolution. I believe in it only as far as species adapting and changing to suit their changing environment. I do not believe an ape becomes a man, no matter how long a timeframe you give it. Now, we have the problem of what is called "proof." Much of it would never be enough to base a murder case upon. Fragments of skulls, in one case, a single tooth (built up scientifically into an man-like animal), in one case, a admitted fraud--(modern human skull fitted to an ape jaw, that still shows up on the charts at times), etc. I will not call it wrong. I will but say it doesn't convince me. And I, who am I? One man, who of course, could be wrong. But I will believe that God started things by creation, then evolution has shaped the world. Others may believe what they will. But will they, like myself, admit to the possibility that they could be wrong?
In friendship, JollyOllie,
Pendragon
Wow, this discussion hasn't been closed yet? Well, I put my opinion early but I think I'll state it again in a more orderly fashion than before. I believe in both creation and evolution and that they can both convene flawlessly one day in the future when scientific discoveries prove and disprove a few things. I do not believe that we came from apes, and that theory itself has been disproved already anyway. The earth was created, and who isn't to say God couldn't have used the big bang method in creating it or some other highly advanced science process? The scriptures may say seven days, but it is seven days according to Him, not us. It says in Genesis 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Now, Adam lived for about one hundred years or more, which means that when God said in the day after eating the fruit he would die, He was refering to His own days. It is estimated that the average persons life on this earth -say 80-90 years- is merely 8 minutes to God. So seven days is thousands or years according to us.
I believe all living creatures on this earth need to evolve and it is unavoidable. Creatures need to evolve to adapt to their environments and changes. Also, just like the adapting of machines and anything created people begin to change, look different. New thoughts come into the world that make the change of machinery possible, and new stuff in DNA comes up after a while. I'm not saying that people are machines, just an analogy of sorts. We all change, people get taller, shorter, hairier, etc.
I'm jumping in here without having read all the previous posts. Please forgive me. I'll read more when I get the chance. The thing that bothers me most about this topic is the lack of objectivity. Most people cannot approach the topic objectively. They are emotionally involved and biased and unable to look at the opposing side fairly. This makes the topic extremely hard to debate. But if we want to be taken seriously, we must take the other side seriously. This seems to rarely happen. Pendragon, I really like your tone and I like what you have to say. You seem to be a very level headed, objective thinker. Todd