Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
I was being extremely sarcastic, and perhaps incredibly rude.
Printable View
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
This is a quote by Dr. Richard Dawkins of Oxford University (one of the world’s leading spokesmen for evolution) on a recent television broadcast in the UK. The broadcast was called “The root of all evil?”. I got this quote from a periodical we receive.
“I’m very concerned about the religious indoctrination of children. I want to show how faith acts like a virus that attacks the young and infects generation after generation…
It’s time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. And I want to show how the scriptural roots of the Judeo-Christian moral edifice are cruel and brutish.
What in the 21st century are we doing venerating a book [the Bible] that contains such stuff?
The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction—jealous and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist, an ethnic cleanser urging His people on to acts of genocide…
When it comes to children, I think of religion as a dangerous virus. It’s a virus which is transmitted partly through teachers and clergy, but also down the generations from parent to child to grandchild. Children are especially vulnerable to infection by the virus of religion.”
These are not the words of an objective thinker. Can you imagine sitting down with this man and having a civil, intellectual debate about the origins of the universe? I’d be scared the man would jump on me and try to strangle me if I wasn’t an evolutionist. I’ve lived long enough to know that when people get this defensive and irrational, there’s something worth investigating in the target of their hatred, probably something good. When I hear and see people act like this, I automatically don’t take them seriously and I automatically give the other side the benefit of the doubt. That’s just what my experience has taught me. Is religion really such a threat? Why? How? Don’t the religious espouse peace and goodness? The differences I see between creationism and evolution are in the implications, the logical fruit or outcomes of each belief. Either there is a God who is to be feared (respected and obeyed), or there is no God and we can do whatever we like (which may be good, but may be otherwise). I think it was most aptly put by Flannery O’Connor in “A Good Man Is Hard To Find.” The Misfit says, “Jesus was the only One that ever raised the dead…and He shouldn’t have done it. He thrown everything off balance. If He did what He said [raise the dead, create the universe], then it’s nothing for you to do but throw away everything and follow Him, and if He didn’t then it’s nothing for you to do but enjoy the few minutes you got left the best way you can—by killing somebody or burning down his house or doing some other meanness to him.” Sorry for the long post. Todd
The difficulty in having an objective debate on evolution / creation is that, while evolution is based upon objectively observing the world around us and making deductions based upon those observations, creation is based upon believing a thousands of years old book without question.
Where is the objectivity in fundamentalist religion?
Having said that, XC, you know that I both have and still do question the basics of Christianity. At one time, yes, I followed it blindly, without bothering to question the whys or hows or whatevers. Oddly enough, it took the very Christian people I trusted to make me start to question everything, because when I really needed them, they withdrew and kicked me out. Why did I not become bitter and become totally anti-religion? Man is a creature of change. Your friend today becomes your enemy tomorrow. What man decides is correct today, another will try to disprove, and sometime succeed. I hung on to my faith in a higher power than man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
Question? Hoo-boy! I dared question evrything. But I believe, not as before, but still I believe in God. Creation as written in the Bible seemed to me an attempt to explain the unexplainable, to put God into time, which will not work if God is God. So science made sense to me a little more clearly. If we work from the hypothesis of God creating everything but do not limit the creation process to a seven day period, but rather however long was required, and allow for time for God to watch His experiment progress, things make more sense in believing both evolution and creation.
I see things in a different way, and as I stated before, I am one man, and of course, I could be wrong. Do you have any idea how many innocent people are in prison because someone read the evidence and made a wrong deduction? Or how many times they re-open a cold case file to find they had the evidence all the time to convict the criminal, even had interviewed the person, but missed the clue that was right in front of them? Question everything. And when you feel you have it figured out, question it again. You could be right, you could be wrong, but satisfy yourself on the matter, and what other think, well, que sera, sera. Good day, XC, mon ami. :)
Thanks for your response Pen. I have no objection to your kind of belief. I was referring to belief in the entirity of the creation myth as portrayed in the bible/torah. It is why I included the word 'fundamentalist' in my question. I agree with you entirely about questioning everything. I even question whether I should be questioning! :nod:
If we are assuming the truth of the Bible, and it is the most historically accurate book of all time, it is actually extremely reasonable to believe the world was created in 6 days. Notice that in Genesis 1, it says God created plants on the third day, and the sun, moon and stars on the third day. It would be logical to assume that plants could not survive very long without light. Also, it is stated at the end of each day, "and there was evening, and there was morning-the first day"(and so on).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
I believe very strongly in the truth of Christianity, and that the world is a mere 6,000 years old. I believe the flood accounted for many of the dramatic changes in the earth. I do admit that unitarianism and the slow processes of change have been happening, but that they have only been a small part in the transformation of the earth. Although some mutations and evolutionary processes have been experimented with, they are usually useless if not harmful. As far as I have seen, evolution and random beginnings to our world do not have much evidence. I am inclined to think that evolution as a beginning for the earth had more evidence when Darwin first invented it than right now. If you are wondering how a scientific theory can be wrong, keep in mind that the geocentric universe.