Creationism in schools

all old research, that's what I learned in Uni 35yrs ago too.... newer objective analysis refutes all of it, there have been no identifiable deliberate pits/graves, any evidence associated with skeletal remains cannot be definitively identified as grave goods and not random debris...people (even archeologists) tend see what the they want to see and make quick assumptions...all that doesn't mean they didn't deliberately bury their dead just that there is no hard evidence that they did, and if they did it may have been just to hide the smell and attract predators...

 

But which of the many schools of creoism shall it be?

 

Is it getting too hot in the kitchen for you?

 

It is alternativley packaged religious dogma crap that belongs in sunday school. It does not belong in the discussions in the realm of ANY science class. Anywhere. Ever.

 

All of them, else face the penalties of religious discrimination.

 

Pay attention to the definitions of 'dogma', especially the last two. Quite a few subjects can be included in those last two definitions.
"dog·ma (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln)."

Science is not immune to those definitions.

 

He clearly said "religious dogma".

 

Once again there are numerous burial sites where the dead were deliberately placed. The only question is whether there were ritualistic burial rites that might reflect a belief in an afterlife or religious belief. That remains in dispute but the fact that neanderthals "buried" their dead is not in dispute from all I've read. The finds of the bodies grouped together in caves indicates that they were deliberately taken there by others in the community and did not die there from wounds or illness. The bodies are also found to be either extended or in a fetal position which indicates the bodies were intentionally placed in those positions by others after death. To my knowledge no other species is known to "bury their dead" like homo sapiens and neanderthal exhibit which makes both unique.

Do we know if neandethal had a belief in creation? The specific answer is no.

At the sametime we do know that hundreds of creationist beliefs existed throughout human history and each developed in the same manner as they attempted to answer a question where the answer was unknown. None of them make much sense when compared to the physical evidence that we currently have but they did serve a purpose when they were invented by ancient mankind.

 

Not only that, but we should actively be going out of our way to undonctrinate youngsters by actively teaching them that things they might have been taught, like there was a global flood, or that we are all descended from a single couple 6,000 years ago are not true.

 

And your point is what? Dogma is dogma. Whether it is religious or otherwise. Now that you are showing your desire to draw a distinction between the two (religious dogma and scientific dogma), then it is only proper and fitting that you and others refrain from bringing scientific dogma into a religion discussion area. So, as long as you and others bring scientific dogma into the discussion of religion, then there is no distinction between the dogmas.

 

Something that should be remembered is that the Biblical creation story originated about the same time as the Greek story of creation and, if anything, the Greeks were far more advanced intellectually. At best we could call it a "tie" between the two as neither really had any knowledge about the origin of the universe or life on Earth. The Greek myth of creation is just as worthy of intellectual review as the Biblical myth of creation as they are really comtempory stories of creation from the same time period in human development related to addressing the same question from two different perspectives. Both are ancient beliefs from the same time period that really have no logical foundation today because we actually do know about the beginnings of our universe and much about the evolution of life on Earth today.

http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/europe/greek/greek_creation_myths.html

 

What, praytell, is scientific dogma?

 

Did you not read the definitions? Seemingly not. Here let me post the relevant ones again.

"2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln)."

Now are you going to attempt to prove that scientists don't hold certain beliefs pertaining to the fields of science? How about principles? See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

Are you sure that it is peace that you are grasping for?

 

Wow, just wow. Your explanation to why scientists have dogma.. scientific dogma.. is that there are certain phenomena that have explanations that we call laws? Those aren't beliefs or principles.

 

It is something that the creos made up.

 

You realize that those are descriptions of observations of how the universe works, right?

Or are you seriously considering that a mathematical description of gravity is equivalent to the idea of consubstantiation?

 

Where to even start with something so mixed up.

maybe start with 'give piece a chance"?

That would be a start on getting the idea of equivocation fallacy.

 

Why do you keep posting that image? It doesn't even agree with itself. On the left side, the brain is 50 "cubits" tall, on the right side it's only 30. Did you get that image from a parody site? That's the kind of thing I'd expect to be included in an article from The Onion.

 

Man, now I'm pissed I missed that.

 

Ha, I missed it the first time I saw it posted, too. Caught on that repost, though.

 

So you have real time (actual) cognition "about the beginnings of our universe"? What PROOF do you have pertaining to that real time event?

 

You complain about the equivocation fallacy that you allege and yet you do not even address the subject matter of my posting that was made prior to the 'peace' statement. I have to assume that due to your lack of rebuttal to those points preceding the 'peace' statement that you are incapable of refuting those points.

 

Are you seriously going to revert to a state of denial by refusing to acknowledge the official definitions that have been presented? Are you attempting to avoid the reality of the definitions? Avoidance on your part?

 

Then you object to the information provided by wikipedia? Prove that the wiki information is erroneous.

 

you need to update your reading or at least something more objective... placement of a body does not constitute a burial (funeral) they could be merely moved out of the way(housekeeping)...anyone who claims otherwise is speculating, they are projecting our human-ness on neanderthals... the definitive evidence does not exist one way or the other...