Creationism in schools

Show me one aspect of human nature that technology has eliminated?

INdeed science does.

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009/05/scientifically-documented-miracles.html

Those are scientifically documented miracles you see there. Its atheism that does not acknowledge them. Science does no exclude possibilities until it has hard evidence to exclude them - only atheists do.

And we keep showing you evidence, and you keep dismissing it. Again, there is plenty of evidence.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

There is also the fact that once a case is made, the burden of proof shifts and its up to you to disprove it. You cannot. You cannot disprove God. Nor should you be able to if we are telling the truth.

You are trapped in your own version of circular logic, sceince does not acknoweldge the super natural (except it does), and therefore there is nothing super natural???? That simple does not logically flow.

That looks like an excuse, and not much more than that.

Is religion a requirement to be dogmatic about something? To be obtuse and unwaivering? You need religion for that?

Based on what I see above, you are convinced without a shread of actual evidence. You continue to find fault in the beliefs of others through 'evidence' but none of it affirms your own beliefs.

You are simply wrong.

2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

Apparently, the only thing atheists will not question is their own atheism.

So you love her because she gives you feedback? And orgasisms? So, masturbating with a computer gives you the same thing does it not?

Is that supposed to be a scientific examination of your love, respect, and honor for you wife?

Well, the thing is, we all have this thing called a relationship with God. Just like your wife, if you sit there like a bumpkiss, God is not just going to to jump into your lap and smooch you and .... give you an orgasm.

You have to go look, and based on what I have seen (and I do not mean this in a harsh way), you have not looked. You looked for reasons not to look, and you hold onto those reasons with a dogmatic insistance that is not challengable by evidence. If science is what drives you alone, then science points straight to agnosticism. It cannot eliminate God and it cannot prove God.

Again, nothing wrong with your atheism, it is reasonable in an inconclusive situation (but so are other hypothesis) ... just your insistance that all others are wrong. For that, you have certainty without proof. And you will never find such proof.

Prove me wrong.

Agreed. And, as I said, when we look at beliefs in a grap and murky world where things cannot be solved mathematically, the name of the game is tolerance, exploration, and mutual respect.

 

"Faith" is an interesting work. It's definition is "confidence or trust in a person or thing" and when it comes to religion it is expressly related to a trust in "persons" as all religions relate to statements and writings by people. There isn't a single word in the Bible that came from god. Not one. Every word in the Bible was written by men. Every sermon that a person listens to in church comes from men (or women).

Some people choose to believe others when it comes to religion while others do not. It is merely a choice of whether a person chooses to believe what others propose and in the case of religion there isn't any evidence that what is being said or that which was written is accurate.

When it comes to evolution and creationism there is a massive accumulation of evidence for evolution but there is no evidence to support a belief in creationism. Lacking any evidence of god there is no foundation for believing in creationism. It lacks any foundation for trust or confidence outside of "faith" that other people aren't lying whether intentional or not.

Religion is not about "faith in god" but instead it's about "faith in people" that have never provided any evidence of what they're saying is true.

 

Documenting rare events that deal with science =/= scientifically documented miracles.

 

I agree with you 100%. Methods of validation of claims in our material world (using logic based on reproducible experimental data) are not the same as those in our spiritual world (using logic based on holy books). Many potentially dangerous conflicts, between believers and nonbelievers, would disapper if such statement was universally recognized as valid.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

 

You're dyslexic, aren't you?

 

If I'm dyslexic, you're blind. Give me another way I can view this other than True Faith being extremist.

 

Well, that is not true. The ten commandments are reported to have come straight from God.

Jesus, being the Son of God, is also sharing directly from God.

As a Atheist, do you have a problem with either the ten commandments or with the teachings of Christ?

Once again, the documentation surrounding the creation of the church canon is well documented and understood.

And what does evolution have to do with humanity, other than explaining our morality? How does it tell us to be better people? To deal with theft? Sin? How to treat one another?

Can science, which is fndamentally amoral, answer these questions?

And atheism is apparently about faith in numbers. But yes, if you believe in God and the message he has shared with us, then you also have faith that the vast majority of people are good and honorable people.

If you think so to? If you think that morality has simply evolved, then you think like Dawkins, and, as I have stated, there is simply no real evidence to support this conclusion.

Even more simply, I will state again, that religion is NOT science.

Evolution would be no more appropriate in a comparative religion class than creationism would in a biology class. How do you approach life intangibles like relationships with evolution? The Big Bang? How do you find the proper balance between work, service, family, and individualism through physics?

You don't.

Teaching science as a religion is dangerous. It corrupts science. So, when we teach an antropomophised version of evolution, we must understand that this is not something supported by facts. Our morality existed WELL before we understood what evolution was, and know HOW we evolved is not the same thing as knowing the nature of Sin, or its remedies. Know HOW we arrived is not the same thing as know WHY we arrived.

Knowledge is not always wisdom.

 

Relationships can be explained through psychological patterns and biology.
Morals are not a precursor to God, they can't be used to support the existence of a God. Morals existed before any religion. To claim them as a product of your own religion is downright selfish.

 

Sure they can, why Freud is utterly without controversy even within the field of psychology, eh?

Human morality has shifted into its current form well after the birth of humanity. Petty, cruel Gods (that justified inequality and exploitation), Baal worship, etc. characterized early humanity. That shifted first with the Jews, and then with humanity.

But we'll just omit anything that doesn't fit our preconceptions.

Nice to see blind fundamentalim is not just a religious thing.

 

Better to be blind in one eye than to be blind in both.

Science is ongoing, just because some parts, or even if ALL parts don't work currently, that doesn't mean they won't be discovered in the future. Humans can do so much, and religion does so little to help it along.

You want to know why I have a problem with religion? It doesn't contribute to science in any way. I submit that we can most certainly know the universe without knowing God. I also submit that knowledge gleaned in the future will not come from Gods, but humans (or possibly non-human life forms who knows what we will find, or what will find us).

The universe we live in is glorious and filled with plenty of meaning, so why do we have to assign some falsehood to it to give it meaning to those that refuse to attempt to understand it.

But no, as you say, science can never be right, since some parts of it don't work right now.

 

Oh, so now we are scientifically making differentiations between levels of blindness? Even though your ignorance about of faith is what you base the comparative blindness upon? That's about as blind as you can get friend.

Religion is not science. Its not supposed to be figuring out physics equations, andmore than teh center of any relatiohsips you have are supposed to e centered around physics equations.

Now, the reality that you athism is not contributing toe science either - not one bit. You are comparing often inaccuarte science, making claims like soft sciences explain everything with mathematical precision that invalidates religion, against a lie of faith and religion. That isn'y science stud.

And being a jerk just to be a jerk? Well, what does 'science' have to do with that?

Its called rationalization.

But lets test it shall we?

Why do you love your wife?

Because she solved the equation in Good Will Hunting and I was amazed. She's raging (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) otherwise, mean, spiteful, and suffers from borderline personality disorder, but man .... I sure love her for her ability solve math problems!

Does this not define dysfunction? Take a look at your own beliefs before you chastize others.

 

Unlike most people, I don't simply disbelieve in God. This has come about from my choice to see life through the eyes of Fact and not Faith. I'm an Astrophysicist and nothing I do needs to be explained by magic.

Human minds aren't any more magical than the animals that live in the world with us.

 

And when we see American ultraconservative organizations like American Family Association asks the ban of the homosexulity, and be considered again a crime?

Then yes, I think that history of religions would have to be seen to know how bad are the religions for the progress of the societies. Thanks to religions many civilizations have not progressed in centuries, Islamic countries from late Mediaeval ages, and Christian countries during all the Mediaeval ages, more than 800 years without progress, only recession thanks to Christianism.

Then yes we should know how bad are the religions. If many Christians what you have is envy of the Islam. Because the Islam has more power than Christians. For luck in Occidental countries the influence of the Christianism is lower.

 

That is not how the churches preach their disagreement with homosexuality is it?

Is science unavailable to societies that have not advanced? Or is the culprit centralized authoritarian tendancies? Like North Korea, which is free from religion correct?

Christinaity gave us genetics, and indeed many of the early scientific discoveries, indeed there are many Christians who are scientists.

This need for Christianity and Science to be the same so they can be separate, this need to omit things from history that are beneficial and tied to the church (like the genesis of the abolitionist movement) are not part of a process of seeking truth.

So you say, history states otherwise. Contrary to your contrast of our faiths, I know, respect, and admire many good Muslims. I consider them friends, and our mutual faith in the same God is a source of great trust and respect in one another.

I am sorry that atheism has lead you find fault rather than respect.

 

No, you're dyslexic (or just plain stupid).

In response to my post on the will of God, you said:

"So if something happens and you interpret the will of God to mean that you must kill innocent babies while they lie in their cribs, you would blindly follow?"

Why in the world would anyone ever make such an extreme interpretation as to kill infants if (as stated) the will of God CANNOT be accurately assessed?

Next time, try reading more carefully before you post.

 

What people has done in name of atheism? Nothing.

What people has done in name of different religions? Unterminable lists of atrocities.

Religions and nationalism only are forms to control people, and some people be able to stay in power.

And religions, whatever each are terribly radical. Christianism with his fearful branches, in Spain we have Opus Dei, a very radical Catholic sect. But well, also we have the discourses of the Pope or different cardinals that make be afraid to anyone, how radical and outdated are.

Sorry, and going to topic, teach something uncientifical like creationsim as if it was is going again to the dark ages.

Ah, and you said that Shiva must prove that Christianism is pure mythology. Sorry, but that is impossible, you must prove that your God exists. If you don't prove that, it is exactly in the same field that the rest of mythologies.

More considering that the bible is a copy of many other old stories, is just a recopilation, so how we can see a God hand there? Only we see human hand. And many of the stories that is based the bible are directly fiction, like Gilgamesh.

The only difference between mythology and your religion, is that today there doesn't exist no one that believe in mythology and in today religions yes.

 

Catholicism and many like that yes. They would like to ban homosexuality

 

This is actually pretty easy to rationalize. Public schools and religion just don't mix. There is no reason forapublic school to teach creationism. If a church wants to give lessons on the subject that is their business. However creationism has been banned from public school curriculum in several supreme court cases. It hasno business ther at all.

 

Well, this is just more double standards born of hypocrisy and deliberate ignorance.



And, of course, lets not forget the evil of Christianity.



Please stop pretending these double standards are a reflection of intellect and education - they are the result of the exact opposite.

Why would anyone choose this?

 

Why do you always do this Neutral? He had a point, and you circumvented it. Nobody has ever done anything atrocious in the name of atheism. That isn't true of Christianity and most other religions.

 

Yeah? And what point was that Mr. Double Standards?

That Christians have been violent? No, (*)(*)(*)(*).

Guess what slick, so have atheists. And within the last century or so, they have been MUCH more violent that Christians.

Doesn't stop atheists from beating the old dead horse with the giant stick of hypocrisy does it?

http://www.atheists.org/religion

http://books.google.com/books?id=bO...&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Its called a lie of omission. And when you are confronted with the reality that you, as a human, are as collectively guilty as the as those they charge? Well, what a shock.



We are more than a little tired of ognorance and double standards thrown out repeatedly as if its never been debated before ... and exposed as utterly without merit too boot.

So, why not put your money where your mouth is for a change, as you are repeatedy silent when other people state that our religion causes violence, go ahead and call the police - let them know taht our faith is going to murder people.

But you won't do that, because you know it isn't true don't you?

Its more of what we've been atlking about isn't it. A shifted standard (or does your atheism, your individal view of it not encompass this BS?), and its all abot taking a dump on other poeple

I am pretty sure you did not learn in school that running around accusing poeple hypocritically of wanton violence and criminality was a good thing? Nor indeed do we find such ignorant antics in evolution or the Big Bang, or in science at all.

So when you do it repeatedly, and people insist on pointing out how boneheaded, hypocrtical, and utterly meritless the antics are? Maybe you'll finally get a clue.

IN the meantime, please bear in mid that the Crusades ended hundreds of years ago for everyone but Islamic terrorists and atheists (nice company), and that the Treaty of Westphalia all but eliminated state sponsored violence in the name of religion in the West hundreds of years ago.

Now we just have Marx and his rabbe to contend with - but that's no actually caused by atheism .... insert random double standard.

Your human slick - get over yourself.

 

Where on earth do you get your history? Throughout the latter part of antiquity and the early middle ages, the Church, many times was never even in a position to wield that kind of power over Europe. Ever heard of the collapse of the Roman Empire and the hordes of barbarians that swept through Europe after the Empire fell? The Church contributed much to science, gave us the University system, helped preserved the works of Ancient Greece and Rome. The legacy of the Jesuits should be more than enough proof to dispell this pop culture myth that the Church was anti science. Islam contributed as well.

 

First point, I am not Marxist.

Second point, religion has not changed. Religion follows a book of 2000 years old, so it follos outdated ideas. Like or not.

I've mentioned you examples of today Christianism that they would like to ban homosexuality... Also that they would like to live in a teocratic country, for example the Pope and Spanish Cardinals and bisbes are demanding that.

So yes, religion itself is dangerous. For several reasons one of them, you must accept dogmatic reasonaments and you can't question it, because if you question it you arive to conclusions like, what absurdity. Do they really pretend that I believe that nonsense? Please, don't tell me more stupid things.

When you use the reason and the science you go farer from religious beliefs. And not talking about the greatest absurdities: Creationism.

Creationism, the religious belief number one of many Americans, and only country where they believe that. In Europe, for luck this nonsense is considered what it is: Nonsense.

 

If we believe that we are going to heaven, why didn't all Christians act as Saint Kolbe did?

Because their survival insticts kicked in and overrode any consideration of self-sacrifice or logic.

Like I said before, there are many aspects of human behaviour that are "instinctual" honed from evolutionary survival. Whether genetics is the mechanism for this "untaught" behaviour remains to be seen, but it is demonstrable that chemical reactions dictate a considerable amount of our behaviour.

Bravery in and of itself is not a religious experience, it is a reaction to serious threats of harm or death. The person does what he thinks he as to. Which is why so many heros don't think of themselves as such.

Yet there are countless stories of self sacrifice throughout history.

If that is the case, then those ailments were with us long before the bible was a glimmer in some scibes eyes.

Well, like I said, the purpose of life is to life as good a life as possible. That means we must challenge our weaknesses as well as exploit our strengths. I understand those of faith call it "his wisdom", I simply call it human wisdom.

I beleive its because our intellects are in a constant struggle with our nature. since much of our behaviour has been shaped by millions of years of evolution and survival. To think that we can transform these instinctual behaviours in a few hundred generations of civilization is an unrealistic expectation.

Yes. As yet, I do not beleive that we have determined the mechanisms used to pass down unlearned knowledge (instinct) from generation to generation.

Yes. I don't beleive Dawkins disputes that. Nature vs Nurture is a raging debate across any number of scientific disciplines.

Again, Dawkins beleives that unlearned knowledge is transfered by genetics. I don't beleive that Dawkins ever stated that all of our morality is "hardwired", but a goodly portion of it is "instinctual". We are most definitely "slaves" to our DNA although not in the sense that you appear to mean.

The darker side as you call appear to be alternative survival instincts. Cowardice is often "flight or fight". Comes for millions of years of being "generalists" that just about every other predator on the planet could easily kill if unarmed. "Live to hunt another day". I'd say its pretty ingrained in basic human behaviour. That's why soldiers in training are "broken" then put back together into a warrior who obeys orders, kills people and looks out for the guy next to him. Those behaviours can be learned and over the millenium human knowledge and wisdom have honed these training techniques to unbelieveable results. (Seals, JTF2, SAS, etc)

I think its very plausible that a big chunk of human morality stems from the mysterious thing called "instinct" in the animal world. Again, what are its mechanism. Perhaps the implication that some of the wisdom in the bible comes not from God in Heaven but from the evolution of biochemical gods- that dictate large portions of human behaviour.

The product was invented, but once created it effects things. We can either dump products blindly (which admittedly some do), but the wise look out for the consequences of new products and see opportunities or potential hazards ... and they get in front of them.

Sorry, but your example questions should and would be answered in a business plan after going thru a strategic planning process. Applying well know business processes to understand the opportunity, map out a tactical plan, assign resources, determine measurements and feedback mechanism, etc. etc. That does not take wisdom, it takes leadership, creativity and prioritized application of processes.

Your I-pad analogy is bogus. Jobs didn't see the opportunity because he was "wise" (although he probably is quite wise) he saw it because he is a creative genius and an inspirational leader with a clear, consistent vision.

Really? if animals are greedy, how can they have such a craven human attribute, or put another way, how can humans have such a craven animal attribute?

Yes humans are in control. They build the systems, they build the computers, they build the software, they create the busines rules, they deliver the power necessary to run things, they control the communications, and on and on.

The fact that computer trading models don't always work, is a testament to the complexity of the real time decision making required of the software. Every time it fails, improvements are made. The fact that some humans manipulate markets is to be expected.

Yes, it is very simple. Yes its open to all kinds of interpretations. For you to lead the best possible life you are capable of, YOU make those decisions. If you think that the best possible life is about "having power and things," then you may garner power and riches but you won't necessarily be wealthy.

True human wealth is in the amount of love that surrounds you, the amount of respect your earn, the number of lives you touch positively, the generosity and tolerance you display, the equality you extend.

You know when you talk about god giving mankind free will? Well, I don't think god gave it to us, I think its part and parcel of being human and its always been about choices.

chacun son gout. I simply put forth my belief that God isn't necessary to live a good, healthy, moral, ethical life. A belief that we only get one shot at this sweet paradise and it is wise to make the best of it.

 

Are we supposed to take your illiterate scrawl as if it is any different that fundamentalist creationism?

#1 - Why don't you actually show me a message from jesus that is now outdated? Adultry suddeny not bad? Murder? Lying?

How about we come up some actual objective standards rather than just slogans for judgement?

#2 - You atheists constantly preach about the need to not generalize, and then ... what do you do, you generalize. There is a thread right here in this forum where one of you atheist pals is talking about responding to homosexuals with his pals smith and wesson .... not a single atheist and your moral quibbles have the balls to confront him. On the other end, we have ordained ministers who are openly homosexual - wven though we all run around with pitch forks because you are too lazy to lift your head and look.

But, go ahead and tell me how not wanting to allow homosexual marriage, if that is your opinion, means you want to criminalize homosexuality?

Adherents to logic me ass.

#3 - what is dogmatic about MY faith? Is it any less dogmatic than your need to see bad things in religion at the drop of a hat? To ignore reality itself? To find violenec in others bit not yourself? To accuse people with not a drop of blood anywhere near them of being prone to criminality and violence?

Call the police billy. Put your money where you mouth is and break up the huge criminal racket you see.

Or, follow your own advice and question YOUR conclusions.

#4 - We are talking about oral histories in the contect of philiopshy - everyone but pin headed closeminded atheists has acknowlegded that creationism should not be taught as science.

For some reason though, YOU seem unable to accept this? Whose fault is that, that you need something to beat down?

#5 - And we do love the sceintifically specific term of ... many Americans . Well, 'many' Americans like to stuff their head in toilets to - and that only requires two out hundreds of millions.

Is this what atheism is? castigation? blame? accusation? smear tactics?

Looks like it.

Now lets look at history shall we? I notice you failed entirely to address the treaty of Westphalia or the end of the Crusades, much less the various Revolutions that erupted from modern atheism? That violenece just gets a hand wave so you can bugger people? Nice.

Then we have history of Creationism. You won ... 50 years ago. The most recent incarnation is called Intelligent Design, that too was soundly beaten in court, and now, we have the melding of science and religion - or rather than acknowledgement form the faithful that we do not need to define how God does things. We have no conflict with science - as Darwin said well over a hundred years ago - correctly I might add.

But time itself seems to stop for modern atheists who thing being able to say the word Crusade will magicall make them understand it ... and, better, hurt people for the sake of their jollies. Nice religion.