Printable View
let me get this straight
its ok for yall to believe that there is no god
but its wrong for people to believe in a god?
some of yall might think that creationism is a fairytale but most of the science stuff is based on theory.
this site is becoming more and more disrespectful to those that have a religion. not cool.:(
nature, yes I would get mad. But not because I didn't understand what they are trying to say but rather because they are basically committing scientific blasphemy. Science is based on fact, find any fucking fact that proves "gods" existence. Think of it this way, remember that book by Dan Brown (DaVinci Code)that was created as a work of literature that raised such a big stink in the world of Catholicism? Now just think what is happening here, i'm surprised scientists haven't lashed out the same way. I hate that most peoples proof of creationism is that the world is very complex. Yeah, it is complex, so, does that mean that god is automatically real? This is just an attempt to try to get Christianity into the schools under the label of Science. It is stupid to argue with them because that implies that they are willing to see how fucking ludicrous their ideas are and get them past "no one can prove god isn't real, so he must be real."
From Death Row this is DreadConches Abu-Jamal signing out.
lol "scientific blasphemy". That is a good one. Don't take DNA's name in vain!!!! That being said, everyone who is worried that people might manage to get this pushed into the public schools need to realize ONE BASIC PRINCIPLE re: government services. If you allow the government to take charge over any area of you and your children's lives, it will simply be the tyranny of the majority or the whims of a few determining the style and quality of service. In other words, you get what you pay for, and if you're pooling your resources you lose your individual control over the utilization of those resources. In other words, for a creationist, why should you let THEM decide what to teach YOUR CHILDREN? And for a non-creationist, why should you let THEM decide what to teach YOUR CHILDREN? As far as government funded schools are concerned, this will always be the basic flaw unless a completely ideologically neutral voucher system is in place. In other words, if you want your children to be taught that Dr. Seuss wrote non-fiction historical works, then you and the other parents who agree should get up your own school and hire a teacher. Of course, there would have to be a math, history, reading, writing, and science test for the children to pass in order for the school to accept the vouchers for payment, but you can teach the skills for those tests and still ground the children in whatever philosophy you like the best. Even if kids learn creationism, so what? If they have a good understanding of biology they won't have any trouble understanding college classes, and if they're not college-bound it surely won't have any effect on their work performance or success in life. Take me for example. I was taught in the Christian private school all my life. But in college I got all 4s in my life sciences. I know all the organs of mammals, I knew at one point all the parts of the brain and almost all the bones, I understand genetic replication, protein coding and synthesis, inheritance, natural selection, the generally accepted timeline of life on Earth, radiocarbon dating, and the use of genetic markers to trace lineages. Why? Because they did teach the scientific principles of observation and testing, which are what's REALLY important for young people. So everyone get your heads out of your heinies and realize that ideological matters are relatively unimportant from an educational standpoint, and the quality of the curriculum is what's really important. I was by no means disadvantaged compared to my classmates, and neither will anyone else be if they learn to read, write, do math, and experiment.
RamblerGambler re: the danger of religion ruling science. That's not a good example. It's only a good example of the danger of religion legislating and executing law.
I just thought of another point... it seems like the topic REALLY up for debate isn't even science, it's what most museums very accurately call "Natural History". Reminds me of a great museum I spent a lot of time in as a child. The Fort Worth Museum of Science and History. The Science wings had computers (personal computer were new back then, lol), the visible woman, star charts, preserved fetuses, skeletons, plate tectonics, physics, etc. The History wings had the dinosaurs, coal, amber, timelines, phylogeny, cosmology, early man (I used to LOVE the stone-age surgeons trepanning with their lava-rock bone drill. I could look at that for hours.. if anyone else remembers it, wasn't that cool?), different civilizations and cultures. IOW, the proper context of the evo/creation debate is within the realm of history, with the science only useful to provide the evidence with which to back up your claims.
Heh, 'intelligent design' is such a joke. Rabbits have to eat their food, crap it out, and then eat their crap, in order to properly absorb the nutrients. That's intelligent design, eating your own poop? There are lots of similar examples where evolution didn't quite work out very well and produced 'an inferior product'. If there is a God doing this designing, he's a retard and not worth worshipping.
I don't think the word 'museum' should be used for this building. It's a place of proselytizing an unproven theory, more of a place of worship than anything else.
As to right-wing Christians coming in the night and stealing babies, no, of course not. But when they gain a majority, they assemble in Congress and steal your rights. Which is rather ironic because one of the most basic conservative tenets is small government, less government intrusion. Yet, when it comes to what you might do with a consenting partner in your own home with the curtains drawn, they definitely want the government in there, to make sure you don't inadvertently do something they consider immoral and thus put your soul in peril.
When someone says that evolution is purely scientific and then says creationism is not science, they are really declaring their own ignorance about what science even is.
Science can do a lot of neat stuff. It can help build airplanes and calculators and computers etc. It can help us learn a lot of new information about the outside world and test any theory we may have about how the natural laws of the universe work.
But the thing about science is, : Science only works in the present!. Science is a tool that we use to observe and make observations and tests here in the present today.
When it comes to the past, it is always relegated to the area of belief, even with evolution. This is because neither creationists nor evolutionist were there to see exactly what when on.
We all have the same evidence, but two different presuppositions, two different worldviews, and so we interperet the evidence differently. A scientist who is a creationist will take his beliefs and look and the evidence and try to look for ways the evidence fits with what he assumes about the natural world and how it got here. He can extrapolate back in time by using scientific data and knoledge about natural laws, and it is possible to come to the right answer, the thing about it is if you start from a faulty presupposition you could get incorrect results.
Evolutionts purport to use science in much the same way. There is and never has been any observable example of any bio-organism
gaining complexity and an increase of genetic information by evolution. They have to make assumptions and beliefs about the past too, just like creationists. They try to look for things in the natural world that show evidence of evolution. Since there is no empirical evidence they have to make assumptions about the past. They look and bones, and interperet them a certain way.
Now it's true that both interperetations cannot be right, but both make assumptions about that past. I hope that is clear enough.
Modern science as we now know it was founded by Christians and
flourished because of a release of ideas and freeedom through the reformation. Science itself is established on one asumption, that is that the natural laws of the universe always hold true. Even evolutionists accept this and forget that without a Christian philosophy to shape that assumption beleiving in a God of order, there is no reason to belive that the natural laws always hold true.
That was a big assumption that was made back then, but it turns out that that act of faith has been validated, and even before that was validated by early observers of the universe.
Finder out which theory is closer to the truth is a lot more obvious than people think. Evolution and creation are such enormously different concepts that the evidence and information we have available should fit one much more readily than te other. And it does! but it's not evolution, it's creation. When looking at a theory, it's a good idea to look at it's past history. When we take a look at evolution, and very much of the evidence it has shown as proof, you will find that it's just about all been discounted and discarded. But all the time they try to come up with new ideas, trying to save the sinking ship. But creationism has a different story. What it's shown as proof has stayed stable far longer than evolution has ever ixisted as a theory. And furthermore there's much more evidence for creation then evolution. And Creationism has had very few examples of evidence that has had to be discarded, although there have been some.
When people say no creation science should not be discussed in schools, they're showing the same kind of attitude that they would not want to have pushed on them. They wouldn't want to live in the Roman catholic empire where they cannot speak or learn about other religions or ideas besides catholicism. But they will not allow another idea for how our world got here except evolution. No cross examination. But that's one of the most IMPORTANT parts of empirical science!! Creationism is discounted
merely because it includes God and therefore must be religious indoctrination. How is it religious to merely talk about the idea that God made the universe? Are they forcing your children to pray or obey the ten commandments? Are they pushing them into the water to get baptized? It's a farce, and it's a pathetic tactic to keep any competition to evolution out of the secular dominated schools.
THe creation museum is something you really should go see before you start slandering it and saying it's just the same stuff they preach in sunday school only hid behind psuedo science. What ignorance. You don't even realize that churches have been one of the biggest hinderances to the creationist movement. Many churches you go to nowadays have no clear doctrine on whether things came by evolution or not, and many are firmly opposed to creation. ANd that is not only true today, but also right from the beginning! When darwin's idea first came around it wasn't church who gave resisitance to his idea, it was the scientists! The church practically worshipped him. More about that here:
Holy war?
I've seen pictures of the museum and it's indeed world class. People have come from all over the world to see the museum and it is a great acheivement for creation science. It's funded by donations and sales. The exibits arn't just bible stories, but include scientific evidence that fits with creation and refutes false evidence and concepts propogated by evolutionary theory.
I suggest anyone feeling critical of the museum should go to the website and learn more about it first:
Creation Museum - Creation, Evolution, Science, Dinosaurs, Family, Christian Worldview - Creation Museum
Just another testiment to organized religion.
That simply isn't true, you are completely wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
I can give you LOTS of examples.
Go ahead. I challange you.
But do it in another thread.