Come on....church's are private funded organizations....

Do the words..."Public Education System" mean anything to you?

And yes, one way of putting it is intelligent design.

As everyone remembers from reading about the history of the origin of the United States, there was a great debate amongs the citizens over ratifying the Constitution. The Federalists Papers, for example, were written to explain the workings of the proposed government, and to allay fears that having fought against one tyranny, the American people were putting into place another.

Many states, in officially ratifying the original Constitution out of dire need at the time, plainly demanded that certain Amendments be added as quickly as possible to defend individual liberty. I quote as one example from the return of the State of N. Carolina (August, 1788):

"That religion, or the duty to which we ow to our Creator" (not God n nor Jesus, note), and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favoured or established by law in preference to others."

It is this sentiment that was echoed in the Admendment in question.

Regards,
John

I must have missed what you were trying to point out. Oh, and not "everyone" has read about the history of the origin of the US. How presumptuous of you.


So if the creator is not God, whom were they referring to in your opinion?

Quote " I find the bolded particularly amusing." Why?

Quote " Yet we allow textbooks plastered with lies presenting evolutionary theory in schools? Do you also have outrage against that?" Please share with us the lies you have uncovered. Please don't quote "Answers in Genesis" or other religious oriented web site. Name the Biology/Science book and passage you consider a lie. Please don't generalize.

I have tried in the last several years not to use the "F"word (faith) and the "B" word (belief). I much prefer think, consider, accept, understand. I leave the use of the F and B word to those of the religious persuasion. It just doesn't sound correct-"I believe in evolution" and I prefer "I accept the theory of evolution".

Quote "Of course, our issue is whether the evidence against evolution will be taught along with that for evolution" Again, there is no scientific evidence to support a religious "belief" in a supernatural being or creation. Period. All there is is a few lines written thousands of years ago by unknown author(s) with no scientific knowledge.
Let's face it, the young earth creationist don't want the word evolution, much less the teaching of how the universe evolved used in any school class. They want to extend the teaching of religion to public classrooms. No matter what they say.
Please keep in mind that ALL sciences support the theory of evolution, not just Biology. Science does not delve into the supernatural.

In terms of my individual ethics, I am accountable to no one but myself. I suspect that you would equate this to no accountability at all. I'm not going to argue this point - we will have to agree to disagree. One thing I will say though, there are many competing religions in this world and you chose Christianity as the basis for your ethics. As far as I am concerned, you are accountable to yourself for your choice.

So many well thought out and apt posts and I hope no one objects highly to my below comments.

Re: "should have said..."Should something that is a blatant lie be taught as fact in schools to children who are at a very influential stage of life?"

Hmmm. To call other's thoughts or beliefs a "blatant lie" is a tad harsh, perhaps? (I have yet to read any person saying 'Christianity is a blatant lie". Indeed, I, one of those atheists, would find it horribly offensive).


Re: "How presumptuous of you"

Hmmmm. A kinder, less 'attack' mode may be, "I wonder if that line of thinking is presumptuous?"

Yup, it may seem like I am 'picking' here myself ... but as other members have mentioned regarding far earlier posts in this Thread, perhaps we should be careful to not turn into mental 'bullies' while we have these great debates?

- - - - -

On a personal note, I grinned when I saw the below as whether 'for or against', I doubt somehow if this topic is about to be taught in our school system.

"How do atheists feel about this young mans personal view ... Do you condone suicide for those that are suffering in their present living state?"

There's another thread here at our Bleeping ... SpeakEasy/Our Right to end our own lives
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/ind...&hl=suicide

Thread title:

"Why Is Evolution Taught As Fact, to discuss the topic of evolution being taught as fact when is fails"


First, I do not believe that evolution is taught as fact, it is taught as the most common, prevailing, scientific theory.

Also, earlier in this thread (page 11) i said:


but I do no believe I got a response.


I do not believe that the belief in God negates the concept of evolution nor do I believe that the theory of evolution negates the concept of God.

What I'm saying is that for God to create a universe that doesn't scientifically scream out the existance of that god, the universe would have to stand up to intense scientific scrutiny. We are very curious people, and we are certainly going to investigate everything in as much detail that we can. There should be no scientific method or evidence that can prove that God exists, nor, do I believe, will there ever be any scientific evidence that proves that God does not exist. Unless, of course, God decides to come forth in an undeniable manner.

Now, I understand that believers see God's hand in the beauty of rainbows, butterflies, and majestic mountain sunsets. Good for them. I certainly wouldn't want to take away their joy. In fact, as the song goes, if "all we need, and so hard to find, is some peace, peace of mind", I somewhat envy that they've found it (and, are so willing to share it to those that are willing to receive it).

The Theory of Evolution affects all religions, not just the Judeao-Christian one. Don't the other great religions have creation stories? I'm not arguing against or for any of them, just wondering why only one of them is not only correct, but must be taken literally? How many times, at a church service, is a portion of the bible read, and the "parable" then explained by the religious leader? The bible is full of parables, but Genesis' account of the creation must be taken literally? I'm not trying to be antagonistic by this remark, just wondering.

You are completely wrong about the "young earth creationists". You tell me to please keep in mind that ALL sciences support the theory of evolution, not just Biology. That is patently absurd. Its amazing...I cannot remember posting in this thread requesting creation be taught in schools. I may have, but I don't remember. My whole point is to stop presenting the fantasy science of evolution as fact in schools, (which ironically is the subject of the thread.)

Hmmm. To call other's thoughts or beliefs a "blatant lie" is a tad harsh, perhaps? (I have yet to read any person saying 'Christianity is a blatant lie". Indeed, I, one of those atheists, would find it horribly offensive).

So wait...calling evolution a blatant lie is equivalent to calling Christianity a blatant lie? Are you saying evolution is now a belief that requires faith, just as Christianity?



Im not really that into being politically correct. It was actually quite presumptuous to say what he did.
I was simply asking your opinion on it, because the young man attributed his depression to his knowledge of Darwinianism. I believe its relevant. And I doubt that you are the only atheist here. gentle smile.

I didn't post that - I think it was buddy215.

ooo...sorry about that.

I will edit.

I believe that is a bit of a stretch. MaraM was simply pointing out that arriving at the truth requires that we respect one another's opinions and beliefs. Nobody is attacking you as a person. You are not backed into a corner.


JohnWho, I agree 100% with your most recent post.

Somebody call 911 -

bg04 is in serious need of psychiatric intervention!





Seriously -

thanks bg04. I appreciate that.

JW

Wow. Talk about aggressive posting. As a complete aside, I sincerely hope that all those of a religious persuasion are as happy with their lives as I am as an agnostic.

Cheers to all.

Φιλοσοφία Βίου Κυβερνήτης

"Love of wisdom, the guide of life."


John

I believe you must have some sort of belief in science, science is just an explanation of how the world works, and many world reknown scientists including einstain have come to a point in which they do say, that considering how many levels of organization and the make up of the universe, that there is a possiblity that there is an omnipotent being.

But back to belifs in science, when you wake up and you put your foot over the bed when you are about to stand, you know you will fall, Why? because Gravity is pulling you down at apprx. -9.8 m/s/s (I believe this is the right figure, and yes let's not get into relativity involving gravity). You believe you will fall when you jump out of a plane, so ins't science as much of a belief as any religion out there? You can as with religion reject the ideas of science, and just like science religion has its own scholars that study religious texts.

In this case take the definition of faith (taken from dictionary.com)
"belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit"
"confidence or trust in a person or thing"
Since you have a belief that you will fall or that the chemical compound of sweat includes salts wouldn't that mean that you have faith in science? I know there is going to be someone that says "I know I will fall therefore it cant be a faith because I just know." well if you "just know" that there is a god and that god created all creatures wouldn't that mean religion is not a faith?

Just some things to think about, maybe science and religion are not that different, both attempt to explain the universe, although one may try to lead you to a path of atonement. (I'm still trying to remain neutral by posing different questions)

-Ussr1943-

I would say that society is already heading in that direction.

Seafox14

Actually Buddy215, I have said many times on this discussion thread that I don't mind the teaching of evolution as long as the flaws in the theory are taught along with the supporting evidence (basically teaching the pro's and the con's of it).

Seafox14

"I will not accept that philosophically(creation), because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

~~Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard,
Nobel Prize winner in Biology.

"Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress... The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science... I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling."

"If I knew of any Evolutionary transitional's, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them in my book, ‘Evolution.’"

~~Dr. Colin Patterson, Evolutionist and Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils

"Often, a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy."

~~Charles Darwin,
Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229

Wouldn't that be "learned behaviour" or something similar?

Well, regardless of what you call it...its observable and reproducible.

I agree.

I just wouldn't call it "belief" based, using the same definition of belief that is used when we talk about one's religious convictions.

Consider these sentences (assertions):

I believe in the Trinity.
I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow.
I believe that two plus two equals four.
I believe that Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo.
I believe that I have a toothache.

We might use the same word to describe the truth-function of the assertions in casual speech, but don't each of these sentences indicate that we are using a slightly different meaning---or should use a slightly different language "rule" ---each time we use "believe"?

This seems to ignore that there are various levels of belief. The existence of my dog is a matter of belief (rather strong) and the existence of poltergeists under my bed is a belief (rather weak).

Again, some beliefs are subject to verification in a way that others are not. We may even go so far as to say that a verified belief is a "fact."

I think a great deal of confusion can be generated when we use the same word and expect the rules for one aspect (definition) to apply for another.

Cheers,
John

You know, jgweed -

It is my belief that you are correct.

Johnwho, it's actually MORE than belief!
LOL,
John

PS and in a more serious note.
I cannot but notice that it makes perfect sense in this instance to say that some beliefs are correct, as you just did; there must be others, presumably, that could be called incorrect.

And what do we make of this sentence: I believe that "X" is self-evident?
John

Self-evident to whom?

Is it really being taught as fact? I seem to remember my biology teacher in grade 12 explaining to the class that we would not be learning about evolution because it is too controversial a topic. of course that was only a year ago.


edit: woops, i didn't realize that this topic was a million (read: 26) pages long already... meh, i've said my piece, maybe if it is off topic with what everyone else is talking about, it's still on topic with the thread title

No tazz88, your thoughts and comments are welcomed! So evolution was avoided in your Biology class altogether? Was this at the behest of the school district or the individual teacher?

i believe it was the school district that avoided putting evolution into the curriculum.


also, my belief is a mix of creation and evolution. something had to cause the 'big bang' to happen, and i don't believe that life just spontaneously appeared on earth.
the odds that 2 groups of molecules would collide in such a precise way to create the first life form (cell), are just astronomical. some omnipotent being must have planned it. i hope i make sense

Of course, that is assuming the "big bang" actually happened.

And I personally am elated that evolution was kept out of the curriculum.

Whether it was the Word of God, or the events outlined by the Big Bang Theory; I think some entropical (is that a word?) force began the process of our solar system's creation.

Can anyone show me the parts of the Bible attesting to a 6000 year span of the Earth? I have not been ablt to find it on my own.

that is true. there is no proof that it actually happened. a theory is just a theory until there is proof, and until you have proof, you need faith.
science and religion are just 2 different ways of explaining the earth, or universe, and neither one can really proove themselves right.

That date of about 6000 years is not specifically mentioned in the bible. It was arrived at by taking all of the geneologies in the bible (starting with Adam and going forward to the present) and counting the years that way. Generally speaking one generation is a span of about 40 years. This is how the 6000 year age of the earth is gotten.


Seafox14

bit off topic, but didn't noah live to be 600 or something?

Give or take 300+ years.

And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died. - Genesis 9:29

Deriving the age of the world from a Biblical genealogy seems problematic interpretatively --- simply because of the assumption that it is complete and without gaps (which would tend to be dubious because much of the genealogy was certainly gleaned from oral tradition), and because of the assumption of average ages (Noah, Methusala are seen as exceptions to a scientific average). Even with the ancient Egyptians, who were fairly careful about such things, similar knowledge of the Dynasties is far from certain.
Regards,
John

Better than carbon-dating John. lol.

wowza. and one generation is 40 years?

lols@ 6000 years since earth's creation. since, you know, there's like fossil evidence and stuff from MILLIONS of years ago.

edit. spell chex ftw
'nother edit. i agree with jgweed!

jwinathome---Though I completely disagree with you and the religious industry as to the information in Genesis being correct, I think there is one thing we can agree on.
You spelled GEORGIA wrong!!

haha. i laughed out loud at that

awesome.

Scientists have done shown that the earth cant be billions or millions of years old for many reasons.

Like the grand canyon would not look like it does today and there would be a lot more feet of sediment on the ocean floor.

Below is from 'Grand Canyon National Park ...http://www.nps.gov/archive/grca/grandcanyon/faq.htm

How old is the Canyon?
That's a tricky question. Although rocks exposed in the walls of the canyon are geologically quite old, the Canyon itself is a fairly young feature. The oldest rocks at the canyon bottom are close to 2000 million years old. The Canyon itself - an erosional feature - has formed only in the past five or six million years. Geologically speaking, Grand Canyon is very young.

Are the oldest rocks in the world exposed at Grand Canyon?
No. Although the oldest rocks at Grand Canyon (2000 million years old) are fairly old by any standard, the oldest rocks in the world are closer to 4000 million years old. The oldest exposed rocks in North America, which are among the oldest rocks in the world, are in northern Canada.

But even more interesting is an article written by Interesting article written by Steven A. Austin, editor. Institute for Creation Research ...

http://www.usd.edu/esci/creation/grandcyn.html

2000 million years bah......

There's a very old saying - something like, "there are none so blind as those who will not see".

I guess the old saying applies to myself as I surely don't see how anyone can live in this incredible world and not watch and wonder and question things.

To believe, wonderful - to learn and still believe, perhaps the best thing of all.


CGM ...

If I may ask, what scientific journal or other scientific source did "Scientists have done shown that the earth cant be billions or millions of years old for many reasons"., come from. I love to read - all views - and this would be no different.

Even if it comes from a Christian scientist? I am not sure he is or all of them who said this are Christian or not but I will try to get some links for you.

There are flaws with radiometric carbon dating as well as some assumptions that have to be made in order to make it work. Just a few of these assumptions are that the rate of radioactive decay is constant and the assumption of how much of the parent isotope was in the object being dated to begin with. Supposedly when the rock is formed it cannot get any more of the isotope in it. then based on the amount of the new isotope that the first one decays into the age of the rock can be determined. Yet when this was tested on volcanic rock that had just formed (about 2 weeks out of the volcano) the result was still millions of years. Also, given the right conditions, fossils can form very quickly. In Pompeii they found a ham that had been completely fossilized. I have also seen pictures of a miner's felt hat that fell into a mineral water pool. it was completely fossilized in just 2 months. Radiometric dating requires a lot of uniformitarian assumptions an I for one do not trust it.

Radiometric Dating Q&A

Seafox14

Yes, there are all sorts of flaws that seem to pop up with carbon dating and I appreciate the link, SeaFox.

CGM - please don't think I required a 'Christian' scientist, merely that I love to read things from darn near any scientific site and to date, I've yet to read that the Grand Canyon isn't ancient (i.e. millions of years old). With the mentioned flaws in carbon dating, etc, it's certainly possible it's not as old as once believed but even with the possible flaws used in dating and other testing in that area, it appears it is still indeed very, very ancient - still leaving in in the 'millions' of years old time line.

try these links Mara.

Grand Canyon

A Young Grand Canyon?

Seafox14

This is the best and most well-founded theory I have seen to date on the origin of the Grand Canyon...

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/GrandCanyon2.html

Be careful, it uses science and is a creation website!!! *gasp*

(If you are at all worried about the author's credibility, google him.)

Thanks for the links, SeaFox - off to the information at both sites thoroughly. As I said earlier, I love to read and learn things and certainly have an 'open mind' about carbon datings, etc..

Thanks again!