|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Creationismtantoedge
Apologies, I meant the Science of Intelligent Design.
I agree with all the Creationists. We should be more broad in our teachings during Science class. Not only should we teach both Evolution and Creation, we should also teach Alchemy along with Chemistry, and Astrology next to Astronomy. I would also like to see Alien Seeding as an option next to Intelligent Design, because after all, Evolution is only a theory. It's not to be called Alien Seeding though, as Alien Seeding is a cochamamie idea that only a fool would conjure up... Extraterrestrial Origins is what we'll teach in schools... along with the idea that we were popped out of the big invisible fellow and spawned from pits of goop. Don't be offended... it's just a theory. Here's another little thought: What if we were in fact here a long long time ago, and GOD is in fact an acronym for Genetic Origins Diagram, or some such. Furthermore the civilization that predated us created the Dinosaurs in some freak accident, the prophetic bullshit coating limestone walls and old testaments is in fact hidden meaning stuff but there is no super higher power watching over us all, it could be some funky super computer down beneath the Earth's surface. Aliens were here, they helped us build it, now they're gone but we're here and through some sort of freak accident the planet isn't 64 billion years or even 6 thousand years old. It's actually only two hundred years old and the rest of the junk is here as a result of the planet being Alpha Centauri's dumping ground! Percy L. Spencer didn't invent the microwave, he found it next to the UFO at Area 51 and drove off before security saw him! THEY'RE GONNA COME BACK FOR US! GOD SAVE US ALL! David_Pardy
Have you been smoking pot? You started to sound reaaaally paranoid in that last paragraph
 psycosquirrel
I think we were created by a higher being; God. There are too many "coincidences" and bullsh*t theories about evolution for me to believe it fully. It may be true that God created us as simple beings and we have changed into what we are today, though. But, if you look at the most simple life, that of a basic cell, it is composed of so many millions of atoms that it could not have been just made by coincidence. There is a God somewhere. Refusing that fact is simply ignorant. The question is more along the lines of which religion on Earth, if any at all, is right about God, death, life, and everything? We will never know. We must blindly throw our faith into that which we view as being the most right. Any way you look at it though, religion is a good thing. It imposes proper morals and values upon us, forcing us to treat eachother better as a whole. SkullPizza
The only things taught in science class are things that have been tested. There is no scientific literature on intelligent design. Or anything else you brought up aside from evolution. If that changes and those advocating intelligent design figure out experiments that start to prove their theory and start convincing the majority of the scientific population then it will be taught in science class. that's how science works, it's not a democracy. if we made note of every possibility out there in science class we wouldn't get any teaching done at all because we'd be busy meandering over the infinite possibilities that could have happened. this is not practical. Freezon
PiZZA owns. Well anyways, good point. It isn't a democracy. I actually would choose "None of the above" if it existed. I don't believe in any of it. I have been fed so much bull over the years regarding it all in school that I have become full and refuse to eat anymore. CompactHaven
Creation and evolution. You didn't put that one on there. I'm a Christian, but would somebody please explain to me where in the Bible evolution is said to be false?
David_Pardy
The bible doesn't say God created the animals in a billion years.
The bible says God created the animals in a day. There's your answer. SkullPizza
Ahh... to live in a black and white world.... must be nice. Or at least easy. Billwaa
I say both. Both Evoultion and Intellgient design. God design organism first, like cells and stuffs. Then we evolve from it.
CompactHaven
Just because God created the animals in a day, doesn't mean the animals he created are the same as they are today. Also, the length of a day is heavily disputed. Seriously, how do you think Moses and the others lived hundreds of years? Time was obviously different, or they had something we didn't. The first seems more likely. make_life_better
We'd love to hear some really good solid "coincidences". Do you have any you could share with us?
No-one is suggesting that even a single cell, or for that matter even a single virus ever came about by just one accident or by coincidence, or even thousands of them. It's been estimated that there are over 100 million bacteria and smaller for every person on earth. They live and multiply much faster than us (maybe once per hour or per day at least). Multiply up the numbers... 1000000000 people times 100000000 bacteria each times 24 hours times 365 days times 1000000000 years. That's a lot of chances for something surprising to happen.
I personally find that offensive.
NO! We must never EVER blindly throw our faith behind anything. Not any religion or scientific theory.
No it doesn't. Many dreadful things have been done in the name of religion. Virtually all religions share the ideals of fairness, truth, honesty, helping others etc. But, so too do most other moral philosophies too, such as humanism. Do you honestly feel that you need a religion to tell you that it is wrong to steal, to kill etc? I hold such things up to be self-evident truths, and any religion or philosophy that did otherwise would probably be ridiculed and would not last long. Vrythramax
A sticky wicket at best. I believe in God and creationism even though I know it can't be proved. Can I prove it...no, but I shouldn't have to, it's my belief after all. Will I force that belief on another person....not anytime I can think of. We are all free to believe whatever makes us more comfortable and helps us sleep better at night. I see so many people getting really heated over this subject, and rational of that anger escapes me. I pray one way, someone else prays differantly, and still another doesn't pray at all. To say one theory is better than another is arrogance at it's best. I don't know why so many people get ticked off by this paricular subject, I'm not sure it's because someone is thinking differantly than them, they can't pursade the other to thier way of thinking, they are just itching for a fight, or some other unknown (to me anyway) reason.
The point being....it doesn't matter if you believe in God, creationism, or evolution...we are all supposed to be individuals, and as such should be allowed to think and believe in whatever we want without fear of reproach by anyone with a differing view. startsomething
This is the saddest post i have ever written but because of all the evidence and research on how earth is the privileged planet I don't think aliens exist. If this was a letter then there would be teardrops on it.
The Philosopher Princess
I like your attitude, Vrythramax! It’s a good approach to treat people as individuals rather than a collective.
But -- importantly -- for your approach to be consistent, you will also need to not support any monopoly, including a government school system. Wherever exist monopoly-run schools you always have a collective (students being taught the same thing) and you lose individuality (competition and variety of things being taught). Please tell me you don’t support monopolistic schools (only if it’s true). Or tell me that you are/will consider what I’m saying, written especially to you. Because, if you support the continuance of government schools, then your wonderful approach unfortunately falls to pieces. ~~~~~~~~~~ I’m doubting what you say here:
In the first place, you’re not saying that “God and creationism” are not “proved” to you, are you? For you to actually believe something -- in this case “God and creationism” -- don’t you agree that you, personally, have the evidence that causes you to believe it? Otherwise, I would truly like to know how you can believe something for which you don’t have proof. (Note, that I’m not asking for your proof. I’m asking you to clarify that when you say “I know it can't be proved”, you don’t mean to yourself, or if you do, how that can be.) In the second place, I’m thinking you probably mean that “God and creationism” “can't be proved” to other people by you. Am I correct on that? If you mean you can’t prove it at this time, then I have no problem with that. But, if you are saying that “God and creationism” “can't be proved” ever, then that’s another whole matter. How in the world do you know that it will never be proven? For example, isn’t is possible that God would one day decide to finally show himself to all humans and give the whole truth and nothing but the truth on this evolution/creationism issue? I mean, you’re not saying that you know 100% that God won’t do that, are you? ~~~~~~~~~~ I know I’m very direct, but I hope I’m not scaring you from coming back to talk on these things. You are an individual with a kind of positive attitude I like to work with. But I would also like to make sure you are accurate. Even creationists’ thinkings can evolve, right?  atomictoyz
Then why is evolution being taught in school? Alot of what is taught in school ar eanalogies and often times experiments that says nothing as far as origins or long term predictibility.
Start with Michael Behe and then move up to "The Biotic Message" just for starters.
This is the crux of where science should be... investigating the observed and falsifying the the theory. Revvion
if something made live on this planet , and more specificly humens i wonder why. I mean out of all the animals as far as i know the human is the only that lives more with thinking then with instinct. So if this is a evolutionairy step then why didnt other animals make it? Afther al if i follow a theorie that live on earth started with 1 single cell it should be more likely that more animals evolved in the same way. (I mean the fact that they try without instinct)
So i believe that something must have started this prosses. and i dont think we came from another plannet if you look at the simalerity's in dna. so the only thing i can come up with is: live just evolved on this planet and maybe somekiend of interfirence made it so diverse but wheter this is god or aliens i cant determine. a_dubDesign
I fall into a fun category, the category of Christian Evolustionist. Well, its not so much fun, I tend to catch heat from both sides.
In my humble opinion, science is studying the world that God created, and God created though what science calls theories and laws and whatnot. Albert Einstein is accredited with saying "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." I also tend to side with Galileo Galilei when he said "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." I find it very odd that people tend to pit science and religion against each other, even to the point of it becoming another denomination (Christian Science). Vrythramax
@The Philosopher Princess...
I do not support any kind of monopoly that seeks to undermine my thoughts in any way...and that includes schools, religions and government. I have fallen away from the Roman Catholic Church for just those reasons. I don't fit thier mold. As for my comment about God and creationism not being able to be proved, I meant being proved to a scientific degree by given provable and repeatable standards as it stands right now. I haven't a clue what may happen tomorrow. It was said in some movie "I may pick up a rock and turn it over might say Made by God". It has been proven to me, I'll not go into why and how for I don't want to get flamed for my thinking (it has already happened). I firmly believe in an individual being just that...and individual. I also believe that we are all free to believe in things the way that most suits us, and that includes God, Faith, Religion, Political views, etc. However, I don't believe that a person's right to individuality also gives them the right to hurt anyone else, or to force someone else to thier way of thinking...that in itself would negate the individualism being sought in the first place. I think my way and everyone else is free to think thier way. As for my considering what you have said, I am always open to any kind of rational way of thinking, and I am more than willing to shutup and listen...but please don't get upset if after you explain something to me I still don't agree with you, I'm not saying about this particular subject, as I happen to agree with you, I am speaking in general. I don't profess to being any kind of authority on the subject of religion (my degrees are in Applied Computer Sciences), I can only speak of what I believe in and I don't expect for anyone else to share my beliefs...if you do fine, if you don't that's fine too. You are obviously a well educated person and I am more than willing to discuss any subject with you in a rational way, as long as I know what the hell I'm talking about...at least I will admit to not knowing about something. "Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." Soulfire
I have to say Creationism. The theory that everything randomly and accidentally fell together is no less absurd than the theory that someone put it there, besides, if I believe in the someone that put it there, then I go to Heaven... and if that someone doesn't exist, I don't lose out.
Atheists, however, automatically lose. And the Bible states "God does not count time as men do." So creating the world in 7 days could be, in actuallity, millions of years. And while it seems a logical conclusion to base a thought that we came from monkeys, perhaps God just made us look alike? Then we had to go all astray and say "No no, we came from monkeys." We learn the theory of evolution, yet it is not proven, it's just widely accepted. Last I knew, Creationism is also widely accepted. LeviticusMky
Creationists are pretty much universally people who dislike thinking, or who simply refuse to do it.
Saying that evolution is random displays a lack of understanding regarding the argument and the science behind it. Creationsists consistently say things like: "Well, it seems unlikely that it all just happened to go this way." That means nothing, the fact of the matter is that it went this way. Sure, if we were to set up the Earth from page 1 again, we'd probably get a different result, and they'd probably be talking about how much their god loves them and how special they are. C'mon. Think. Don't believe. Soulfire
Quite the opposite, if you were to do a search on the internet, you'd see that science and Christianity go way back. The Bible, written over 2000 years ago (to start) speaks of dinosaurs, gravity, stars, etc. I can't give the verses because I don't have them memorized, but I might be able to supply them later. a_dubDesign
really? what about James 2:19 "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." or how about Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" The if I'm wrong, oh well, arguement for belief is second only to the fear based reasons.
wheres that at? Your using quotations like its a verse, but I can't find it in the NIV, NASB, theMessage, the Amplified Bible, NLT, KJV, ESV, CEV, NKJV, 21st Century KJV, ASV, Youngs Literal Translation, Darby Translationm NLV, Holman Christian Standard, NIRV, Wycliffe NT, Worldwide English NT, or the NIV-UK. I hear people say this all the time on threads like this, but no one can say where it comes from. Gnez
I think searching for evidence that will confirm your believes can hardly be called science.
What about gravitation? Is that an acceptible theory. Or are things falling down because god tells them to ... Intelligent design is intelligently designed to stop all discussion. The ultimate "why"or "how" can allways be countered by frases like "Well, you can't look into the way God thinks". Some science! SocratesX
I'm so astonished by the first post in this topic that I didn't read the other replies yet. I will in a second.
Darwin's theory is a scientific theory. Why should we, for crying out loud, teach another theory that is just FANTASY? And teaching astrology?? Oh my... ocalhoun
But then where did the aliens come from? Soulfire
Okay, so your first point has little relevancy. By believing in God, it also means carrying out his will. My bad for not adding that, I thought it would be understood. It's somewhere in the Gospel of Mark, I believe. I can't find the verse right now, and it's been some time since I read it... last year in Church. There is a passage in 2 Peter 3:8 that states: “But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” This passage could indicate that the “days” of Genesis could have been “thousands of years” in duration, rather than twenty-four hours. Now, that might not even be true, surly a God who can do ANYTHING can create the entire world in seven 24 hour periods, if He chooses to. I believe creating the entire world in 7 days falls under the heading "anything." Lennon
Creationists fail to realise one thing..
There are two stories of creation, one where adam is created from earth in Paradise, before the animals, and another where adam is created after the animals in the 6 day sequence. Take a good read at genesis. Pure creationism only argues for the 6 day sequence, I don't know why, since Intelligent design and God's omnipotence could have allowed any other. I am for intelligent design, and think that maybe evolution could have taken place in 6 days, a confusing mix but we just don't know. a_dubDesign
Just finished Mark, not there. My guess is its something that comes from theological arguments against evolution. Theres alot of things that us christians hold as true from theological arguments based on biblical text. The idea of the trinity, three parts of one god, is never talked about directly in the bible. Theres parts that say one god, and then parts that talk about the holy spirit the son and the father. The theology of the triune god more than likely came about from christians sliding toward belief that each part was a seperate god. I understand how something who takes genesis as completely literal, as a science text book type of deal, would see the need for that statement being true, but I don't see any other area that would support that.
Ok, for the sake of discussion lets say Peter was being literal here, not something I will hold to, and that this reasoning can therefor be applied to the litereal interpratation of the creation story. Then, God would have had to change the rotational speed of earth at some point between the 4th day and whenever anybody first talked about how long a day is. I'll save the big explanation, its based on the fact the earth revolves around the sun and Genesis 1:14&15. If you want me to explain the full thoughts I can message it to you, but I don't want to eat up more space.
I have no doubt that he could, just that he did. dogphilosopher
I would like to point out the following:
1) The belief that God created the universe does not necessarily mean that the God of the Christian bible is God. Arguing that the bible is right about creationism is an argument that must come after the argument for creationism is made. Perhaps creationism is right but perhaps it was a non-christian God that created the universe. 2) Creationism and evolution do not necessarily contradict. God could have created the universe and established the scientific laws that govern it, hence the logical, evolutionary development of its creatures. The only contradictions people tend to point out are those between a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis and the theoretical statements of evolutionary biologists. 3) There is no more proof for the existence of God than there is proof for scientific theories. Science relies on the scientific method which uses experimentation that produces predictable results, but even the scientific method does not rely on getting things right 100% of the time. All that is needed is an exceedingly high degree of predictability. We humans can never get things right 100% of the time, and scientific theories are constantly changing; just take a look at theoretical physics and cosmology. Those guys have changed their minds so much over the last couple of hundred years that at times it looks like they're getting their ideas from their daily horoscopes. 4) Just because we can't prove what we want to believe doesn't mean there aren't good and bad reasons for believing in things. Logic is the key. If the reasons you have for believing in something are not coherent, and if they lead you into contradictory conclusions then you are believing in something for the wrong reasons. A person should never simply believe in something because that is what he or she wants. Objectivity is required for rational belief, and that means putting aside your own agenda long enough to help ensure that your emotions and psychological weaknesses are not dictating what you believe. To put it simply, we aren't right about everything we think we know whether it be about science or the origin of existence itself. Lets step back and stop arguing with each other and try being honest with ourselves. Try saying this to yourself: "I don't know." You may find the sincerity therapeutic. The Philosopher Princess
Vrythramax, it is a real pleasure to speak with you! Not only do I see you as very polite, but you seem very sincere and very thoughtful, which are especially noticed on these kinds of complex subjects. Thanks for your own meta-thoughts. I discuss 3 points, below.
~~~~~~~~~~ {Point P1}
Very good. Thanks for clearing that up. I think you can see that there’s a major difference between your newer statement, quoted above, and your previous statement, which I quote below.
Leaving out the qualification, for something this critical, could easily lead to invalid discussions because others will be arguing against something you said, but you didn’t mean. Why do I say this is critical? Because there is a very significant difference between (1) someone saying they do not know how to prove something to someone else, and (2) someone claiming they do know that something cannot be proven. We all run into #1 probably daily. We see a look on someone’s face, which we know how to interpret, but would not be able to explain to someone else who didn’t see it. We know it’s true; we just can’t prove it. But with #2, oooh, that’s serious. It matters in this discussion because there are people who assert very strongly that God exists, that Creationism is true, etc. -- but, as they claim, for a person to believe these things that person must, and I mean must, believe on faith. I hope you appreciate my pointing out this difference. It might also be interesting to consider that a Creationist of the #1 kind (which seems to be you) could have more in common with a scientific-based Evolutionist, than they would with a Creationist of the #2 kind. Now, I wonder if we can find a Creationist of the #2 kind to test my theory. There are probably some on Frihost. ~~~~~~~~~~ {Point P2} I’m glad you also addressed my “monopoly” questions, because now your previous claims such as .....
I just hope you mean that (3) you “do not support any kind of monopoly” period, as opposed to meaning that (4) you don’t support monopolies of “any kind” as long as they don’t “undermine [your] thoughts...” This might be considered a(nother) Princess Pickyism, but I bring up these points to attempt to avoid any important ambiguities. (If you meant #3, then using a “which” instead of a “that” would have been unambiguous.) ~~~~~~~~~~ {Point P3} Now, here’s a more significant point, and the one I’d most like you to address.
If I understand your statement, you’re saying all theories are equally good, equally bad, equally false, equally true, etc. But surely you don’t really believe that! A theory that includes obvious inconsistencies such as {A is always true.} and {Sometimes A is false.} is clearly illogical, clearly false, no matter what else the theory includes. In contrast, a theory that at least does not have any self-inconsistencies is better. Do you not agree? Even in a specific context of pro-Creationism, there will be some theories that have obvious self-inconsistencies, so should be considered false and disregarded, while others at least pass a first level of logic and should be considered for deeper study. You had said.....
Being tolerant of people, giving everyone a chance to speak, and recognizing that everyone holds their own opinions, does not mean that everything coming out of everyone's mouth is equally true, equally good, etc. So, please explain your statement further. Related topics
|
