Notices

View Poll Results: Should we teach creationism is fake?

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    13 68.42%
  • no

    6 31.58%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 125 of 125

Thread: should we undermind religion in school?

  1. #101  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    look, arch, I'm atheist, no matter WHAT the bible is really saying. I'm offering an answer on middle ground, that, like I said early, ultimately you won't accept
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I'm offering an answer on middle ground
    sorry but there is no middle ground and no compromise. we do not let sin in where it does not belong.

    Evolution is the truth, Christianity is myth and superstition
    nice try.

    the point is, if evolution were true all evolutionists would not be afraid to teach creation in their classroom or have it taught in the science lab, it would easily be proven false. BUt since creation is true, evolutionists do anything they can to stop the truth from exposing their lies.

    public school's cannot omit religious studies or creation from the classroom, christians are part of the public and they have the right to be taught in public schools material that is not lies as they have the right to be educated not brainwashed by unbelievers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist

    the point is, if evolution were true all evolutionists would not be afraid to teach creation in their classroom or have it taught in the science lab, it would easily be proven false.
    Creationism can only be taught as myth and superstition as there is nothing else to teach. The lab can demonstrate evolution but can't demonstrate creation. How then can you teach it? You can't.

    public school's cannot omit religious studies or creation from the classroom, christians are part of the public and they have the right to be taught in public schools material that is not lies as they have the right to be educated not brainwashed by unbelievers.
    Muslims and Jews are also part of the public school system, as are Hindus and Buddhists? You can't teach Christianity unless you teach all the other religions, which I am in favor. That way, all cults can be compared and shown for what they are.

    Of course, the parents of each cult would never let that happen. So, be careful of what you ask for.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist

    sorry but there is no middle ground and no compromise. we do not let sin in where it does not belong.
    Thusly, you have ostracized and alienated yourself from the rest of the world.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    we do not let sin in where it does not belong.
    Once again archeologist proves that he is close minded, irrational, nonthinking, and bigoted.

    Wow archaeologist you sound just like a religious fanatic! Who would have guessed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    if evolution were true all evolutionists would not be afraid to teach creation in their classroom or have it taught in the science lab
    That makes no sense whatsoever. If you know A to be true, then why would you teach B? That is the sort of drivel you are becoming well known for.

    BUt since creation is true, evolutionists do anything they can to stop the truth from exposing their lies.
    Haaa haaa haaa ... The only liar around here is you archaeologist. Creation is a myth. It is a myth born out of ignorance.

    Once again I have to ask a question which you never answer. Where's the evidence?

    I recall a creationist lecture in which a drawing of a piece of rock art was presented to show a Southwest pictograph of a dinosaur. No photograph of the original was presented. The image was more a Rorschach blob than anything else, but like looking at clouds you could under suggestion see some sort of animal in the image.

    What the lecturer did not reveal during the lecture was that the image was shown upside down. Apparently the mesmerized Anasazi saw a long necked dinosaur doing a head stand! (I had no idea dinosaurs were so agile. You never know what you can 'learn' at a lecturer given by a creationist.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    it is best to teach children the truth and not lie to them for in lyin gyou destroy so much in their lives. creation is the truth and using science to study the results of creation and see who God is is the correct way to go.

    using science to study origins fails as it is impossible to put creation n a test tube an dsecular scientists do not know the exact conditions of the earth for their version of origination of ife thus they are just acting like blindfolded fighters swinging wildly andhoping to hit something of value.

    their efforts using random thought and experiments exemplify the failure of life happening by random chance. everything they 'discover' points to design, thought, care, purpose and not formation by being lucky.

    you can't undermine christianity [a distinction needs to eb made here as false religions can be undermined} because it is the truth and you 'can't do anything against the truth'. we have the answers, secular science does not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    it is best to teach children the truth and not lie to them for in lyin gyou destroy so much in their lives. creation is the truth and using science to study the results of creation and see who God is is the correct way to go.

    using science to study origins fails as it is impossible to put creation n a test tube an dsecular scientists do not know the exact conditions of the earth for their version of origination of ife thus they are just acting like blindfolded fighters swinging wildly andhoping to hit something of value.

    their efforts using random thought and experiments exemplify the failure of life happening by random chance. everything they 'discover' points to design, thought, care, purpose and not formation by being lucky.

    you can't undermine christianity [a distinction needs to eb made here as false religions can be undermined} because it is the truth and you 'can't do anything against the truth'. we have the answers, secular science does not.
    Because the world is NOT what the bible claims we cannot teach the lie of Creationism.

    Just because it is difficult to decipher ancient environments there is no reason to quit trying.

    Nothing points to design.

    Christianity has no more hold on the truth than any other religion.

    Now back to the evidence. Where is your evidence of 24 days?
    You claimed that god did his deeds in human time to show his power. Where is your evidence?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist

    their efforts using random thought and experiments exemplify the failure of life happening by random chance. everything they 'discover' points to design, thought, care, purpose and not formation by being lucky.
    You'll find how wrong you are about design here:

    http://www.modernfeed.com/episode/GR...IVERSE_/16841/
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    dawkins would be wrong not me. who do you think designed the 'law' of physics and made things work in that fashion/

    ***i use the word 'designed' not as I.D.ers do but as a descriptive word when there is no better one to use.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    i use the word 'designed' not as I.D.ers do but as a descriptive word when there is no better one to use.
    Archaeologist you ever thought of getting your GED? You should learn more about words.

    First you confuse reality with physical laws. You also anthropomorphize the situation.

    Many of the commonly used physical laws were discovered, not designed, by Sir Isaac Newton.

    *** And Dawkins would be correct and you are nearly always a bit off base
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    dawkins would be wrong not me. who do you think designed the 'law' of physics and made things work in that fashion/
    No one designed anything, that's the point entirely. The laws of physics came about on their own.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    this whole thread belongs in the religion subforum now... All it is is an argument between Verzen, Q, and Arch... Must everything boil down to this weird vendetta against evolution?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    this whole thread belongs in the religion subforum now... All it is is an argument between Verzen, Q, and Arch... Must everything boil down to this weird vendetta against evolution
    you would be wrong

    No one designed anything, that's the point entirely. The laws of physics came about on their own.
    so you do believe that soemthing comes from nothing. then please stop teaching evolution in the scienc classroom and just put an empty set of test tubes out in front of the studnts an say--our next experiment wil appear on its own and you do not need to do any more experimenting, it will all be done for you from these empty tubes.

    Many of the commonly used physical laws were discovered, not designed, by Sir Isaac Newton.
    who even mentioned this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    who even mentioned this?
    You did - who else is claiming design where there is none.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    anyways i am done with this thread as it is going no where and devolving into something i do not want to discuss.

    i will disagree with the thread title and its supporters as evolution is the lie and the fairy tale not creation. we may NOT be able to study the act of creation in the science class but we can study the results and appreciate the world around us.

    we cannot study evolution for several reasons with the main one being--scientists have no clue as to what the original conditions were and even if they say they dfound it, it would only be a guess because they could not follow their own principles and replicate the origin of life moment.

    they can't even duplicate the big bang nor know what those conditions were like what makes them think they can discover the original conditions for the beginning of life?

    if they do discover the original conditions, they would still have to replicate the start of life and then study to see if their guesses (that is all evolution is) are actually correct.

    BUT there is a big problem with this {unless they lie and design the function of evolution to coorroborrate their work) they DO NOT have enough time to see if their work was correct. they would be dead and gone long before anything changed to prove their point.

    There is another problem, because this theory is in the realm of the 'elite' the public would not know if they were lying or not. the public could not check the work and see for themselves.

    contrarily, the results of creation can be checked by anyone at anytime with no long waiting period to see if it is true and the verification will come long before they die.

    evolution needs to be tossed from the classrtoom , replaced by creationism because evolution is non-scientific and unprovable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Nice discussing the issue with you, but you are so wrong with your adherence to the bible:

    we cannot study evolution for several reasons with the main one being--scientists have no clue as to what the original conditions were and even if they say they dfound it, it would only be a guess because they could not follow their own principles and replicate the origin of life moment.
    Evolution is about change and not starting conditions.

    Your bible is a lie and that can be seen all around us.

    There is another problem, because this theory is in the realm of the 'elite' the public would not know if they were lying or not. the public could not check the work and see for themselves.
    And how is this different from most of science or the bible? Who but a few can read ancient languages? The majority of the people rely on the material to be presented to them.

    contrarily, the results of creation can be checked by anyone at anytime with no long waiting period to see if it is true and the verification will come long before they die.
    I can clearly see for myself that creationism is a lie. I can see it everywhere. The rocks are too only to be due to creation, too many layers. I can see the fossils. Creationism is an obvious lie.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist

    so you do believe that soemthing comes from nothing.
    Where did you get that notion?

    then please stop teaching evolution in the scienc classroom and just put an empty set of test tubes out in front of the studnts an say--our next experiment wil appear on its own and you do not need to do any more experimenting, it will all be done for you from these empty tubes.
    You're being silly in the extreme. Childish, too.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    we may NOT be able to study the act of creation in the science class but we can study the results and appreciate the world around us.
    And, when we're done admiring and start observing, we find "creation" to be unfounded.

    we cannot study evolution for several reasons with the main one being--scientists have no clue as to what the original conditions were and even if they say they dfound it, it would only be a guess because they could not follow their own principles and replicate the origin of life moment.
    You're now comparing apples to oranges. Those are two distinct ideas.

    they can't even duplicate the big bang nor know what those conditions were like what makes them think they can discover the original conditions for the beginning of life?
    So, you expect humans to achieve something on a universal scale? I don't see any reason then for you not to ask your god to wave his magic hand, so you can demonstrate your claims. Seems only fair.

    if they do discover the original conditions, they would still have to replicate the start of life and then study to see if their guesses (that is all evolution is) are actually correct.
    Apples to oranges.

    There is another problem, because this theory is in the realm of the 'elite' the public would not know if they were lying or not. the public could not check the work and see for themselves.
    Strawman.

    contrarily, the results of creation can be checked by anyone at anytime with no long waiting period to see if it is true and the verification will come long before they die.
    Well, I just checked and did not see any "Made by God" labels on the plants and animals outside. How does one verify creation?

    evolution needs to be tossed from the classrtoom , replaced by creationism because evolution is non-scientific and unprovable.
    Your ignorance on these subjects does not preclude the mountains of evidence that support evolution.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Your ignorance on these subjects does not preclude the mountains of evidence that support evolution.
    a tired and old fallback when shown to bewrong. there is no evidence for evolution, it does not exist.

    Strawman.
    avoidance and you would be wrong.

    evolution is what the 'elite' design it to be andit is unverifiable for the public. there is no checks and balances for the public to use andmust rely on the 'word' of the 'scientist'. sorry this alone shows that evolution is not true and is nothing more than a deceptive game.

    You're now comparing apples to oranges. Those are two distinct ideas.
    avoidance and you would be wrong.

    So, you expect humans to achieve something on a universal scale? I don't see any reason then for you not to ask your god to wave his magic hand, so you can demonstrate your claims. Seems only fair.
    your rules, abide by them. if not then dismantle the rules of what is considered scientific. the rules have to apply to all aspects of science or it becomes a cherry picking field losing all credibility.

    And, when we're done admiring and start observing, we find "creation" to be unfounded.
    yet such 'unfoundedness' is alldone by inferrence,conjecture, assumption, manipulation, and so on. not one shred of concrete fact to prove 'theprocess' exists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    there is no evidence for evolution, it does not exist.
    Denial of facts does not bring supernatural entities into existence, other than within the imaginative.

    evolution is what the 'elite' design it to be andit is unverifiable for the public. there is no checks and balances for the public to use andmust rely on the 'word' of the 'scientist'. sorry this alone shows that evolution is not true and is nothing more than a deceptive game.
    The fault is entirely your own for not taking the time to get an education. It's the same with knowing the laws of the courts, ignorance is no excuse.

    avoidance and you would be wrong.
    Non-answers don't make you right.


    your rules, abide by them. if not then dismantle the rules of what is considered scientific. the rules have to apply to all aspects of science or it becomes a cherry picking field losing all credibility.
    I have no idea what you're talking about. Science is a method, you are free to employ that method wherever and whenever you like. Please do so towards your beliefs and you'll find an empty basket.

    yet such 'unfoundedness' is alldone by inferrence,conjecture, assumption, manipulation, and so on. not one shred of concrete fact to prove 'theprocess' exists.
    The process of evolution exists as does the nose on your face, and for the very same reasons. What is the process of creation?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    I think it should be up to the local community that has children attending that school.

    Whether or not something is true is different than whether or not something is useful.

    I do not know if there is God but I do know that being observed changes you psychologically, so maybe there is a usefulness to thinking you are being observed.

    Also, rules and traditions transcend changing times. This may be good or bad, but it seems that the culture with the most rituals will outlast any other: Hinduism and Freemasonry

    Stories can be used to teach things about yourself. Even psychologists, IE, scientists, know the power of lies in helping people grow. It is merely a question of whether or not it is ethical and/or whether or not there are undesired effects.

    Nonetheless, life is an experiment. Communities should be able to choose whatever and go through with it to the end. Even if it is wrong, we will all learn from it.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I think it should be up to what the majority agrees with. To hell with what's 'true'. ALL students are lied to anyway, so what's the difference?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by tritai
    No they keep religion out, and when I was learning about evolution the science teacher said "Now we're required to tell you this is just a theory, but, it has enough evidence that I myself and many other important scientific people know it to be fact, it just conflicts with religion so the school is hesitant on teaching it as fact."
    Same in my school, sadly. Our science teacher made the mistake of explaining evolution to us, and some snot-nosed kid went home and complained to his church-going parents. Two days later, a substitute teacher is sitting in our teacher's chair, and we find out that our science teacher is on probation. Also at our school, they have a Christian club called First Priority. I think this is hypocritical. First you refuse to acknowledge religion, but when you do, it's only ONE religion? If you have to have religious clubs, there should be on for every group, not just the Christians!

    *Note: I am not attacking Christians in any way or form in the above paragraph, nor am I making fun of anyone who goes to church. I'm just stating the facts the way they are.
    It is funny but in George Washington's recounting of the revolution. All he does is tell of God's intervention, to somehow change the weather or conditions almost by magic. Like a silent timing of events.

    I was just watching a special about how the British that burned down Washington DC in the war of 1812. Were suddenly caught in a Hurricane that moved field pieces. Artillery pieces. And killed and injured many of the troops. They said the lighting just kept striking at them. Worse then any military bombardment. It really spooked the British soldiers. They become the best weapon of the whole battle.

    One of the rights we have in America is the right to practice the religion of your choice under God.

    Now you might think, what if you do not want a God? I cannot say. I would think that if you look at what man understands now. And how many times he has already understood it and later misunderstood it, back and forth. To say that man is God would be pretty sad.

    To say that man created the universe would be kind of gleefully funny.

    Since all the truly great scientists that really contributed, all believed immensely in the power of God. I am going to stick with God.

    I do not hold the religions and their groups with such high acclaim. In fact some of these groups have actually perverted the words of Christ and of God. By claiming that Jesus is God.
    When in fact, what was said by adversaries of Jesus, after they saw him die, after seeing Jesus, making peace with God, and forgiving his adversaries as he dying. The adversaries of Jesus, said, "truly this is the son of God".

    They did not mean that he was truly the only son of God. They meant that as Jesus taught we were all children of God, Jesus had captured that spirit. And died upholding his beliefs, acting as a real child of God would. Unafraid to die for thruth.

    Rome very quickly became Christian and followed Christ. But as often happens some jumped to positions of power within the church and misused the real lessons.

    Here are some words from George Washington.

    The liberty enjoyed by the people of these states of worshiping Almighty God agreeably to their consciences, is not only among the choicest of their blessing, but also of their rights.

    Here are a few more.

    The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.

    Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

    The hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.



    If that is a picture of you, you are probably pretty young. You may have not seen this yet. However I have noticed that those that claim church is so important are often not at all truthfully religious. I find they are shallow social Church go'ers that often use the church as a weapon, to hurt others.

    These same people would like you to take God with a grain of salt as they do. When in fact God is real. The science of God is real. It is about truth to oneself. Not bowing and Kneeling as they often tell you. These same people care less about your soul then they do about God. Misery wants company. They want you.

    So they make the church a silly weapon, that you cannot possibly admire or look up to because of their childish actions.

    If they cared about religion they could bury the evolutionist with his own evidence. But they are just on an inquisition. If the evolutionist was a good scientist he would praise the infinite wisdom of God through his understanding of science.

    I wish I had happy news for you, however I have to tell you both sides are lame.

    God is cool.

    Here is an old scientist talking about water. And God.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Chemicals/aquadeut.htm

    Give up on church, modern scientists, the devil, me, but do not give up on God. It says in my religion he will never talk to anyone on earth. But he is there, all knowing.


    con·science (kon?sh?ns) noun

    1.a. The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong: Let your conscience be your guide. b. A source of moral or ethical judgment or pronouncement: a document that serves as the nation's conscience. c. Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct: a person of unflagging conscience.
    2.The part of the superego in psychoanalysis that judges the ethical nature of one's actions and thoughts and then transmits such determinations to the ego for consideration.
    3.Obsolete. Consciousness.

    — idiom.
    in (all good) conscience
    In all truth or fairness.


    [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin conscientia, from consciens, conscient- present participle of conscire, to be conscious of : com-, intensive pref.. See com- + scire, to know.]

    — con?science·less adjective

    Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    I think it should be up to the local community that has children attending that school.

    ...

    Nonetheless, life is an experiment. Communities should be able to choose whatever and go through with it to the end. Even if it is wrong, we will all learn from it.
    We've already learned all we need to. Local selection of what to learn often results in a very distorted set of priorities that don't match what kids really need to compete outside of their community. Joe the football jock might be the local hero, but that isn't going to help him compete after he's moved a couple times looking for jobs taken by better educated people from the US and overseas. Local control and local resourcing are both a drag on our education systems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •