|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Don't try to get in a pissing contest with me about swell ancestors - I've got continuous China missionaries back to 1841 in one line, and to about 1900 in two more. But I didn't pick them.
And you and I each have sixteen great-great-great-grandfathers. I'm sure that every one was a sterling citizen in your case, but I have a doubt or two about that fourteenth one of mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4111 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
Seems to support if looked at in a no God perspective. But that really says nothing at all. Beliefs and assumptions, my friend, that is all.
i guess this doesn't mean that you think evolution is only supported if there is no god?maybe you could stop shifting things around and stick to one statment As for God, unless you believed in Him, why even bring up the Guy?
what does this even mean? even if i don't believe in god whats relivent to what i said?
Brace yourself. I didn't write the dictionaries.
brace yourself, having multipul meanings for a word doesn't mean that they are all used by people when using the word
Well, a doctrine is a few things, like this..."Something taught; a teaching"
i guess you really think people use doctrine that way? don't kid yourselfyour usage is just twisting it, you are just quibbing over a definition no one uses by the way nice quotemining, if you read what i wrote instead of chopping it up, i said was we had none in refrence to christianity historicly, what christian heritage, most people don't remotly believe the same things - most founders of this country didn't belong to any church
It is taught, and where it deals with some far fetched long gone past, some belief is involved, sorry you don't seem to like this fact.
this is just spliting hairs, you can say this about anything this doesn't make it doctrine as we use itsorry you just like quibbling over semetics and definitions that no one uses
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Actually, I am wary here, and will tread softly until I feel confident that the moderation is fair
I think you're pretty familiar with the mods here simple. Seeing as you've been suspended multiple times and continue to dishonestly post under new registrations. Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I don't. But the bible simply presented and simple prayer are not some factional thing. No dividing and conquering there. Look at the apostles creed, I think even the Catholics use it. Something like 'I believe in ....one God...creator of heaven and earth...' We don't need religion in schools so much as just the basics of heritage and to fill the gaps where beliefs are needed. In that case, I guess we can all breathe a nice sigh of relief. The basic doctrine you've outlined here is pretty consistent across most Christian sects. They may word things differently, but it's pretty straight forward. However, that wasn't your contention, now was it? You claimed that the "majority" would decide to eviscerate biology to the point of irrelevancy, render geology impotent, throw out most of modern cosmology, physics, etc, because they disagreed with it on religious grounds. Since you apparently are now aware that "majority" rule would be against your view, you appear to be backing off from that initial claim. Am I reading you correctly? I'd appreciate a response to the rest of my post when you get a chance. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
My ancestors, as far back as I can trace them with confidence anyway, were as invariant a bunch of thugs, scum and opportunists as you could ever want to meet. The relevancy of what my ancestors did 400 years ago escapes me, however.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
My ancestors were the good guys. Like Jesus pointed out to the scribes when they said "our" fathers killed the prophets. He razed them for being children of those killers. Point is if we are believers, our fathers are those men of God and faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:If the teachings were in line with this belief in the bible, many things would be changed. So the question becomes what does the majority actually believe? Also, what beliefs are inherant in the teachings we do have? Then, we simply bring the two into line as needed. quote:If you mean a majority that believes in the bible and the flood, I don't think my views are that different. As I see it, reflecting a belief in the flood would impact geology. Reflecting a basic belief in creation would impact cosmology. And so on. A habit of prayer would impact things as well, showing it was cool to be a believer. A biblical orientation would impact medical practices and teachings as well, ie abortion. It would be like an education system heart transplant. Edited by whisper, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
Hey doc, are you really john 10:10? How about santa? We all await the answer to these burning questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:Evolution, taken to extremes, bypassing the creation, in the minds of some, does exclude the creator, yes, of course. At least the creator of the bible. We then get into the fairy tale lands where the bible is just another tale. If you claim God created through evolution, then you cannot draw support from the bible, save in twisted and convoluted aplologizing for what it actually says. quote:You show me yours, I'll show you mine. quote:In defining faith, children's teachings, and reality, we must have clear definitions. quote:Where does church come in all of a sudden? Faith in God and the bible, and prayer comes in many flavors, and shapes, and colors. It spans churches, and schools, and business, and everything else. Jesus is the missing link there, and His word is well known.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4111 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
Evolution, taken to extremes, bypassing the creation, in the minds of some, does exclude the creator, yes, of course. At least the creator of the bible. We then get into the fairy tale lands where the bible is just another tale. If you claim God created through evolution, then you cannot draw support from the bible, save in twisted and convoluted aplologizing for what it actually says.
only if you define god as being limited by the bible, but the bible is irrelievent when speaking of god, its a book about preceptions of god, it does not define who or what god is, as jar says the map is not the territory.if you do not define god by the bible he can produce life with evolution, ergo evolution doesn't exclude god, by defining god by the bible you are limiting god which you can't do
theres one for you, no one i've ever met uses doctrine when talking about science, unless to belittle it
In defining faith, children's teachings, and reality, we must have clear definitions.
in all the pages on defintionsArchaic. Something taught; a teaching. is the last one and its use is no longer used, dueling definitions is silly. Where does church come in all of a sudden? Faith in God and the bible, and prayer comes in many flavors, and shapes, and colors. It spans churches, and schools, and business, and everything else. Jesus is the missing link there, and His word is well known. i'm sorry i've never heard of anyone just suddendly believing in god for an unknown reason, can you name a person that is real that has?they have to join some church or organized religion or the belief in form comes from some church somewhere along the line, even those who home teach someone has to have it come from somewhere i could talk about how truely well known jesus is but meh, it would be OT Edited by ReverendDG, : wow something broke my browser
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5750 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
That sounds like a cop out to me. I'd say that if you can't hold your ground on the science forum, you should stop with your little snipes and stabs. You can talk the talk, but it can you walk the walk?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
If the teachings were in line with this belief in the bible, many things would be changed. So the question becomes what does the majority actually believe? Also, what beliefs are inherant in the teachings we do have? Then, we simply bring the two into line as needed. That seems to be a pretty big "if". Given the fact that the inerrantist/literalist groups are substantially outnumbered by the mainline denominations that have no problem accepting the findings of science in "majority rule" terms, I'm not sure your "bringing the two into line" has much chance of success. I'd be very interested in hearing how you think that might occur. As I see it, the only way you'd be able to pull it off is if you seized control of all of the organs of government and law enforcement, and instituted a sort of "tyranny of the minority" to force the others to accept your interpretation. I'd guess that's possible, but sort of puts paid to your argument that we should only teach what the "majority" finds acceptable.
If you mean a majority that believes in the bible and the flood, I don't think my views are that different. Restate that to read, "a majority of those who believe...", and I think you're closer to the mark. The Flood, etc, believers represent a rather small minority of all Christians, after all.
It would be like an education system heart transplant. Heh. More like heart removal from a corpse than a transplant. Or sacrifice. I think I asked you this before. If you responded, apologies but I missed it. Are you a member of an organized group that espouses this ultra-radical view, or are these your own ideas?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: But they do believe in a god. Remember? You're comment was that evolution could only be accepted if one had a "no god attitude". These Christians, Jews, and Muslims show this to be incorrect. -
quote: Are you going to go on about that again, -
quote: Indeed they can. That is why it is important to choose one definition and stick with it in an argument, not to interchange and stretch the definitions to win by "word games". - I take it that we are through discussing the rights that minorities retain even against the wishes of the majority? "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." -- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Hey doc, are you really john 10:10?
No I only use this ID when posting here. I'm not someone who has been repeatedly suspended and has to dishonestly pretend to be a new person to continue posting, unlike you simple. Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CACTUSJACKmankin Member (Idle past 6274 days) Posts: 48 Joined: |
If creationism should be taught in school, isn't it only fair that the creation myths of other religions and african and native american tribes be taught as well? They are equally scientific.
I think it is important to understand when we are talking about education that if you are going to have a career in the sciences, especially in biology. you don't have to believe in evolution, but you do have to be competent in it. It is just such a fundimental concept in science comparable to the atomic model in chemistry and plate tectonics in geology. Evolution is vital to the current scientific understanding of biology, and that is something that creationism in any form cannot claim. I think that people who call themselves creation scientists know it isn't a science otherwise they would get into the textbooks the proper way, by proving themselves to science. They don't even try to get their research published in legitimate science journals, I doubt they even have research to publish. Continental drift wasn't accepted when it was first proposed. Did they cry to school boards that their idea deserved to be in textbooks? No! They had to wait until the mid-oceanic ridges were discovered and proved that the continents were infact moving. You get into the schools by the science, not the other way around.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024