Creationism in Schools

"Creationism is religious. it is based on the bible, which is religious. it is belived in by ONLY CHRISTIANS. no non-christians believe in creationism. Actually, by believing in creationism, you ARE christian. A non-christian creationist is an oxymoron (right?)"
--Someone needs to get in touch with the model, I have given you this repeatedly.------------------

"In the Us, it is illegal to teach religion scripture has scripture. If creationism was a better theory than evo, then it would be taught in schools, as it would not be only religious, but also highly credible and therefore the closest to the truth about our origins.
if this happened, which never will, we would see mass conversions to christianity."
--Who said that we had to teach creationism? Who said we had to teach faith? Who said we had to teach religion? If you know the model of Creationism, you would know that you can teach creation science (If your going to call it that) without even mentioning the bible, faith, or religion.------------------

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TC: Stop with the "model" business already. The only creationists on this board who've presented anything even remotely resembling a scientific model of creationism are wmscott (who was only dealing with the Flood), and Cobra_snake. Your random utterings don't even come close.
Maybe you could take a look at what Cobra produced and enunciate yours in the same fashion, or look at the way wmscott presented his arguments and try the same. Otherwise, you have nothing to quibble about wrt "models" - at least nothing coherent."
--Why? Is my model too good for this? There is a model for everything, as it explains that science and religion and faith are different concepts, but one in the same in creationism, I am not 'quibbling' over my own ignorance on the subject, but logic and a realization that theres a difference from why the earth works the way it works and why it started working the way it works. I have seen no attempts at seeing fallacy in this model as of yet. Almost seeming as the way some people go overboard with Kent Hovind, which would be easilly seen in the way people respond when the see the name.------------------

"How can you explain the many different strains of bacteria, evolving from previous strains. Something that CAN be observed."
--Speciation as in contrast with Bacterial life-spans in variation."Furthermore, why doesn't the bible make any mention of bacteria or even reference to microorganisms? You must know how important bacteria is in everyday life. We could not live without it, yet there is no mention of this in the Bible."
--What would people think of it if they were to read in a book anything resembling bacteria? A couple hundred years ago people saw mold growth as proof that nothing can become somthing, and abiogenesis, untill someone came along and shown its fallacy. In the bible there is, however, an inquiry on the subject of sanitation, which is greatly contrasting with the effects of disease by micro-organisms.

quote:

---

Leviticus 11:25 - Whoever picks up one of their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

​

Leviticus 11:31 - Of all those that move along the ground, these are unclean for you. Whoever touches them when they are dead will be unclean till evening.

​

Leviticus 11:32 - When one of them dies and falls on something, that article, whatever its use, will be unclean, whether it is made of wood, cloth, hide or sackcloth. Put it in water; it will be unclean till evening, and then it will be clean.

​

Leviticus 11:33 - If one of them falls into a clay pot, everything in it will be unclean, and you must break the pot.

​

Leviticus 11:34 - Any food that could be eaten but has water on it from such a pot is unclean, and any liquid that could be drunk from it is unclean.

​

Leviticus 11:35 - Anything that one of their carcasses falls on becomes unclean; an oven or cooking pot must be broken up. They are unclean, and you are to regard them as unclean.

​

Leviticus 11:37 - If a carcass falls on any seeds that are to be planted, they remain clean.

​

Leviticus 11:38 - But if water has been put on the seed and a carcass falls on it, it is unclean for you.

​

Leviticus 11:39 - If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches the carcass will be unclean till evening.

---

------------------

"Fair enough. But wouldn't it have to be such, in order to make the claim of 'Creation Science'."
--Creation science is different, not in contrast with scripture.------------------

"TC- I would like to remind that you have admitted or even endorsed evolution when you said that fish could have evolved to tolerate fresh or salt water."
--And as I have stated numerous times, you are aware of speciation are you not, or even macro vs. micro evolution, or the process by which specialization and variation are a product?
--If this is 'E'volution, toleration of various salinities in water, then most species of salmon Evolve every season!"From here on out, I think you now have to argue that evolution is possible, but didn't happen because the Bible doesn't say so, or something like that."
--See above."I's also like to remind you that you distinctly told me that you do not take the bible literally (all of it literally). So may I ask you who determines what should be taken literally and what not."
--What I mean by this is that the bible is not meant to be taken as direct literalism, ie, as if a robot decifering meanings of words were to to the reading, and opinionate meaning by sentance. An example would be something along the lines of 'have a heart' or 'love comes from the heart', we know in this reference by using common knowledge and logic, that it does not infer the bodily organ, but is a bit analogetic."Maybe you recall that in the Bible it says the doors in the sky opened and the rain came through.Should this be taken literally?"
--As I explained above, it should not be taken literally in the context of a door, as if it were the doorway to a building complex, and that these 'doors' were literally opened. But what you will find interesting is that in the literal 'translation' you find this:Genesis 7:11 - 'and the net-work of the heavens hath been opened'
--As we know the clouds act as if it were a 'net-work' and that it would be analogetic to say that they 'open' for the relativally ill-knowledgable mind to understand. Clouds when they get dense they drop their rain.------------------

No one likes responding too much toward my posts as much as KP's and such. Hows come?------------------

"No offense, but that is complete nonsense. To teach creationism, one MUST teach religious beliefs as fact (ie., that there is a god, that he created the world, etc.)"
--Thats the point I was making, you don't have to teach Creationism, teach creation science (without the biblical creation if you must), or The Theory of a Young Earth.------------------

"In addition, WHICH creation 'science' do you teach? YEC? OEC? ID?"
--YEC basically, teach that the evidence doesn't allways point towards an old earth. To teach the Creation (as obviously there are many religions with different creation accounts) or ID would rather be more of the Teachers decision most likely. Teach anything that is scientific."There is no cohesive Creation "science"."
--Then teach it like it is braud, ie, there are many creation accounts, etc."Also, Creation "science" is a peculiarly American phenomena. There are not any Creation "Science"
movements in Europe or Asia that I am aware of."
--Well isn't that unfortunate. I think there is one in Australia but I don't know about the others."If Creation "science" was really scientific, why aren't there adherents all over the world, and why do Creation 'scienctists' all have to be Christian?"
--They don't all have to be Christian, there are muslim and buddhist creationists, a more specific approach I am looking for to what would be taught is that the earth could be young, and simply that it could have been created on top of that. Instead of the schools trying to rip everyone's faith to shreads, with first-hand experience, it is a frequent happening, a typical product of indoctrination.------------------

"LUDk but which brand of YEC's? christian? Norse? Algonquin? Mayan? Australian aborigenal? they're all different and i'm sure their proponents could show you evidence on why THEIR version is the correct one. Or is this whole creasionism movement just what i suspect it to actually be...a means by which christians can proletyse under the guise of legitimate science..."
--That the Earth could be young, and that Evolution isn't the only answer. What you want to branch off from this is the students choice."LUD:As i said,this i could agree with...as an optional course in school."
--Yes, so should the concept of Evolution."LUD:Well...maybe the rest of the world know something that the americans dont...ever thought of that? After all,Europe experienced first hand the horrors that can be engendered by mass religious histeria."
--Sure I thought of it, never seen it though, and I thought the web was world-wide? They must like it to be kept a secret."LUD:I think you got it backward there TC. The US is probably the most rabidly christian nation in the world...THAT was the result of 150 years of indoctrination."
--We dont' need to change the direction of the subject. I remember passing out fliers for my church after the 9-11 attacks, I encounterd a girl that was my age. Very sarcastic, she told me she wouldn't accept the flier because I said I wasn't a 'holy priest'. I asked her a question of why she considered herself athiestic. Wouldn't you guess that her answer was 'have you ever heard of Evolution'. Obviously there is something seriously wrong with that statment isn't there. Such is the teaching of evolution in our schools today."In the '20,during the infamous monkey trials,where a teacher was suspended for teaching darwinian evolution to his class,this fact became self evident,as the teacher was relying on hard science and his prosecutors were doing nothing but proletysing to the jury,just falling short of claiming in open court that the teacher was nothing less than the Anti-Christ. The judgement of the school stood,even if the teacher had proven his case and it took 40 years before someone in the legislative bodies woke up and said "hey...maybe there's actually something to this whole evolution thingy after all"."
--you take the 'monkey trial' to its extremities in sarcasm."Christianity is not on the verge of disapearing in the US...far from it. But it has always fought viciously the establishement of differing points of views,which is why religion was removed from mandatory teaching in schools...Some people actually took the time to read the constitution and realized that it said FREEDOM of religion and NOT "freedom to be a christian or else..!!!."."
--As far as I am aware, it doesn't say anything about being unable to teach creation in the public schools either."Science educates,it does not indoctrinate."
--Wish that was true."In science class,you are not punished for questionning a logic that appears faulty...you are praised for it(unless the science teacher is a real self centered jerk)...Tell me,to the best of your knowledge,how long could you question the doctrinal teachings in a christian school before you got yourself expelled?"
--Most likely wouldn't get expelled, but what would I know, Im not in a private school. Also, not every christian school is against Evolution.------------------

"Not sure, what?"
--It would be like teaching water flows up-river, especially with any skeptical mind-set in the time."- Its too bad that had to happen."
--Such is the strenght of science, not its fall-back."The explanation of sanitization in your post seem very vague to me. Genesis accounts for the creation of plants, and animal life, but no where does it indicate a creation of bacteria and lifeforms not visible to the naked eye."
--Genesis 1:20 - And God saith, `Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature
--This could include micro-organisms. See below."Yet the life that is not visible to our own eyes, is a requirement for the survival of Earth."
--Colossians 1:16 - For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,"------------------

"you are a complete moron......the bible is written in a spiritual sense, therefore their will be no mention of bacteria. the phyical world will line up with the bible because the bible is true and you are a MORON."
--Whew, respecting my fellows even though you are right (on the bible thing atleast!), lets just slow it down a bit there buddy. ------------------

"- I am skeptical about the bible. And I can definately relate to this comment. Teaching me the literal sense of the bible would be the equivalent to teaching them that water flows up river..."
--I think we can both agree on that (I hope any other creationist could too!)."- Its just a little too vague for me."
--If it were any more specific, the bible would no longer quallify as a book that anyone can grasp. It also would account for any loss of faith for instance, back when they did not know of micro-organisms, and thought that abiogenesis was happening with the growth of larva a couple hundred years ago."It doesn't explain the significance of the 'invisible' (if microorganisms were to be included here), in relation to the rest of the living world. If you can find somewhere that it does give it's importance, please show. Thanks TC."
--I don't know exactly what you mean by it doesn't correlate to the rest of the living world, though I would have to say that the invisable would sertainly include micro-organisms, not being visible to the eye. The bible is vastly incorperated with perspectives on appearence.------------------

"WOW...seems like YECs are getting a little edgy here. The Bible will line up with the world huh...the Bible describes the world as a flat,immobile circle that can be seen in its entirety from the top of a mountain...seems like the world is gonna have to do some major changing if its gonna line up with the Bible"
--The bible does not describe a 'flat, immobile circle'. also, your mountain and the devil, makes reference to local land kingdom's, depending on height, or even a metephoric mountain, you could see kingdoms many hundreds of miles away within the radius. Nor do any of the other implications on a 'flat earth' does the bible attribute.------------------

"Dan 4:10-11 - These are the visions I saw while lying - Bible Gateway"
Daniel 4
10 As to the visions of my head on my bed, I was looking, and lo, a tree in the midst of the earth, and its height [is] great:
11 become great hath the tree, yea, strong, and its height doth reach to the heavens, and its vision to the end of the whole land;
--It says 'end of the whole land', not world, Now where was he standing? Who knows, it was a vision, not an event in the first place."Mat 4:8 - Again, the devil took him to a very - Bible Gateway"
--See last post."1 chr 16:30 - Tremble before him, all the earth! The - Bible Gateway"
--Moved out of where? Too vague to be evident of the argument in either direction.30 Be pained before Him, all the earth:
31 Also, established is the world, It is not moved! The heavens rejoice, and the earth is glad, And they say among nations: Jehovah hath reigned."Psa 93:1 - The LORD reigns, he is robed in - Bible Gateway"
--Likewize.--Now obviously you would not consider these ones would you? :YLT-
Psalm 77:18
The voice of Thy thunder [is] in the spheres, Lightnings have lightened the world, The earth hath trembled, yea, it shaketh.21st Century NKJV-
Amos 9:6 Amos 9 Amos 9:5-7 It is He that buildeth His spheres in the heaven, and hath founded His troop on the earth. He that calleth for the waters of the sea and poureth them out upon the face of the earth--the LORD is His name.--From an earlier post of mine:

quote:

---

YLT-
Isaiah 40:22 - He who is sitting on the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants [are] as grasshoppers, He who is stretching out as a thin thing the heavens, And spreadeth them as a tent to dwell in.

​

--This passage deals with 'the circle of the earth', now we must as the question, who is writting this? Was it God or was it a person? It was a person speaking of God sitting above the circle of the earth. Now since it is a person trying to attribute characteristics to the earth, we must take it from his point of view. Did he know the earth was a sphere? I doubt it that he was positive unless he was told something that I don't think was written in the bible. What do we see when we look accross the ocean? We don't see a perfectly flat horizon as we would see on a flat earth, we see it bending as if it were a circle of the horizon. Also if he somehow had a vision of the earth from space, we would also see a circle, as we only see 2 dementions, we perceive 3 dementions. And thus, 'the circle of the earth' is completely accurate using sphere or circle in context.

---

------------------