Which religion's creation story should be taught?

I do apologize for this oversight. You are correct it was President Gorge Washington and not President Thomas Jefferson. I have made the correction on post #180.

You may also want to read my post #149.

Thank you again for your participation,
JRTjr

So, the Komodo Dragon should be kept out of science classes; It has been a mythical creature longer then it has been known to science?

How about, the Mountain Gorilla long thought by scientists to be nothing more then a myth.

Or, Giant Squid, the Giant Panda, etc.

All of these creatures have been, at one time or another, considered pure myths until someone found one.

So, just because something is a myth, does that automatically disqualify it for scientific investigation?

And, how about the Creation account that has evidence to support it. Do we just ignore the evidence simply because it supports what some call a ‘mythical’ Creation account?

Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr

The rest of the definitions do not apply; that in no way changes the fact that, by definition, 'Atheism' is a religion. What more is there to say?

Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr

So, no evidence that may even allude to creation should be allowed in public school; Right?

Should we yank the ‘Big Bang’ theory? If the universe had a beginning it had a beginner. That sounds an awful lot like creationism to me.

Or maybe we should not teach about DNA. DNA is passed on from parent to child and insures that the child will be of the same species as the parents. (Unless altered by mankind) DNA is also an information rich system; Information transmission is the hallmark of intelligence; sounds an awful lot like a Creator to me.

I believe ‘Science’ should only be restrained by Facts, and Evidence. Not by what someone believes or wants to accept.

If there is good and strong evidence to support a hypothesis, why should it be held back from our students?

Thank you for your comments,
JRTjr

Yes, Old Earth Creationism is working in Sunday Schools; vary well; thanks for asking.

However, the focus of this string is “If we are to teach creation in public schools, which creation story should we teach?”

Hope to hear from you again soon,
JRTjr

Not mine, I did not come up with the definition; nor did I tell them what to say or think. I simply quoted what they themselves have said. I you’re not happy with there definitions or ideas I’m sure they would not mind you giving them your two cense.

Well, that’s a find opinion; if you have any facts to discus, I would love to correspond with you.

Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr

“Can you provide some context for your quote?
Of course not...”

I love when someone asks me a question and, presuming I can’t answer it myself, proceed to answer it for me.

Since you seam to have this conversation all rapped up; I’ll let you do both sides of it.

Enjoy ;-},
JRTjr

Love to, I’ll propose it and then shoot off an e-mail to you when/if it gets approved.

Hope to see you there,
JRTjr

Great to hear from you again.

Are you asking if I have supporting facts for my assertion? or just rejecting what I said out of hand?

As to my “‘Macro-evolution’ is a Myth” statement.

I have given evidence in these strings that “Macro-evolution” is a Myth, and not scientifically plausible; and all I’ve seen from the other side is there accusations, scorn, and complains about my motives.

I state ‘Facts’, and they just say “Not so” and think that should be the end of it.

Well, Not so!

If what I say is so easily disproved then bring it on!

Show me where, in public schools in America today, that the scientific evidence for a Creator is taught; and I will recant my statement that: “atheism is taught in public schools under the guise of science;”

Show me where ‘Macro-evolution’ explains the Cambrian explosion, the fact that speciation has dropped to practically zero cense the end of the Cambrian explosion, how completely different and new organs, and organisms can just appear under Macro-evolution’s watchful eye; and a myriad of other things I, as of yet, have not heard a reasonable evolutionary‘’ explanation for; and I will recant my “‘Macro-evolution’ is a Myth” statement.

Disprove the “Christian Creationist model” explained in the book ‘Creation as Science’; and I will accept your statement that “There is NO Christian Creationist model that explains what we see.”

Until then, I’ll stick by what I have said.

Thank you , and I hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr

Apparently you did not go to my original statement and read the definitions I gave in support of my supposition that “Atheism a religion”

I’ll re-post them here for you:

Religion, according to ‘Dictionary.Com’ is:

“2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

6. Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. ” (Dictionary.com Unabridged. Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.)

Atheists hold to a “specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon” mainly that there is no god; and, yes, they hold to that idea religiously. ;-}

Constantly repeating a lie does not make it true.

I can also play the whine game: Creation is a fact, and there is nothing Atheists can do about that other than ‘complain’ about it.

Even bad “theories” can explains some of the facts and lead to new discoveries; and I do not argue that, it is the myriad of other facts that ‘Macro-Evolution’ can’t explain, and that make “Macro-Evolution” impossible that cause me to denounce it as scientifically plausible.

Ya, Coyote, that’s Called ‘Science’. So, if the theory does not explain all of the known facts it must be adjusted; if to many of the facts dispute a given theory it must be discarded and another theory that supports more of the facts should be put in its place.

The facts point, vary strongly, toward life being designed, created {Creationism}; not a series of ‘just so’ ‘accidental’ happy ‘coincidences’ that just happen to look orchestrated {Atheism}.

Hope to hear from you again,
JRTjr

Agreed, yes, for you, I will not use anymore “funny fonts”. Others have asked if I would not use colors in my posts; and, as with them, I am more then happy to concede.

Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr

“{because you'll either ignore or dance around this point, I'll say it now}
Yeah, didn't think you could.”

As I said to Dr. Adequte: I love it when someone asks me a question and, presuming I can’t answer it myself, proceed to answer it for me.

Since you seam to have this conversation all rapped up; I’ll let you do both sides of it.

Enjoy ;-},
JRTjr

So, let me see if I understand what you're saying. I want to make absolutely certain I’m not putting words into your mouth.

You’re saying that the Government “judiciary” treats ‘atheism’ as “a religion”; and even though you agree with that; it, in no way, makes ‘atheism’ a ‘religion’?

You agree is should be treated as “a religion”; but not called “a religion” even though it fits the definition of “a religion”?

Have I got it right this time?

Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr

Edited by JRTjr, : Minor editing

I concur with your statement wholeheartedly.

As we get into our late twenties and grow older, we tend to ‘lock it’ our beliefs; and when something comes along to challenge those beliefs our tendency is to cling to our cherished beliefs that much harder. This seams universal across religions, races, upbringings, etc.

I was faceted with one of those ‘accept the facts and change your beliefs’ or ‘cling to your beliefs and work around the facts’ problems about fifteen years ago {I am now 42}. I chose to accept the facts and adjust what I accepted as true accordingly.

I believe that everyone should be open to adjusting what they accept as true (what they believe) when faced with new evidence.

That is also part of the reason I participate in these discussions. If I come across some evidence that makes me question what I thought to be true I can examine it more closely and adjust my beliefs accordingly.

I hope you are enjoying our discussions, and I pray you will continue to participate,
JRTjr

I’m sorry; however, I am not avoiding the question.

I answered that question in message #77. I stated that “To make the determination of which…{Creation Stories} should be taught in science classes would require us to decide which one(s) come closest to fitting all of the available scientific facts, and evidence… Not just a statement of an opinion.

Unfortunately, we are told from the time we enter school until we graduate collage that Evolution is the only scientifically plausible explanation for the existence of everything we see.

We also know that if you tell a lie long enough most people will eventually believe it; and children are more susceptible to believing lies then adults are.

So even when a scientifically plausible explanation comes along, and is presented, more often then not, it is rejected out of hand. Not on its lack of scientific plausibility; rather because it does not fit the ideas and notions already accepted by peers of the establishment.”

In other words, to put it as succinctly as I can; the evidence should be examined without bias, and the theory that supports as many of the known facts, with out ignoring any, should be the one that is taught in school no matter it’s religious ramifications.

Thank you,
JRTjr