Any source can be thought in schools, if they fit the criteria. If a premise is sound, and can be classified as scientifically or historically credible, it should not matter where it comes from, even a theology.
However, doctrines based solely on belief should be excluded. This creates immense problems should one theology be scientifically and historically viable and others not so. The terms theology and religion are relatively new, namely the Gospels and Quran are new, non-original doctrines and offers no scientific or historical insights which can be evidenced - both these documents contain no laws humanity accepted.
The reverse applies with the Hebrew bible, which has thus far safely verified over 70% of its historical content as vindicated by archeology, and most of our sciences is derived from this source, including:
1. The first record the universe is finite. [There was a 'BEGINNING'].
2. The introduction of the DAY & WEEK to humanity, and the oldest active calendar; 5771 years now.
3. The first advanced, alphabetical book [multi-page, continuing narratve].
4. The first recording of a human NAME [ADAM], the first King [Nimrod], the first ID of geographical marks in their correct locations [MOUNT ARARAT; MOUNT NEBO; etc], EVOLUTION [the first categorising of life forms in the correct protocol, listed by terrain]
5. The first scientific cencus, in millions, with sub-total breakdowns of gender and age; this unfolds relative ancient historical stats. The first introduction of MEDICINE as a science and its seperation from occultism [The ID, Treatment and Quarantine of contagious but not infectcious deseases such as Leprosy]
6. The first historical descriptions of ancient kings and nations, their beliefs, cultures, locations and diets, including ancient Egypt, the Philistines, the Canaanites, the Medianites, etc.
7. No nation offers greater or more proof by relics from the earth of its history, including an Egyptian Stelle dated 3,400 years which mentions a war with Israel; and the Tel Dan find which affirmed King David as a true historical figure.
How would you give your cosmology lecture 3,500 years ago and make it apply to all generations of humanity - a feat in itself no? Allow me to surmise a suitable answer.
1. First you'd have to nominate which universe you are discussing [w/o using the term universe], and whether that universe was finite or infinite [w/o using those terms], namely, did the heavens and the earth always exist or was there a beginning point? That appears the correct preamble.
2. Next up, I imagine you would have to deal with how the universe was made. My suspicion is you would have to conclude that the universe works via majestic engineering, namely by LAWS. But since the universe never existed once, thus the laws also never existed. Here, you have to say that LAWS occured - and the universe took form from the formless. How else!?
How far am I from the first cosmological recording?
3. Next, as pivotal cosmological examples, what would you nominate as the first product which emerged from those laws? How about Light as the primordial force product?
And when you get to the stars, if you said they were inumerable and incalcuable, as the grains of sands, it would not be a bad description or vary from today's science - what do you think? Or feel free to nominate a better ancient introduction of what became known as COSMOLOGY?
The BBT cannot apply as a possibility. Its ok to use it as a placebo of what we do not know, but the buck stops strictly therein.
The BBT theory relies on a singular, indivisible, irreducible entity, which expanded/went BANG! But being a lone entity with nothing else around to interact with - no action can occur. It takes two to tango applies.
This says the BBT is only possible if the first entity was a minimum of a duality construct, each part pre-programmed to ID the other counterpart, and an external, precedent trigger factor impacting. Else all science goes south.
is a less accurate description of what we know from science. No?
You are referring to an embarrassing branch of European Christianity's reading of the Hebrew bible. The text requires input and is deceptively simple.
Prior to the creational cosmic days, the text lists a host of seperation factors, such as seperation of light from darkness; day from night; and water from land. These are anticipatory actions of forthcoming life, and account for billions and millions of years respectively.
Further, the creational days cannot account for 24 hour days. See the 4th day - it says the sun's luminosity was yet not focused on the earth, thus no 24 hour can be deduced or applied here. Also, the Hebrew Calendar, perhaps the most accurate and oldest active one, begins 'AFTER' the creational days.
Genesis does not say the earth is 6000 years old, nor that humans are that old. It relates only to speech endowed humans being 6000 years old. Do you have a 'NAME' older than 6000 - you should have millions?
quote:Ok moses let me tell you how i made this universe.
Day 1 i snapped my fingers and all the energy and matter and space where made
My reading of Genesis says it took billions [separation of light] and millions of years [separation of water from and on this planet]. Which version are you quoting?
Understand there are only two options as viable and credible for the emergence of the universe. One of them is Creationism. I know of no aternatives to it - do you? Someone suggested cosmology - which is an ubsurd premise, being part of Creationism.
quote:So, is there no alternative to Creationism? Even though you just said there were two viable and credible options for the emergence of the universe?
The two are: a Creator based creation, or not. In a finite realm, the former wins from a scientific POV.
quote: Someone suggested cosmology - which is an ubsurd premise, being part of Creationism.
Cosmology is not part of Creationism.
Proof: Cosmology is science and creationism is bronze age tribal myth.
The first recording of what was later coined cosmology, is in Genesis. So is the first recording of a finite universe and the first categorising of life form groupings. Very bronze-like. Now show us another bronzy writings of similar myth?
I imagine in a British school, the verse in Genesis which describes the clothing of the first humans as a cute Disney like story. In reality though, Genesis is saying humans are unique as the only life form requiring clothing.
Thread carefully - Genesis is a deceptively simple writ not one for the uniniated. European Christianity and Islam have mis-represented a document they at no time followed or studied, taking it on board 2000 years later, retaining only whatever they can align with their own beliefs. It is why the world is in shock when the true meanings are put before them. Britain would have to first discard all that was said of the Hebrew bible by Christianity - otherwise they will be studying myths.
quote:IamJoseph writes: Genesis is saying humans are unique as the only life form requiring clothing.
Do not take your clothes off or YOU WILL DIE!! If god had meant us to be naked, then we would have been born naked!!
As anyone can see, there is nothing superfluous in this writing. Its not a Walt Disney story - we are told with manifest evidence one life forms is unique - it alone requires clothing - told with the ushering in of the life forms.
quote:1. Creationism [genesis]. A universe with a universe maker. 2. Everything else.
You claimed that creationism was scientific, so I will make my request once again.
Please show us a peer reviewed scientific paper where this POV was used as part of a research program.
Its very simple to answer, and sorry to bust your bubble. I would nominate the lack of any scientific peer paper based on any scientific research which can offer any alternative.
The flat earth was not abandoned because Galeleo said so - it had tio be proven as false. This obligation remains on the scientific community to dispell Creationism. When this happens I will have no credibility in opposing it - and I surely will not. My pursuit is truth wherever it comes from. I studied all the state of art sciences, pondered them deeply, and concluded:
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC ALTERNATIVE TO CREATIONISM.