Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Should creationism be taught in schools? Options · View
DamonX
Posted: Thursday, January 27, 2011 11:55:32 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
MrNudiePants wrote:
eviotis wrote:
I don't know if this part of the equation has been addressed yet, and not about to go through all the responses to find out (lazy me), but what about the kids?

I had a brief discussion today with a female co-worker (agnostic) about her daughter coming home and feeling bad since the question posed by other kids was, "What do you believe in?" Her husband is an atheist, and they both tried to explain to her that it was her choice to choose what she believes in, and that there are many different religions. Pretty heavy for a 10 year old.

My advice, tell her that no matter what religion, faith, or belief, the simple idiom is "treat others as they would treat you", and that the love and respect for your fellow human beings is the simplest point to make. If those asking, "what do you believe in", make fun of you, then the love and respect they extol in their own belief is not being practiced because they have made her feel bad, and is antithetical to what they try to preach.

Do we need to give youth more prejudice with which to exert on their classmates than is already at hand?


Kids need controversy in their lives. It teaches them not what to think, but how to think. It teaches them that there may be more than one correct answer to any given question. The parents who don't want their kids exposed to any other ideas than their own are actually failing to teach their children a valuable lesson.


Because.... A 2000 year old myth is an equal alternative to scientific evidence. Got it. Perfect sense.

People need to realize the difference between truth backed by evidence.... and superstition. Presenting both as valid equals is a grave disservice to young minds. I agree...teach kids to think. And then they will be able to brush off these ridiculous fairy tales like the rest of us did at age 8.
Guest
Posted: Friday, January 28, 2011 7:01:05 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 649,130
My main issue with creationism is that it does not introduce "controversy", but simply confusion to the facts. Can we honestly say that dinosaurs walked with Homo erectus? No.

So, by lending science as proof of creation is false. Just as science cannot refute conclusively the non-existence of a higher power, it cannot be used as proof of the same.

In turn, such argument (creationism) is merely a way to introduce religion to education. Yes, for many, religion, has its merits and gives some direction, purpose, and strength. However, as it has been used historically, it only leads to manipulation, false impetus for one side against another, and in a classroom, the ability for children of believers to pass even more judgment on other children whose parents have come to their own hypothesis/beliefs that deism or religion is not the "way." Let alone the sometimes hypocritical notion of the separation of church and state. It is nonexistent, and this would only make that hypocrisy even more evident.

It is interesting that creationists argue against carbon dating. Science itself does not argue that it is not infallible, however, when used on religious "proof" of god/it/whatever deists and religious zealots alike will spurn the findings when the Shroud of Turin is proven false, yet gleefully rejoice on the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Children have enough "controversy" in their lives. Creationism is not a learning tool. It is only a tool used by tools [insert picture of your favorite tea party member or sanctimonious politician/bible thumper here].
DamonX
Posted: Friday, January 28, 2011 9:40:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
eviotis wrote:
My main issue with creationism is that it does not introduce "controversy", but simply confusion to the facts. Can we honestly say that dinosaurs walked with Homo erectus? No.

So, by lending science as proof of creation is false. Just as science cannot refute conclusively the non-existence of a higher power, it cannot be used as proof of the same.

In turn, such argument (creationism) is merely a way to introduce religion to education. Yes, for many, religion, has its merits and gives some direction, purpose, and strength. However, as it has been used historically, it only leads to manipulation, false impetus for one side against another, and in a classroom, the ability for children of believers to pass even more judgment on other children whose parents have come to their own hypothesis/beliefs that deism or religion is not the "way." Let alone the sometimes hypocritical notion of the separation of church and state. It is nonexistent, and this would only make that hypocrisy even more evident.

It is interesting that creationists argue against carbon dating. Science itself does not argue that it is not infallible, however, when used on religious "proof" of god/it/whatever deists and religious zealots alike will spurn the findings when the Shroud of Turin is proven false, yet gleefully rejoice on the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Children have enough "controversy" in their lives. Creationism is not a learning tool. It is only a tool used by tools [insert picture of your favorite tea party member or sanctimonious politician/bible thumper here].


Great comment.

Plus... let's not forget that many children in the US are indoctrinated into religious creationism from an early age before they even attend school. And to place those beliefs on the same level as science gives creedence to the same ignorance that widely perpetuates such stupidity in the US.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 1:41:36 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,422
Location: Cakeland, United States
Who knew?



If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Jacknife
Posted: Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:33:54 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/27/2008
Posts: 196
Location: United Kingdom


This is the problem with teaching creationism. You can get idiots who believe in it who can make laws. Now for the the record DL Hughley also said he doesn't believe in evolution and should be chastised for his ignorance along with Rep. Kingston. However he is a a 3rd rate TV personality who has no bearing on how other more sensible people live.

Rep. Kingston is on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies. This man has influence and doesn't accept the foundational science on which that committee is based on, just because it disagrees with his holy book. WTF.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:47:04 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 649,130
OK it part of history, weather you agree or disagree or agress, just as the greek,jewidesum, and Witchcraft and so forth. It all part of history. No it weather or no you are willing you have your child/or children learn what this country have been built upon. Which has not been on one thing. Weather you have a belif in it shouldnt matter, it what is the edacational perpus does it have in the classroom.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:08:02 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,189
Location: United States
Jacknife wrote:


This is the problem with teaching creationism. You can get idiots who believe in it who can make laws. Now for the the record DL Hughley also said he doesn't believe in evolution and should be chastised for his ignorance along with Rep. Kingston. However he is a a 3rd rate TV personality who has no bearing on how other more sensible people live.

Rep. Kingston is on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies. This man has influence and doesn't accept the foundational science on which that committee is based on, just because it disagrees with his holy book. WTF.


If Mr. Kingston's constituents disagree with him on this very basic issue, then I'm sure they'll vote him out of office at their earliest convenience. If, on the other hand, they agree with him (as is their right), then they're happy that they've voted someone who shares their core beliefs into office. That's the beauty of a representative Republic. No one particular bunch of idiots can hold sway over the rest, forcing their own viewpoints to be held up as fact, and refusing to allow the free dissemination of ideas or the teaching of any particular controversial topics such as... well such as Creationism, for instance.

Nobody is saying that Creationism should be taught as fact, in lieu of Evolutionary Theory. Nobody on here is, anyway. What I'm saying is that it should be taught, as should all recognized alternate theories, and the listener should be free to accept it or reject it of his own free will, instead of being brainwashed by the likes of Dames.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:36:32 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 649,130
"What I'm saying is that it should be taught, as should all recognized alternate theories."

Creationism is not a theory, nor has it been recognized or won in any "debate", it is a mediocre stab at getting religion where it should not be. Of course, gun totting, bible thumper's might disagree.

http://www.creationism.org/
Noted on it's front page:

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

"At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will. Such a deity is generally thought to be constantly involved (‘immanent’) in the creation, ready to intervene as necessary, and without whose constant concern the creation would cease or disappear."

Copy and paste and you'll find the source.

NEXT:

http://www.icr.org/articles/type/6/

Biblical references abound. Oh, and the one factor that is indistinguishable, is that the "Ph.D." was the father, John D. Morris who died in 2006 although the article was published in 2011. So, my theory, is that since John was dead for 5 years, then Henry Morris, must have published this crap, unless John was resurrected. Hallelujah!!!! And, John was an engineer and a "young earth creationist and Christian apologist."

NEXT:

http://creationmuseum.org/

"The state-of-the-art 70,000 square foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life."

What part of this is theory again???? Oh yeah, the bible is a theory, not a belief.

"a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis"

Oh Webster, when you hooked up with Merriam, you truly bit into the wrong fruit of knowledge.

The only theory of creationism is the disproof of evolution. And, since its base is religious dogma, then why don't we teach kids about Satanism, Hinduism, and (hold your breath) Islam. Yes, I am sure that would bode well with creationists, politicians, and creationist theorists alike. Now that we have taken away music, physical education (no, a sound mind is not predicated on a sound body stupid), and any other facets of development that are not testable, and part of FCAT and other tangible measurements of mental growth, and may lead to actual well rounded beings, lets bring in religion, or I'm sorry, religion "theory" so our little young'ins get a good schooling.

Really? That is the argument??







MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, February 11, 2011 9:51:50 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,189
Location: United States
eviotis wrote:
Creationism is not a theory, nor has it been recognized or won in any "debate", it is a mediocre stab at getting religion where it should not be. Of course, gun totting, bible thumper's might disagree.

(snip)

What part of this is theory again???? Oh yeah, the bible is a theory, not a belief.

"a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis"

Oh Webster, when you hooked up with Merriam, you truly bit into the wrong fruit of knowledge.

The only theory of creationism is the disproof of evolution. And, since its base is religious dogma, then why don't we teach kids about Satanism, Hinduism, and (hold your breath) Islam. Yes, I am sure that would bode well with creationists, politicians, and creationist theorists alike. Now that we have taken away music, physical education (no, a sound mind is not predicated on a sound body stupid), and any other facets of development that are not testable, and part of FCAT and other tangible measurements of mental growth, and may lead to actual well rounded beings, lets bring in religion, or I'm sorry, religion "theory" so our little young'ins get a good schooling.

Really? That is the argument??



Well. First, you state that Creationism isn't a theory, then you quote a dictionary definition that says it is. Which is it? You can't post that you hold both points of view. Not honestly, anyway.

Why do you think Creationism MUST attempt to disprove evolution? It doesn't. Not in my world, anyway. Going from a strictly Christian standpoint, the Bible never says HOW God created things, just that He did. Was evolution one of His tools? How should I know? I'm not God. I wouldn't put it past Him, though.

I'm all for teaching about ALL religions, to include the ones you've listed. And why not? In what manner is the honest dissemination of ideas harmful to society? I'm for more teaching, more learning, more knowledge passed on, never less. There are plenty enough people in the world that are ready to ban education, to pass edicts saying "This you shall not teach, this you may not learn." The slave masters tried to keep their slaves from learning to read and write. Are we all now to be the slaves in your society, wherein there are subjects of which we're not allowed to learn? Fuck that. You remind me of the book burners casting copies of Huck Finn, Tom Sawyer, and Catcher in the Rye on the fire. You remind me of the Communist Party leaders deciding what materials were proper for the proletariat to learn. You remind me of all the dictators and tyrants whose main focus was keeping the population "in their place".

Sharing knowledge is never a bad thing. Banning the teaching of any subject puts you in the same camp as the slave holders, the McCarthys, the Hitlers, and the Stalins of the world. Not good company to be in.
Guest
Posted: Friday, February 11, 2011 11:16:27 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 649,130
"First, you state that Creationism isn't a theory, then you quote a dictionary definition that says it is. Which is it? You can't post that you hold both points of view. Not honestly, anyway."

Merely the sarcastic tone as to the rhetoric that deists, such as what it seems, you are, may point to as to the argument that Creationism is a theory. It's not. It's a guise in which to bring religion into where it does not belong.

Am I incorrect that there should be a separation of church and state?

The assertion that your god created everything is selfish, and self centered, and in of it itself negates other religions which alone serves to disprove your intended lean toward any enlightenment and teaching of all "theories." Of course, in the creationist's mind, and like most bible thumper's, anyone against "my god" is against true learning.

"Are we all now to be the slaves in your society, wherein there are subjects of which we're not allowed to learn? Fuck that."

Not at all, and if it were up to your christian society, we would all be slaves to your god still, as we were for the past two millennia, in which, desists hid what was known to protect the unread from heresy. Scientists during that time fought and died, sometimes at the hands of your society to get us to the point where we now find ourselves. A point where learning is not bound, neither in body or mind. We can ponder whether or not god exists, we can ponder whether or not extraterrestrials had a part, we can ponder limitless actual theories without being bound, in mental slavery, by the one alleged, true god.

As for book burning, big brother, and keeping people in their place, Christianity, as well as you, should know much about these things since deists invented it. To keep nonbelievers in their place, which was usually on the rack, in prison, or by some incestious relationship between the party of the time and it's geographical deist neighbor, under duress. Throughout history, those who wanted to learn were scorned and actually burned in some cases in their fight against what you preach. No, I don't believe in burning books, the bible included. However, as the christian society has proven and is evident even in recent history, they do.

I have said it before, I am not against religion, just keep it out of school. Kids have enough issues through which to work towards adulthood, they do not need your god to help them. They need the god, non-god, guidance, and backing that their respective households believe in. Is my respect for everyones religion, belief, and ideologies in any way Communist, facist, repressive, binding, or restrictive...NO. However, the self centered notion that your creator should hold dominion over science, once again, and through his allowances that other beliefs should be respected is foolish. It was only through the anguish, blood shed, and fight against the repressive deist regimes, that free thinking, and actual learning have come to pass.


MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, February 12, 2011 2:49:34 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,189
Location: United States
eviotis wrote:

Am I incorrect that there should be a separation of church and state?


So all comparative religion classes should be disbanded? What other courses of instruction would you do away with if you had your way, and exactly which books are you "not" burning again?

eviotis wrote:


The assertion that your god created everything is selfish, and self centered, and in of it itself negates other religions which alone serves to disprove your intended lean toward any enlightenment and teaching of all "theories." Of course, in the creationist's mind, and like most bible thumper's, anyone against "my god" is against true learning.


Not at all. I have no problem with the idea that the universe God created was built to adhere to those ideas you would call "physics". I also have no problem with the teaching of other ideas and ways. For all I know, my God may be just one of the faces of Dattatreya. If so, I hope that in my next life I come back as a butterfly.

eviotis wrote:
Not at all, and if it were up to your christian society, we would all be slaves to your god still, as we were for the past two millennia, in which, desists hid what was known to protect the unread from heresy. Scientists during that time fought and died, sometimes at the hands of your society to get us to the point where we now find ourselves. A point where learning is not bound, neither in body or mind. We can ponder whether or not god exists, we can ponder whether or not extraterrestrials had a part, we can ponder limitless actual theories without being bound, in mental slavery, by the one alleged, true god.

As for book burning, big brother, and keeping people in their place, Christianity, as well as you, should know much about these things since deists invented it. To keep nonbelievers in their place, which was usually on the rack, in prison, or by some incestious relationship between the party of the time and it's geographical deist neighbor, under duress. Throughout history, those who wanted to learn were scorned and actually burned in some cases in their fight against what you preach. No, I don't believe in burning books, the bible included. However, as the christian society has proven and is evident even in recent history, they do.


If it was wrong when they did it, it's wrong when you do it. You would have us eliminate the spiritual side of mankind - one of the main things which keeps us separate from the animals. You would have us serve the god "science", and bow down before it's tenets. I see little difference between your way and that which you complain about.

eviotis wrote:
I have said it before, I am not against religion, just keep it out of school. Kids have enough issues through which to work towards adulthood, they do not need your god to help them. They need the god, non-god, guidance, and backing that their respective households believe in. Is my respect for everyones religion, belief, and ideologies in any way Communist, facist, repressive, binding, or restrictive...NO. However, the self centered notion that your creator should hold dominion over science, once again, and through his allowances that other beliefs should be respected is foolish. It was only through the anguish, blood shed, and fight against the repressive deist regimes, that free thinking, and actual learning have come to pass.


Again, nobody is saying that the kids should be indoctrinated into some religious cult. Nobody here, anyway. The way you protest, you would think I had. All I AM saying is when you halt learning, when you make subjects taboo, when you say, "This you may not know", then ignorance and prejudice win. Censorship breeds contempt and closed minds. I prefer the kids to be free to learn what they will.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, February 12, 2011 4:42:59 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 649,130
OK, lets try this gain:


"Am I incorrect that there should be a separation of church and state?" -- Me

Nothing said, addressed, or opined. -- You.

"So all comparative religion classes should be disbanded? What other courses of instruction would you do away with if you had your way, and exactly which books are you "not" burning again?? -- you

"As for book burning, big brother, and keeping people in their place, Christianity, as well as you, should know much about these things since deists invented it. To keep nonbelievers in their place, which was usually on the rack, in prison, or by some incestious relationship between the party of the time and it's geographical deist neighbor, under duress." -- Me.

When was comparative religion part of grade school learning? -- Me.

"I have said it before, I am not against religion, just keep it out of school. Kids have enough issues through which to work towards adulthood, they do not need your god to help them. They need the god, non-god, guidance, and backing that their respective households believe in." -- Me.

"'I have no problem with the idea that the universe God created was built to adhere to those ideas you would call "physics'." -- you

Me: where did I assert physics? Great practice of the usual Tea Party, Conservative practice of misquoting where useful. Oh, and nice job on the whole Dattatreya thing, to make yourself seem well read and not obtuse.

"You would have us eliminate the spiritual side of mankind." -- You.

"I have said it before, I am not against religion, just keep it out of school. Kids have enough issues through which to work towards adulthood, they do not need your god to help them. They need the god, non-god, guidance, and backing that their respective households believe in." -- Me.

Of course it's easier to use someone else's words, put a spin on it, and make it seem your well thought own.

"All I AM saying is when you halt learning, when you make subjects taboo."" -- You.

And, for the past two millenia, your "theories" have done just that.

"Going from a strictly Christian standpoint, the Bible never says HOW God created things" -- You.

Me: Really? I guess Genisis was misquoted. I guess that can happen when god speaks.









Guest
Posted: Saturday, February 12, 2011 6:38:00 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 649,130


Wow, so big of creationists (i.e. deists, to now ask for debate).

Well?

How old is the earth?

Did dinosaur walk with homo erectus?

If you need need the question again, hit the play button.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, February 12, 2011 6:54:53 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 649,130


Hmmm, paradox, do we allow children to learn literature, math and science without the continued influence or intrusion of religion? And, do we not have a separation of church and state for a reason?
Guest
Posted: Saturday, February 12, 2011 6:59:44 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 649,130


Usually, what I hear when Tea Party members and creationists speak.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, February 12, 2011 9:53:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,189
Location: United States
eviotis wrote:
OK, lets try this gain:


"Am I incorrect that there should be a separation of church and state?" -- Me

Nothing said, addressed, or opined. -- You.

"So all comparative religion classes should be disbanded? What other courses of instruction would you do away with if you had your way, and exactly which books are you "not" burning again?? -- you

"As for book burning, big brother, and keeping people in their place, Christianity, as well as you, should know much about these things since deists invented it. To keep nonbelievers in their place, which was usually on the rack, in prison, or by some incestious relationship between the party of the time and it's geographical deist neighbor, under duress." -- Me.

When was comparative religion part of grade school learning? -- Me.

"I have said it before, I am not against religion, just keep it out of school. Kids have enough issues through which to work towards adulthood, they do not need your god to help them. They need the god, non-god, guidance, and backing that their respective households believe in." -- Me.

"'I have no problem with the idea that the universe God created was built to adhere to those ideas you would call "physics'." -- you

Me: where did I assert physics? Great practice of the usual Tea Party, Conservative practice of misquoting where useful. Oh, and nice job on the whole Dattatreya thing, to make yourself seem well read and not obtuse.

"You would have us eliminate the spiritual side of mankind." -- You.

"I have said it before, I am not against religion, just keep it out of school. Kids have enough issues through which to work towards adulthood, they do not need your god to help them. They need the god, non-god, guidance, and backing that their respective households believe in." -- Me.

Of course it's easier to use someone else's words, put a spin on it, and make it seem your well thought own.

"All I AM saying is when you halt learning, when you make subjects taboo."" -- You.

And, for the past two millenia, your "theories" have done just that.

"Going from a strictly Christian standpoint, the Bible never says HOW God created things" -- You.

Me: Really? I guess Genisis was misquoted. I guess that can happen when god speaks.



Okay, we'll do it again. (sigh)

The cliche "separation of church and state" is just that. A cliche. it refers to the First Amendment to our Constitution wherein the government is forbidden from forming a state religion, and forbidden from not allowing people to worship the religion of their choice. It does NOT mean that schools are forbidden to teach about religion. I'm assuming that if you had your way, no school would ever be able to teach any courses about religion at all. This would actually violate the First Amendment - that part where people have freedom of speech. When I accuse you of being a "book burner", I'm speaking metaphorically. (Is that too big a word for you?) I'm really saying that by saying that there are subjects which should not be taught in schools, you're in the same league as the book burners. Got it now? Or is it too complicated a concept?

And you ARE against religion, you're just in denial about it. When the only facets of religion you discuss are evil episodes from history, perpetrated by evil people, and then you insinuate that everyone who believes in a particular religion are just as evil, then you show your true colors. I agree that morality and morals, and such life lessons should be learned at home. We're not talking about indoctrinating the kids in any one form of religion. All we're discussing is teaching ABOUT the different forms of religion, and maybe what their ideals are. What part of that is so fucking difficult for you to understand?

So you would not call that branch of science that attempts to explain how the universe was created "physics"? What WOULD you call it? And how would you know whether I'm "well read" or not? Do you know me? Have I seen you down at the library and just don't know it? Personal attacks are just... so... douche-ist...

So you're blaming me for everything that's happened for the past "two millenia?" Wow, thanks. I wish I really was that important. And I'd really like you to show me, from Genesis, where it explains HOW God created the universe. It says that He did it, never says how. Did he use evolution to create all the living creatures? How do you know He didn't? It certainly seems like He made His creation so that it follows all the laws the physicists prattle on about, but then again, even Einstein once said that E=MC^2 may only be "a local phenomenon".

So... well done in being a douche, and using personal insults and attacks to derail the actual discussion underway. Maybe you could actually bolster your argument by explaining just WHY classes in comparative religion would be so bad for the students. Are you an expert in formulating educational material? Do you have degrees in education and teaching? I don't, so I'll just hold to my position that any time the "powers that be" undertake to tell the populace, "This you may not know, this you may not teach, this you may not be taught", evil things happen. Free dissemination of knowledge and ideas is one of the best ways to combat tyranny; keeping people ignorant is a surefire first step toward controlling their minds and thoughts. Banning ANY kind of age-appropriate education in ANY school ANYWHERE is a bad idea.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, February 12, 2011 10:04:22 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 649,130
"(sigh)"


You assume much.

As for the personal attacks, for a "mediator", you are the one using the personal insults, yet you are always adept at back peddling from it whenever convenient. Nice name calling BTW mediator, shows your great skill.

Further, you, like the lady in one of the previous videos, never answered any of the questions. I asked questions, never insulted you personally, as you have done in more than just this thread, and somehow I am the bad guy? Great spin selling. Now, can you answer any of the questions or just hide behind the guise of free thinking much like creationists and Tea Partier's are apt to do?

I always love it when the godly use Einstein in their arguments, if I can call it that with what I read above.

Here is a little Einstein:

"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." -- Einstein.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." -- Einstein

As for your questions:

No, it's not too big a word, however, you seem to be selective when one uses it in their own opinion.

As for complicated concepts, you also seem to glance over other's concepts, either by arrogance or an unwillingness to address them.

As for being well read or not, at least I did not call you a douche. However, by your constant diversion from answering anything and merely throwing in some idea or name is kind of like name dropping, and with most people that do so, I tend to believe that they are trying to make themselves out to be what they are not or disallowing others from knowing what they truly think. With the historical tendencies of religion, free thought and open dialogue were not the norm. We would not be here discussing this as we are without the constant fight against religion's past attempts from keeping knowledge from the masses. Now, and again as the lady in the previous video pointed out, it's the non-religious entities that are allegedly doing this as you have accused me of. Not only that, but also intoning that I am against religion. The only time I am against it, is when it tries to suppress thought, which it has done historically and tends to do presently.

Comparative studies are not bad and already exist in schools. However, creationism is religion posing as theory. And with it comes the exclusion of other theories (i.e. other religions). Creationism does not seek to compare itself, it only seeks to tell others that it is justifiable truth. Does the christian god have more relativity than the muslim, hindu, shiite, or shinto? No, but it will try.

As for keeping people ignorant, again, calling nonreligious people tyrannical is but the pot calling the kettle black. There is free thought and free learning already existent, at least in most modern societies. The only places where it does not exist, is usually a society where the populous lives under a truly tyrannical and oppressive regime which in most cases uses religion or some facet of godly nature which is bestowed on its ruler.

Oh, and no, I don't think you are that important but at least I try to answer your questions, and present what I truly believe and think.

Guest
Posted: Sunday, February 13, 2011 4:39:10 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 649,130
Funny. Today is Darwin day and this is still a thread in the forefront. www.darwinday.org
Quote:
Despite its incredible successes, presented in so many aspects of scientific research, no scientific theory remains so poorly understood, by more people, than evolution, particularly in the United States. Among 34 Western countries surveyed on the acceptance of evolution, America placed just above Turkey at a deplorable 33.



Quote:
How could such a situation exist? One could consider that it is because of our decentralized school systems that allow more (and way too much) local control over scientific content than found in other nations. Perhaps, in part, it is the low standard of science education that still prevail in most of our schools.

Yet, even if we consider these reasons, the answer is less-nuanced. It is primarily the result of an aggressive campaign of anti-evolution misinformation, purposely imposed on American society. These impositions are purely of a religious nature.

In my many years of defending Darwin, I have never attempted to revise the Bible (or any other religious manuscripts) to justify my scientific concepts. Yet for more than 50 years, religious fundamentalists have successfully intimidated and sequestered major high school biology textbook publishers into either omitting completely, or to briefly, mentioning evolution (recent events in Texas and Louisiana come to mind).



Quote:
If America is to remain the leader in global technology, the general public must come to realize the essentiality of science education, and understand the acceptance of the biological process of evolution to be factual and critically important. Failure carries the consequences associated with any country that rejects any scientific evidence simply to placate personal ideologies.


These are quotes from Jonathan P. Smith, AAAS, FAS, is the vice president for Florida Citizens for Science and a science consultant.
DirtyMartini
Posted: Sunday, February 13, 2011 4:45:34 PM

Rank: Purveyor of Poetry & Porn

Joined: 10/19/2009
Posts: 5,832
Location: Right here on Lush Stories..., United States
I don't know Chef...I've met quite a few people who make me question the concept of "evolution"...

If you know what I mean...


You know you want it, you know you need it bad...get it now on Amazon.com...
Lush Erotica, an Anthology of Award Winning Sex Stories

Guest
Posted: Sunday, February 13, 2011 4:47:25 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 649,130
DirtyMartini wrote:
I don't know Chef...I've met quite a few people who make me question the concept of "evolution"...

If you know what I mean...


Yeah me too. We need to stop hanging out with the same people. LOL
MrNudiePants
Posted: Sunday, February 13, 2011 8:55:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,189
Location: United States
eviotis wrote:
"(sigh)"


You assume much.

As for the personal attacks, for a "mediator", you are the one using the personal insults, yet you are always adept at back peddling from it whenever convenient. Nice name calling BTW mediator, shows your great skill.

Further, you, like the lady in one of the previous videos, never answered any of the questions. I asked questions, never insulted you personally, as you have done in more than just this thread, and somehow I am the bad guy? Great spin selling. Now, can you answer any of the questions or just hide behind the guise of free thinking much like creationists and Tea Partier's are apt to do?

I always love it when the godly use Einstein in their arguments, if I can call it that with what I read above.

Here is a little Einstein:

"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." -- Einstein.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." -- Einstein

As for your questions:

No, it's not too big a word, however, you seem to be selective when one uses it in their own opinion.

As for complicated concepts, you also seem to glance over other's concepts, either by arrogance or an unwillingness to address them.

As for being well read or not, at least I did not call you a douche. However, by your constant diversion from answering anything and merely throwing in some idea or name is kind of like name dropping, and with most people that do so, I tend to believe that they are trying to make themselves out to be what they are not or disallowing others from knowing what they truly think. With the historical tendencies of religion, free thought and open dialogue were not the norm. We would not be here discussing this as we are without the constant fight against religion's past attempts from keeping knowledge from the masses. Now, and again as the lady in the previous video pointed out, it's the non-religious entities that are allegedly doing this as you have accused me of. Not only that, but also intoning that I am against religion. The only time I am against it, is when it tries to suppress thought, which it has done historically and tends to do presently.

Comparative studies are not bad and already exist in schools. However, creationism is religion posing as theory. And with it comes the exclusion of other theories (i.e. other religions). Creationism does not seek to compare itself, it only seeks to tell others that it is justifiable truth. Does the christian god have more relativity than the muslim, hindu, shiite, or shinto? No, but it will try.

As for keeping people ignorant, again, calling nonreligious people tyrannical is but the pot calling the kettle black. There is free thought and free learning already existent, at least in most modern societies. The only places where it does not exist, is usually a society where the populous lives under a truly tyrannical and oppressive regime which in most cases uses religion or some facet of godly nature which is bestowed on its ruler.

Oh, and no, I don't think you are that important but at least I try to answer your questions, and present what I truly believe and think.



The problem with the way you're "using Einstein" is that I never tried to use his quotes to bolster an argument in favor of religion, but in favor of science. So insinuating that I did is just dishonesty on your part. I would like to know what question you've ever asked that I haven't answered. Seems to me the only "questions" you've asked are simple veiled insults, which I won't answer in any case. Feel free to call me whatever name you choose. I'm a big boy. Can we return to the actual thread content now? Are we done with the pissing match?

For the record, I've never called "nonreligious people tyrannical" (another point of dishonesty on your part). I have said that any time a government bans education, it's a bad thing, and that free dissemination of knowledge and ideas is one of the best ways to combat tyranny. Do you disagree with that statement? If so, please justify your position.

So now you're in favor of "comparative studies", but they should include every religion except Christianity? What about the other religious explanations for Creation? Are they to be banned from your "comparative studies" course? Why would you put "muslim, hindu, shiite, or shinto" above Christianity, and why would you ban their ideas about Creation? That would put a hell of a hole in your "comparative studies" course.

Again (because you don't seem to understand this), I don't favor teaching Creationism as science, in lieu of actual hard sciences. I do favor teaching it, as a part of broadening a student's overall education. I also favor teaching about "muslim, hindu, shiite, or shinto" precepts, and I don't see how this could possibly be bad for a student. I'm still waiting for you to explain how teaching these subjects is bad for students. Please. Explain.
Guest
Posted: Monday, February 14, 2011 6:17:42 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 649,130
1. The Wedge

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf


"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist world view, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

"Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians."

Yes, a true testament to open thinking, teaching controversy, balanced treatment, and comparable theories and/or ideologies. My theory is that the only theory that Creationists, Intelligent Designers, and controversy proponents, like George Bush, Jr. is that we should only look to one answer, god. Also note that the document will not have any inclusion, on the printed page, its source, however, the "Discovery Institute" logo on the front page will disclose same, and this piece of fine argument for counterpoint and controversy is from Mr. Phillip E. Johnson, founder of the Discovery Institute, a.k.a. Intelligent Design.

If one would want to compare apples and oranges, then with Creationism which is led by different proponents, their argument is even less intelligible than ID. To allow a theory wherein homo erectus (early man) walked with dinosaurs, where the earth is but less than ten's of thousands years old, where "The Great Flood" contained all of life's existing forms is not only ludicrous, it is even dispatched by its cousin, ID. When they find Noah's Ark, let me know, otherwise, let's continue.

"Theorists" try and try again to purport their deep reverence for the alternative. How do they do this? They propose discussion, and teaching, yet include time and time again, their true intent:

2. ACt 590of 1981

"SECTION 6. Legislative Declaration of Purpose. This Legislature enacts this Act for public schools with the purpose of protecting academic freedom for students' differing values and beliefs; ensuring neutrality toward students' diverse religious convictions; ensuring freedom of religious exercise for students and their parents; guaranteeing freedom of belief and speech for students; preventing establishment of Theologically Liberal, Humanist, Nontheist, or Atheist religions; preventing discrimination against students on the basis of their personal beliefs concerning creation and evolution; and assisting students in their search for truth. This Legislature does not have the purpose of causing instruction in religious concepts or making an establishment of religion."

So open thinking should not exclude anyone except those who don't believe in religion? This was actually passed, but then appealed and changed, thankfully. To purport open discussion, and teaching, but then negate that in almost the same breath, is both bad, and dangerous. Atheists, such as myself, and I can only testify to what I believe, do not want to do away with god, but it seems the godly, christian, and american brand of belief should exclude my belief. The exclusion of such such belief, self evident in the two previous citing's.

Why all the controversy? One word, Darwin. Not only do these strains of thought seek only to discredit his findings, they seek to "replace" it. Good luck. If they can come up with their own theories, and not just theories predicated on what was already proposed, theorized, and discovered, then lets hear it. No one thing is the clear explanation of anything, however, for Christians, and dare i say born-agains, which Mr. Phillip E. Thomas is, they are. To exclude science in light of pseudoscience is a call for backward evolution. Where women have no control of their bodies, where other beliefs/religions are unaccepted, and such can be indoctrinated at the most fundamental level, our children.
Guest
Posted: Monday, February 14, 2011 8:08:06 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 649,130
No

Edit:

Yes. As long as they teach the ideas/concepts from every religion/belief system in existence for the past 10,000 years as well as hard science............
MrNudiePants
Posted: Monday, February 14, 2011 9:48:27 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,189
Location: United States
eviotis wrote:

So open thinking should not exclude anyone except those who don't believe in religion?


It appears to me that you and they both have the same goal: to control the education of our children so that your agenda is the only one discussed or taught. You go at it from one end, they go at it from another. In the end, the children get short-shrift.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to answer the issues I posed in my previous post. Whenever you get around to it.
Guest
Posted: Monday, February 14, 2011 10:07:16 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 649,130
Thought we were getting back to the issue of creationism?
DamonX
Posted: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 7:22:45 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
Quote:
So... well done in being a douche


Our thread mediator, ladies and gentlemen! Give him a hand! Nothing like a rational voice of reason to bring order to the tank. blah5

Quote:
The problem with the way you're "using Einstein" is that I never tried to use his quotes to bolster an argument in favor of religion


Ummm.... I seem to remember your comments in the "are intelligent people less likely to believe in god" thread.

http://www.lushstories.com/forum/yaf_postst13286_Are-intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-god.aspx

I guess you were just using Einstein quotes in that thread as a platform to state your love of science....


dontknow




Can we please get a "digging a hole" emoticon created especially for Nudie?


MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:21:03 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,189
Location: United States
eviotis wrote:
Thought we were getting back to the issue of creationism?


Mr Nudie Pants wrote:
So now you're in favor of "comparative studies", but they should include every religion except Christianity? What about the other religious explanations for Creation? Are they to be banned from your "comparative studies" course? Why would you put "muslim, hindu, shiite, or shinto" above Christianity, and why would you ban their ideas about Creation? That would put a hell of a hole in your "comparative studies" course.

Again (because you don't seem to understand this), I don't favor teaching Creationism as science, in lieu of actual hard sciences. I do favor teaching it, as a part of broadening a student's overall education. I also favor teaching about "muslim, hindu, shiite, or shinto" precepts, and I don't see how this could possibly be bad for a student. I'm still waiting for you to explain how teaching these subjects is bad for students. Please. Explain.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:23:01 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,189
Location: United States
DamonX wrote:
Quote:
So... well done in being a douche


Our thread mediator, ladies and gentlemen! Give him a hand! Nothing like a rational voice of reason to bring order to the tank. blah5

Quote:
The problem with the way you're "using Einstein" is that I never tried to use his quotes to bolster an argument in favor of religion


Ummm.... I seem to remember your comments in the "are intelligent people less likely to believe in god" thread.

http://www.lushstories.com/forum/yaf_postst13286_Are-intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-god.aspx

I guess you were just using Einstein quotes in that thread as a platform to state your love of science....


dontknow




Can we please get a "digging a hole" emoticon created especially for Nudie?




Apples and oranges, Dames. Apples and oranges. Nice try, though.
DamonX
Posted: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:41:10 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
MrNudiePants wrote:
DamonX wrote:
Quote:
So... well done in being a douche


Our thread mediator, ladies and gentlemen! Give him a hand! Nothing like a rational voice of reason to bring order to the tank. blah5

Quote:
The problem with the way you're "using Einstein" is that I never tried to use his quotes to bolster an argument in favor of religion


Ummm.... I seem to remember your comments in the "are intelligent people less likely to believe in god" thread.

http://www.lushstories.com/forum/yaf_postst13286_Are-intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-god.aspx

I guess you were just using Einstein quotes in that thread as a platform to state your love of science....


dontknow




Can we please get a "digging a hole" emoticon created especially for Nudie?




Apples and oranges, Dames. Apples and oranges. Nice try, though.


And he keeps digging and digging and digging.......

Kudos on clinging to that whole "Dames" thing though. If you want to steal any more of my material, I can suggest something that is actually funny if you like.

And let me pre-empt your next response by stating it for you...

"You've said something funny? Let me know and I'll be sure to laugh."

wait.... Let's add constitution, freedom and guns (along with Dames) and we've exhausted the limits of the mrnudiepants lexicon.

apples and oranges? please explain. or just keep digging...the rest of us are enjoying this greatly. :)
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:47:41 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 649,130
http://law2.fordham.edu/publications/articles/500flspub9563.pdf


"CONCLUSION
The debate in the United States over human origins is once again in full swing. However, it is important to clarify that for constitutional purposes, this debate is not about which side is right or wrong: It is about jurisdiction. If the theory of intelligent design is correct, it cannot be taught as true in the public school classroom because it is an inherently religious doctrine and is not science. In fact, even if it could be taught as science, it would inevitably have the effect of subjecting an inherently religious doctrine to scientific proof or disproof, which government cannot allow because it would be the equivalent of declaring religious truth or falsity. Intelligent design could, in theory, be introduced to public school students so long as views on intelligent design’s merits are not discussed. However, since substantively teaching intelligent design in public schools is unconstitutional,discussing intelligent design at even a basic level might provoke a legal challenge that teachers and schools endorse its validity. Resolving such disputes would involve fact-intensive inquiries and therefore, if asked about intelligent design, public school teachers should inform students that some people believe in religious understandings of human origins and that students should turn to their families or places of worship to discuss those understandings." -- Richard Bauer, J.D. Fordham University
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.