I never understood why these were mutually exclusive anyways. Can't god create the universe, and then let life go on its own meandering course? Why is it always a big freaking fight.
defianthart wrote:creationism or intelligent design or whatever they want to call it is a religious belief and there is no way around it.
I'd probably keep those two separate. You're right that creationism is a religious belief (and as such, I don't think anyone will see anything wrong with that as long as it's in the proper context). Intelligent Design, on the other hand... well, let's just say that it seems that neither faith nor science is well served.
on the show, intelligent design and creationism were used interchangably by those who were fighting for the addition of creationism to the curriculum which is why i said that.
defianthart wrote:on the show, intelligent design and creationism were used interchangably by those who were fighting for the addition of creationism to the curriculum which is why i said that.
Understood; I wasn't really commenting on your post but on the fact that as you say, they really are used as synonyms so often these days. Just seems a bit strange to me...
black_hawk8888 wrote:I may be with the minority but I think that either position takes faith. Evolution is just as much "religion" as Creation. Nobody was there to see the beginning of the world so both positions require a certain amount of faith. People come to different conclusions based on their interpretation of the evidence but that doesn't make either position an airtight argument. Both are theories that cannot be fully proven.
I happen to think it is much easier to believe in Creation for 1 simple reason: how did anything that is physically tangible actually come into existence??? I understand the Evolutionist theory and it makes sense except that it keeps going back. How did the gas cloud that created the Big Bang get there in the first place? To me it is a lot easier to believe that a powerful Being at least started the process. Otherwise, we have no record of anything physical coming from nothing - it is totally nonsensical and defies good logic.
How is believing a powerful being---that coincidentally was created from nothing----created everything any less nonsensical than believing it didn't? Believing in God is like believing in Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Boogeyman. To some people, these things can be very, very real, and to others just hogwash. The important thing is to make up your own mind, not be influenced by others or by fear (my personal belief in why God was invented), and not to force your ideals onto others, even by gentle persuasion. Besides, everybody knows that Lemme is God!
Sixxgunn wrote:Teacher: "Class, God created everything and you must believe that, because you have to have faith. Class dismissed."
Student: "That's it?"
Blind Faith. Evolution is suspect as well. Just because some guy draws a chart with a monkey turning into a man doesn't make it so. Separation of church and state is fundamental in maintaing a sociological balance.
The thery of evolution is way beyond that! Scientist have linked many things to us and apes and monkeys alike. Our DNA compared to a Chimps DNA is like 1-3% different. How do you explain that?
opposable thumbs
Just because we have similar appendages doesn't mean evoloution. I'll grant you that through the development of Humans, cro mag to homo erectus, there are evolutionary traits.
But there is still the missing link to Homo Sapian. We're more closely related to the dolphin.
As for the chart comment, I was dropping the idea in a nutshell. But the essence in this entire thread is belief. Which is all a matter of opinion since nothing in regard to either (creationism/evoloution) has be definitively proven. It is the beauty and mystery of life. But as far as religon being taught in schools, unless it's in a private (you know what you signed up for) then keep it out of state and county schools.
[/quote]
[size=14][b]Letters from the procupine, they'll stick straight through you.
So read one anytime you think you've made mistakes.[/b][/size]
Just because we have similar appendages doesn't mean evoloution. I'll grant you that through the development of Humans, cro mag to homo erectus, there are evolutionary traits. But there is still the missing link to Homo Sapian. We're more closely related to the dolphin.
As for the chart comment, I was dropping the idea in a nutshell. But the essence in this entire thread is belief. Which is all a matter of opinion since nothing in regard to either (creationism/evoloution) has be definitively proven. It is the beauty and mystery of life.
yeah but theres evidence to the theory of evolution. ive looked online and so far the only evidence i can find for the theory of creationism is holes in the theory of evolution, and you cant base a scientific theory off the shortcomings in another one. i have no problems with creationism as a belief, but the problem i have is when people try to pass it off as science.
Just because we have similar appendages doesn't mean evoloution. I'll grant you that through the development of Humans, cro mag to homo erectus, there are evolutionary traits. But there is still the missing link to Homo Sapian. We're more closely related to the dolphin.
As for the chart comment, I was dropping the idea in a nutshell. But the essence in this entire thread is belief. Which is all a matter of opinion since nothing in regard to either (creationism/evoloution) has be definitively proven. It is the beauty and mystery of life.
yeah but theres evidence to the theory of evolution. ive looked online and so far the only evidence i can find for the theory of creationism is holes in the theory of evolution, and you cant base a scientific theory off the shortcomings in another one. i have no problems with creationism as a belief, but the problem i have is when people try to pass it off as science.
So teachers can teach about the structure of other planets (elemental structure) even though nothing has ever measured it and pass that off as science? That is just as theoretical as creationism, but it's still okay? Look...half of science is guesswork as it is...letting your child listen to another 'theory' isn't going to hurt and no, it isn't forcing a religion upon your child.
Oh and I went and visited dictionary.com to view the definition of science. The very first definition is:
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Just because we have similar appendages doesn't mean evoloution. I'll grant you that through the development of Humans, cro mag to homo erectus, there are evolutionary traits. But there is still the missing link to Homo Sapian. We're more closely related to the dolphin.
As for the chart comment, I was dropping the idea in a nutshell. But the essence in this entire thread is belief. Which is all a matter of opinion since nothing in regard to either (creationism/evoloution) has be definitively proven. It is the beauty and mystery of life.
yeah but theres evidence to the theory of evolution. ive looked online and so far the only evidence i can find for the theory of creationism is holes in the theory of evolution, and you cant base a scientific theory off the shortcomings in another one. i have no problems with creationism as a belief, but the problem i have is when people try to pass it off as science.
So teachers can teach about the structure of other planets (elemental structure) even though nothing has ever measured it and pass that off as science? That is just as theoretical as creationism, but it's still okay? Look...half of science is guesswork as it is...letting your child listen to another 'theory' isn't going to hurt and no, it isn't forcing a religion upon your child.
Oh and I went and visited dictionary.com to view the definition of science. The very first definition is:
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by 34=Sweetness » Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:02 pm 
[/quote]
I guess it does belong in a science class.
