creationism and schools

[black_hawk8888]

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!

Telling people not to force ideals on others (even by gentle persuasion) IS a form of forcing an ideal on others. davidmarver makes a great point - more information leads to more knowledgable decisions which is what we want out children doing.

I personally don't mind being influenced by others because I happen to believe I don't have a monopoly on truth and I want to be as right as possible! It is up to each of us to sort out what we hear and make decisions on who is right and who is wrong. Or in this case, who has the most evidence and who does not.

[Cornbread Maxwell]

Distrubing thread.

Most of what I have read suggests a lot of posters may not really have a firm grasp on the topic whatsoever, and should really try and educate themselves about it. I suggest not starting on a fantasy football site.

Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

The idea that our universe was created by the Big Bang takes an even bigger leap of faith than believing there was a creator.

[TTTBone]

Distrubing thread.

Most of what I have read suggests a lot of posters may not really have a firm grasp on the topic whatsoever, and should really try and educate themselves about it. I suggest not starting on a fantasy football site.

Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

The idea that our universe was created by the Big Bang takes an even bigger leap of faith than believing there was a creator.

*excuse me*
Jesus! Thank you Cornbread!
Some of the the greatest physicists/scientists of the 20th century were very spiritual people. Religion and science are not exclusive. It comes down to the "literal" interpretation of the Genesis story, which I may add exists in every religion (even the ones you don't agree with). This is the most basic story of mankind and it's relationship to God and the unknown. I don't think the Genesis story should be taken literally, but rather as allegory, which encompasses, evolution, astro-physics, quantum physics, and scientific theory in general.
I consider myself religious and attend services regularily; but to discount evolution or any other scientific theory which has been shown to be established beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. the earth is round, rotates around the sun), is ridiculous, and reeks of fanatacism.
And, don't think me flippant for bringing up the movement of the Sun and planets, many unfortunate souls were brutally tortured and killed by the church for holding such beliefs, although, thankfully, Galileo was able to barely extract himself from such a brutal fate.
I guess, the point is, science and religion should not be percieved to be at odds. The more physicists learn and understand our universe, the more unanswered questions do come into play. Perhaps the science doesn't exactly mesh with your story and beliefs; but human religions have also gone through an "evolutionary" process; they are different now from what they were in the past, due to gained scientific knowledge.
Religions have learned to encompass scientific discoveries into the faith, without lessening the faith in any way.
To discount science is a startling and unfortunate move backwards, at a point when religions should be embracing science as further proof of the divine.

Just one man's opinion.
I'm not looking to argue; so I'll be done with this thread.

[maddog60]

Telling people not to force ideals on others (even by gentle persuasion) IS a form of forcing an ideal on others.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Defending against people inforcing ideals is forcing your ideals upon someone? Its simply not true. Forcing ideal upon someone is a force of oppression, and opposing that is not a form of oppression. By definition is exactly the opposite.

Or in this case, who has the most evidence and who does not.

Except that Creationism has no evidence to present, Evolution does. That's why Evolution belongs in a science class and Creationism doesn't.

[black_hawk8888]

Except that Creationism has no evidence to present, Evolution does. That's why Evolution belongs in a science class and Creationism doesn't.

I disagree. Beauty, complexity, and morality are all things that wouldn't seem to be random events generated by chance. Rather, these things would seem to be the product of a Designer.

However, I am done arguing here. Brilliant people come down on both sides of the issue and the bottom line is that personal beliefs are personal beliefs and they are based on interpretation of our surroundings. Hope I didn't offend you maddog - just an interesting discussion which I don't want to get into an argument

[davidmarver]

Telling people not to force ideals on others (even by gentle persuasion) IS a form of forcing an ideal on others.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Defending against people inforcing ideals is forcing your ideals upon someone? Its simply not true. Forcing ideal upon someone is a force of oppression, and opposing that is not a form of oppression. By definition is exactly the opposite.

Your ideal is that ideals shouldn't be forced upon someone and be enforcing that you are forcing ideals.

Or in this case, who has the most evidence and who does not.

Except that Creationism has no evidence to present, Evolution does. That's why Evolution belongs in a science class and Creationism doesn't.

Perhaps you missed this:

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.

I guess it does belong in a science class

[Homeless]

My guess is we wont get to the bottom of this any time soon So im gonna put this to bed in the hopes it will keep the pot simmering not boiling over.

[Guttpuppy]

My guess is we wont get to the bottom of this any time soon So im gonna put this to bed in the hopes it will keep the pot simmering not boiling over.

Thank you, I should have locked this when I first saw it...good call Homes.