Creation: Should it be taught in schools?

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"][QUOTE="Vampyronight"]Yes- I'm not saying do a 3-week lesson on it, but if you're going to teach evolution (which has its own gaping holes), you should at least provide an alternate theory. Take 20 minutes in a class and do a small rebuttal used by the creationists and call it a day.guynamedbilly

In the actual origination of the planets, evolution doesn't cover that... but what is usually suggested is the big bang. When compared to the big bang, creationism has just as much science behind it as anything...which is none btw.

Heh, no. Have you even read that link?

Think about it for yourself, not what you've been spoonfed... If I tell you that the universe is expanding, what does that mean to you? To me it means just that, the universe is expanding...

What happens because of that expansion is anyones guess. Any theory is as good as any other. I don't think you realize how much guesswork there is in science.

[QUOTE="FadeAwaySwish"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="FadeAwaySwish"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="FadeAwaySwish"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]The secular education system is meant to not involve peoples personal beliefs. If a public, secular school were to teach Christian creationism to a Buddhist families child, wouldn't they be offended?

That is what private education is for. You want your child to learn creationism, find a private school.mig_killer2

If that is the case then evolution shouldn't be taught either. It IS a belief. I think that it should come down to two options

1) Do not teach any religion at all

2) Teach the main religions, but make them electives (optional)

I personally believe that the universe was created by God and thereforeI go to a private school. I agree with what most of you have said about going to a private school if you want to be taught creationism. I also understand that private schools cost A LOT of money. If you can't afford sending your kids to go to a private school, but at the same time would like them to be taught creationism then pick up your Bible and teach it to them! Get it directly from the source. Don't forget about church either :P

Well, would you consider evolution to be a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe?

isn't it ironic that I actually go to a private christian school?

If you believe that then you believe that evolution is a religion. Look it up in the dictionary and that is what "religion" is. As for the irony... Ya a little bit, but I actually have many discussions with kidsat my school about this same stuff. No ground is ever gained, butwe do talk about it :)

Well, this is usually where my friends and I part ways. This is where it solely comes down to what you believe in. If you were God, would you want people loving you who made theearthbecause they believed in you or because they knew it was right. Obviously, one would choose people whobelieve in you because that shows a deeper commitment and love. I know that I'llprobably catch flack for this because "it's not factual" or whatever, but honestlyit doesn't matter.It's not me who you are denying. Obviously no man can change another man's beliefs so believe what you will, butI'll leave you with this question. When did believing in something "factual" make it right?

I am a Christian who believes God created the world, but as to how he used certain mechanisms as say evolution or something other, I am not sure.. To tell you all the truth, I could care less if He created us with gummy bears. Besides, you can't teach Creationism in a science class because it not science. Science deals with the physical world, not the metaphysical. Natural world, not the supernatural. Science can't prove if God exists, nor can it disprove Him. It is funny because the original word in Hebrew for day was yom, which can also mean an indefinite period of timeSaxsoon

That would be a good point, except the metaphysical world would have had to act upon the physical world for creationism to be true. Therefore, you should either teach about both the metaphysical and the physical, or neither according to that line of thinking.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

What does religion have to do with this?

ShuLordLiuPei

Then you have the definition of religion wrong.;)

"Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed."

You're still wrong. Religion is a set of common beliefs held by segments of people with similiar traditions....one can believe in creationism without religion...even your definition includes that definition. So this is not a religion argument.:)

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="flavort"]

I have read that and take it into account along with refutes to it. This is the thing. You can teach evolution but it is not solid. I understand people think that creation and intelligent design means God. I dont think you canscientifically proveGod. I do think that people that dont believe in God would think that evolution disproves God. That is not true though the Christian God is my only God but that is not the case with everybody that believes in God. I have a problem with people that believe that because it is scientifically decided to be the answer, even though it is far from solid, would not want other scientific theories investigated. It would make sense to look for alternative answers. Science always changes with new findings and it is because of different research. At the same time if you teach only one side of a theory that has not been solidified, is that not indoctrination? Why not give other possibilities for them to consider. It is not like you are teaching the Bible to kids, you are opening the door to other perspectives that deserve thought.

flavort

"this is the thing", creationism does not deserve to be in a science cl@ss Ever. It is not a scientific theory, and before you respond with "its' just a theory", I might remind you that gravity is a theory, and some scientists agree that there is enough evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for the theory of gravity.

If you want to believe God guided evolution, thats fine. But know that is not scientific. If you want to believe that God created life, fine, but again, thats not scientific, because it can't be proven through observation and emperical data/research.

And no one says evolution disproves God, not unless you like to take the Bible literally.

You are so mixed up here. I am talking about atheist think that macroevolution disproves God. Creation, intelligent design are science wether you acknowledge it or not. Scientist study these things. Just because the theory of evolution is factual does not grant truth to other theories. The fact that you say "some" scientist says a whole lot. Also if you would just read what I said you would know that I said that science will not prove God. Pay attention.

Here's a little thing about science: it's not scientific just because it's studied by people who call themselves scientists, its science if it is observable and supported by empirical data, and guess what? Creationism/Intelligent design fails to be observable and is not supported by empirical data. I don't know what "scientists" you think actually takes this seriously, but they are clearly not real scientists, since they are trying to hammer something that can't be proven into the scientific community as a valid theory.

Also, I never said the theory of evolution grants truth to other theories, you're just putting words in my mouth. I said the theory of evolution has a lot of evidence going for it.

And why atheists think macroevolution disproves God has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of Evolution or Creationism. They believe something that can't be proven, just like how creationists believe something that can't be proven. Science does not approach such things.

No, they are Scientist with major credentials. To be honest you are so close minded it is hard to even discuss this with you. this is a quote for you "since they are trying to hammer something that can't be proved into the scientific community as a valid theory." Are you serious? If it cant be proved so it is not a valid theory. Theories are not necessarily fact. To dismiss other theories is ignorant.

There is no evidence for creationism. It is not a theory, we are not dismissing it as a theory, because it's not a theory.

Until you can rpove that there is a higher force that created life with emperical data and can be observed, its not a theory, and never will be. I know its hard to let your faith be questioned, but real scientists won't compromise scientific integrity so they can hammer their beliefs into it so they can feel their opinions are valid.

BTW, flavort, can you give us a piece of evidence for creationism?mig_killer2

the lack of evidence that supports macroevolution. The contradiction of theoriesin how the solar systems evolved. Like the spinning of the planets and the pattern of orbit has been found to be different than once thought. They were thought move in the same pattern but do not. The answers to how water was put on earth. Computer simulations show that uranus and neptune could not evolve near their present location. Based on demonstrable science gaseous planets and the rest of our solar system did not evolve. Scientist cant tell us how the moon formed. Microevolution is used as argument for macroevolution when microevolution consist of small changes and macroevolution consist of upward change in complexity. Spontanious generation has not been observed. While scientist agree life comes from life. There are plenty more.

[QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="flavort"]

I have read that and take it into account along with refutes to it. This is the thing. You can teach evolution but it is not solid. I understand people think that creation and intelligent design means God. I dont think you canscientifically proveGod. I do think that people that dont believe in God would think that evolution disproves God. That is not true though the Christian God is my only God but that is not the case with everybody that believes in God. I have a problem with people that believe that because it is scientifically decided to be the answer, even though it is far from solid, would not want other scientific theories investigated. It would make sense to look for alternative answers. Science always changes with new findings and it is because of different research. At the same time if you teach only one side of a theory that has not been solidified, is that not indoctrination? Why not give other possibilities for them to consider. It is not like you are teaching the Bible to kids, you are opening the door to other perspectives that deserve thought.

The_Ish

"this is the thing", creationism does not deserve to be in a science cl@ss Ever. It is not a scientific theory, and before you respond with "its' just a theory", I might remind you that gravity is a theory, and some scientists agree that there is enough evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for the theory of gravity.

If you want to believe God guided evolution, thats fine. But know that is not scientific. If you want to believe that God created life, fine, but again, thats not scientific, because it can't be proven through observation and emperical data/research.

And no one says evolution disproves God, not unless you like to take the Bible literally.

You are so mixed up here. I am talking about atheist think that macroevolution disproves God. Creation, intelligent design are science wether you acknowledge it or not. Scientist study these things. Just because the theory of evolution is factual does not grant truth to other theories. The fact that you say "some" scientist says a whole lot. Also if you would just read what I said you would know that I said that science will not prove God. Pay attention.

Here's a little thing about science: it's not scientific just because it's studied by people who call themselves scientists, its science if it is observable and supported by empirical data, and guess what? Creationism/Intelligent design fails to be observable and is not supported by empirical data. I don't know what "scientists" you think actually takes this seriously, but they are clearly not real scientists, since they are trying to hammer something that can't be proven into the scientific community as a valid theory.

Also, I never said the theory of evolution grants truth to other theories, you're just putting words in my mouth. I said the theory of evolution has a lot of evidence going for it.

And why atheists think macroevolution disproves God has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of Evolution or Creationism. They believe something that can't be proven, just like how creationists believe something that can't be proven. Science does not approach such things.

No, they are Scientist with major credentials. To be honest you are so close minded it is hard to even discuss this with you. this is a quote for you "since they are trying to hammer something that can't be proved into the scientific community as a valid theory." Are you serious? If it cant be proved so it is not a valid theory. Theories are not necessarily fact. To dismiss other theories is ignorant.

There is no evidence for creationism. It is not a theory, we are not dismissing it as a theory, because it's not a theory.

Until you can rpove that there is a higher force that created life with emperical data and can be observed, its not a theory, and never will be. I know its hard to let your faith be questioned, but real scientists won't compromise scientific integrity so they can hammer their beliefs into it so they can feel their opinions are valid.

my faith is not in question at all. You fail to acknowledge the false ideas in science as fact. life comes from life ask any scientist.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]BTW, flavort, can you give us a piece of evidence for creationism?flavort

the lack of evidence that supports macroevolution. The contradiction of theoriesin how the solar systems evolved. Like the spinning of the planets and the pattern of orbit has been found to be different than once thought. They were thought move in the same pattern but do not. The answers to how water was put on earth. Computer simulations show that uranus and neptune could not evolve near their present location. Based on demonstrable science gaseous planets and the rest of our solar system did not evolve. Scientist cant tell us how the moon formed. Microevolution is used as argument for macroevolution when microevolution consist of small changes and macroevolution consist of upward change in complexity. Spontanious generation has not been observed. While scientist agree life comes from life. There are plenty more.

[QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"] [QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="zombiepigeon"]No. Religion isa personal matter for everyone to decide. It is not science. It is not math, or history. It is not based around any factual knowledge. It is based on one person's faith. Evolution is only taught because it is not a religous matter and has scientific backing. If evolution were some part of a religion, we wouldn't teach it either.LJS9502_basic

What does religion have to do with this?

Then you have the definition of religion wrong.;)

"Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed."

You're still wrong. Religion is a set of common beliefs held by segments of people with similiar traditions....one can believe in creationism without religion...even your definition includes that definition. So this is not a religion argument.:)

my faith is not in question at all. You fail to acknowledge the false ideas in science as fact. life comes from life ask any scientist.flavort

What do you mean life comes from life...

[QUOTE="flavort"]my faith is not in question at all. You fail to acknowledge the false ideas in science as fact. life comes from life ask any scientist.Stealth-Gunner

What do you mean life comes from life...

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"][QUOTE="Vampyronight"]Yes- I'm not saying do a 3-week lesson on it, but if you're going to teach evolution (which has its own gaping holes), you should at least provide an alternate theory. Take 20 minutes in a class and do a small rebuttal used by the creationists and call it a day.Darthmatt

In the actual origination of the planets, evolution doesn't cover that... but what is usually suggested is the big bang. When compared to the big bang, creationism has just as much science behind it as anything...which is none btw.

Heh, no. Have you even read that link?

Think about it for yourself, not what you've been spoonfed... If I tell you that the universe is expanding, what does that mean to you? To me it means just that, the universe is expanding...

What happens because of that expansion is anyones guess. Any theory is as good as any other. I don't think you realize how much guesswork there is in science.

Not necessarily... There could be multiple forces moving the universe.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]I never gave a definition of religion. Creationism is a religious belief.

"Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed."

ShuLordLiuPei

You're still wrong. Religion is a set of common beliefs held by segments of people with similiar traditions....one can believe in creationism without religion...even your definition includes that definition. So this is not a religion argument.:)

Not necessarily...are your definitions so narrow?

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="flavort"]

I have read that and take it into account along with refutes to it. This is the thing. You can teach evolution but it is not solid. I understand people think that creation and intelligent design means God. I dont think you canscientifically proveGod. I do think that people that dont believe in God would think that evolution disproves God. That is not true though the Christian God is my only God but that is not the case with everybody that believes in God. I have a problem with people that believe that because it is scientifically decided to be the answer, even though it is far from solid, would not want other scientific theories investigated. It would make sense to look for alternative answers. Science always changes with new findings and it is because of different research. At the same time if you teach only one side of a theory that has not been solidified, is that not indoctrination? Why not give other possibilities for them to consider. It is not like you are teaching the Bible to kids, you are opening the door to other perspectives that deserve thought.

flavort

"this is the thing", creationism does not deserve to be in a science cl@ss Ever. It is not a scientific theory, and before you respond with "its' just a theory", I might remind you that gravity is a theory, and some scientists agree that there is enough evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for the theory of gravity.

If you want to believe God guided evolution, thats fine. But know that is not scientific. If you want to believe that God created life, fine, but again, thats not scientific, because it can't be proven through observation and emperical data/research.

And no one says evolution disproves God, not unless you like to take the Bible literally.

You are so mixed up here. I am talking about atheist think that macroevolution disproves God. Creation, intelligent design are science wether you acknowledge it or not. Scientist study these things. Just because the theory of evolution is factual does not grant truth to other theories. The fact that you say "some" scientist says a whole lot. Also if you would just read what I said you would know that I said that science will not prove God. Pay attention.

Here's a little thing about science: it's not scientific just because it's studied by people who call themselves scientists, its science if it is observable and supported by empirical data, and guess what? Creationism/Intelligent design fails to be observable and is not supported by empirical data. I don't know what "scientists" you think actually takes this seriously, but they are clearly not real scientists, since they are trying to hammer something that can't be proven into the scientific community as a valid theory.

Also, I never said the theory of evolution grants truth to other theories, you're just putting words in my mouth. I said the theory of evolution has a lot of evidence going for it.

And why atheists think macroevolution disproves God has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of Evolution or Creationism. They believe something that can't be proven, just like how creationists believe something that can't be proven. Science does not approach such things.

No, they are Scientist with major credentials. To be honest you are so close minded it is hard to even discuss this with you. this is a quote for you "since they are trying to hammer something that can't be proved into the scientific community as a valid theory." Are you serious? If it cant be proved so it is not a valid theory. Theories are not necessarily fact. To dismiss other theories is ignorant.

There is no evidence for creationism. It is not a theory, we are not dismissing it as a theory, because it's not a theory.

Until you can rpove that there is a higher force that created life with emperical data and can be observed, its not a theory, and never will be. I know its hard to let your faith be questioned, but real scientists won't compromise scientific integrity so they can hammer their beliefs into it so they can feel their opinions are valid.

my faith is not in question at all. You fail to acknowledge the false ideas in science as fact. life comes from life ask any scientist.

False ideas in science? :lol:

So observing phenomenon and researching with emperical data are false ideas? :lol:

First off, The Theory of Evolution does not explain where life comes from at all. ;)

Second, "life comes from life ask any scientist" is not proof. And you never actually gave proof as to why Creationism coud be a theory, only pointing at the holes in the broad, and yes, imperfect theory of evolution. What does creationism have going for it? Nothing. You have not shown in any way how creationism is a theory, regardless of how many holes there are in the theory of evolution.

Lets break it down shall we? ;)

1) Creationism has no evidence in it's backing, therefore it does not qualify as a scientific theory.

2) The Theory Evolution is imperfect, but has much evidence backing it, and therefore it qualifies as a scientific theory, which means it will be continuously in the process of becoming perfect.

So, do we teach creationism, a faith based concept, relying on a being whose existance cannot be proven through observation or emperical data in our schools?

No. Because as people have said, there is no evidence backing Creationism.

And if you're faith is not in question, why bring this up? :lol:

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"]the problem with creationism is not only is it unscientific, it would be a violation of the 1st amendment to teach it in public schoolsmig_killer2

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]BTW, flavort, can you give us a piece of evidence for creationism?flavort

the lack of evidence that supports macroevolution. The contradiction of theoriesin how the solar systems evolved. Like the spinning of the planets and the pattern of orbit has been found to be different than once thought. They were thought move in the same pattern but do not. The answers to how water was put on earth. Computer simulations show that uranus and neptune could not evolve near their present location. Based on demonstrable science gaseous planets and the rest of our solar system did not evolve. Scientist cant tell us how the moon formed. Microevolution is used as argument for macroevolution when microevolution consist of small changes and macroevolution consist of upward change in complexity. Spontanious generation has not been observed. While scientist agree life comes from life. There are plenty more.

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"][QUOTE="Vampyronight"]Yes- I'm not saying do a 3-week lesson on it, but if you're going to teach evolution (which has its own gaping holes), you should at least provide an alternate theory. Take 20 minutes in a class and do a small rebuttal used by the creationists and call it a day.guynamedbilly

In the actual origination of the planets, evolution doesn't cover that... but what is usually suggested is the big bang. When compared to the big bang, creationism has just as much science behind it as anything...which is none btw.

Heh, no. Have you even read that link?

Think about it for yourself, not what you've been spoonfed... If I tell you that the universe is expanding, what does that mean to you? To me it means just that, the universe is expanding...

What happens because of that expansion is anyones guess. Any theory is as good as any other. I don't think you realize how much guesswork there is in science.

Not necessarily... There could be multiple forces moving the universe.

[QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]I never gave a definition of religion. Creationism is a religious belief.

"Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed."

LJS9502_basic

You're still wrong. Religion is a set of common beliefs held by segments of people with similiar traditions....one can believe in creationism without religion...even your definition includes that definition. So this is not a religion argument.:)

Not necessarily...are your definitions so narrow?

Now what non-religious creationism do you speak of? If I must restate the definition:

"Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed."

Since when is the belief that deities created everything not religious?

Actually, now that I think about it, I wouldn't mind if they mentioned it as one type of belief about the origin of life. Certainly not to be taught in lieu of evolution or other possible theories, but mainly as a historical point about the beliefs of some.sonicare

In most Europen history classes they already talk a good deal about religious beliefs, and I have to read part of the Bible for my British Literature class, and this is a public highschool.

Are yours? I assume the TC is talking about Christian creationism, which would obviously be a religious belief. I don't see where your coming from saying creationism is not a religious belief.

Now what non-religious creationism do you speak of? If I must restate the definition:

"Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed."

Since when is the belief in deities not religious?

ShuLordLiuPei

Again you continue to misuse the word religion. You are confusing religion with a belief in a diety. It is entirely possible to believe in creationism and yet NOT believe in nor follow religion.:roll:

It's also possible to have a religion WITHOUT a belief in a diety.

[QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]

Are yours? I assume the TC is talking about Christian creationism, which would obviously be a religious belief. I don't see where your coming from saying creationism is not a religious belief.

Now what non-religious creationism do you speak of? If I must restate the definition:

"Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed."

Since when is the belief in deities not religious?

LJS9502_basic

Again you continue to misuse the word religion. You are confusing religion with a belief in a diety. It is entirely possible to believe in creationism and yet NOT believe in nor follow religion.:roll:

It's also possible to have a religion WITHOUT a belief in a diety.

Yes we got that far... Obviously creationism is religious because the major religions have it. That's like saying evolution is not a scientific thing because some religious people believe in it too.

[QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]

Are yours? I assume the TC is talking about Christian creationism, which would obviously be a religious belief. I don't see where your coming from saying creationism is not a religious belief.

Now what non-religious creationism do you speak of? If I must restate the definition:

"Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed."

Since when is the belief in deities not religious?

LJS9502_basic

Again you continue to misuse the word religion. You are confusingreligion with a belief in a diety. It is entirely possible to believe in creationism and yet NOT believe in nor follow religion.:roll:

It's also possible to have a religion WITHOUT a belief in a diety.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]

Are yours? I assume the TC is talking about Christian creationism, which would obviously be a religious belief. I don't see where your coming from saying creationism is not a religious belief.

Now what non-religious creationism do you speak of? If I must restate the definition:

"Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed."

Since when is the belief in deities not religious?

ShuLordLiuPei

Again you continue to misuse the word religion. You are confusingreligion with a belief in a diety. It is entirely possible to believe in creationism and yet NOT believe in nor follow religion.:roll:

It's also possible to have a religion WITHOUT a belief in a diety.

creationism. the idea that a higher being created the universe. how is that not religious?mig_killer2

I said a "religious belief". You may say I'm playing semantics, but one can have a religious belief without being part of that religion. ;)ShuLordLiuPei

Ah but you found the need to respond to a post dealing with religion. Youwere and are incorrect.

As to your second statement....different religions believe in different traditions and dieties..are you implying they are all the same.?

[QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]

I said a "religious belief". You may say I'm playing semantics, but one can have a religious belief without being part of that religion. ;)LJS9502_basic

Ah but you found the need to respond to a post dealing with religion. Youwere and are incorrect.

As to your second statement....different religions believe in different traditions and dieties..are you implying they are all the same.?

Where exactly did I imply all religions are the same? I said "Assuming the TC means Christian creation" since from his previous posts I know he is a Christian.

Still, creationism is obviously linked to religion and religious beliefs. The poster who you originally quoted said evolution was scientific as opposed to religious, and therefore should be taught.

Where exactly did I imply all religions are the same? I said "Assuming the TC means Christian creation" since from his previous posts I know he is a Christian.

ShuLordLiuPei

Again...not necessarily. Your definition of religion is incorrect. As I said...Creationism DOES NOT mean religious.

You implied all religions are the same since you said creationism is religion. Religion is a common set of beliefs, customs, traditions etc. There are various different religions that believe in a "power" that are not similiar.

[QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]Still, creationism is obviously linked to religion and religious beliefs. The poster who you originally quoted said evolution was scientific as opposed to religious, and therefore should be taught.

Where exactly did I imply all religions are the same? I said "Assuming the TC means Christian creation" since from his previous posts I know he is a Christian.

LJS9502_basic

Again...not necessarily. Your definition of religion is incorrect. As I said...Creationism DOES NOT mean religious.

You implied all religions are the same since you said creationism is religion. Religion is a common set of beliefs, customs, traditions etc. There are various different religions that believe in a "power" that are not similiar.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]Still, creationism is obviously linked to religion and religious beliefs. The poster who you originally quoted said evolution was scientific as opposed to religious, and therefore should be taught.

Where exactly did I imply all religions are the same? I said "Assuming the TC means Christian creation" since from his previous posts I know he is a Christian.

ShuLordLiuPei

Again...not necessarily. Your definition of religion is incorrect. As I said...Creationism DOES NOT mean religious.

You implied all religions are the same since you said creationism is religion. Religion is a common set of beliefs, customs, traditions etc. There are various different religions that believe in a "power" that are not similiar.

*sigh* Belief in a Diety does NOT necessarily mean religious.

[QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]Still, creationism is obviously linked to religion and religious beliefs. The poster who you originally quoted said evolution was scientific as opposed to religious, and therefore should be taught.

Where exactly did I imply all religions are the same? I said "Assuming the TC means Christian creation" since from his previous posts I know he is a Christian.

LJS9502_basic

Again...not necessarily. Your definition of religion is incorrect. As I said...Creationism DOES NOT mean religious.

You implied all religions are the same since you said creationism is religion. Religion is a common set of beliefs, customs, traditions etc. There are various different religions that believe in a "power" that are not similiar.

*sigh* Belief in a Diety does NOT necessarily mean religious.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]Still, creationism is obviously linked to religion and religious beliefs. The poster who you originally quoted said evolution was scientific as opposed to religious, and therefore should be taught.

Where exactly did I imply all religions are the same? I said "Assuming the TC means Christian creation" since from his previous posts I know he is a Christian.

mig_killer2

Again...not necessarily. Your definition of religion is incorrect. As I said...Creationism DOES NOT mean religious.

You implied all religions are the same since you said creationism is religion. Religion is a common set of beliefs, customs, traditions etc. There are various different religions that believe in a "power" that are not similiar.

*sigh* Belief in a Diety does NOT necessarily mean religious.

edit: If anything, modern religion is as man made as Coca Cola. Thats why I choose being faithful over religious ;)

[QUOTE="flavort"]

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]BTW, flavort, can you give us a piece of evidence for creationism?mig_killer2

the lack of evidence that supports macroevolution. The contradiction of theoriesin how the solar systems evolved. Like the spinning of the planets and the pattern of orbit has been found to be different than once thought. They were thought move in the same pattern but do not. The answers to how water was put on earth. Computer simulations show that uranus and neptune could not evolve near their present location. Based on demonstrable science gaseous planets and the rest of our solar system did not evolve. Scientist cant tell us how the moon formed. Microevolution is used as argument for macroevolution when microevolution consist of small changes and macroevolution consist of upward change in complexity. Spontanious generation has not been observed. While scientist agree life comes from life. There are plenty more.

There are so many more out there, my point is everybody says that because there is nothing observable to study means it is not so. It is only a false sense of security in their argument. There are many things unknown to man, like what the force that created the universe and what precedes it. It can be a force that is not measurable because that force became an non-usable energy after the fact. The models of the big bang are insufficient and were created to get the result necessary. Like this theory issue, it is a theory and can be studied but does not mean it is so. You have to make note that creationism is not about finding a creator. It is looking for a intelligent solution for the creation of the universe, not trying to fill hole in a broken theory. It deserves acknowledgement and research just as much as a theory full of holes. This whole argument on your side is masking other possibilities that are just as important as any other one that scientist find credible. It is like believing in ghosts, Can science prove ghosts, people say they have seen them but scientist can only guess. Can you tell me if there has ever been a life created without another life? If not then how can you study that? What I mean by that is, if there is no evidence that there is something intelligent that created the universe, there is also no evidence that a life has been created without another life.

[QUOTE="flavort"]my faith is not in question at all. You fail to acknowledge the false ideas in science as fact. life comes from life ask any scientist.Stealth-Gunner

What do you mean life comes from life...

I mean how can a live be created without something livingto createit?

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="flavort"]

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]BTW, flavort, can you give us a piece of evidence for creationism?flavort

the lack of evidence that supports macroevolution. The contradiction of theoriesin how the solar systems evolved. Like the spinning of the planets and the pattern of orbit has been found to be different than once thought. They were thought move in the same pattern but do not. The answers to how water was put on earth. Computer simulations show that uranus and neptune could not evolve near their present location. Based on demonstrable science gaseous planets and the rest of our solar system did not evolve. Scientist cant tell us how the moon formed. Microevolution is used as argument for macroevolution when microevolution consist of small changes and macroevolution consist of upward change in complexity. Spontanious generation has not been observed. While scientist agree life comes from life. There are plenty more.

There are so many more out there, my point is everybody says that because there is nothing observable to study means it is not so. It is only a false sense of security in their argument. There are many things unknown to man, like what the force that created the universe and what precedes it. It can be a force that is not measurable because that force became an non-usable energy after the fact. The models of the big bang are insufficient and were created to get the result necessary. Like this theory issue, it is a theory and can be studied but does not mean it is so. You have to make note that creationism is not about finding a creator. It is looking for a intelligent solution for the creation of the universe, not trying to fill hole in a broken theory. It deserves acknowledgement and research just as much as a theory full of holes. This whole argument on your side is masking other possibilities that are just as important as any other one that scientist find credible. It is like believing in ghosts, Can science prove ghosts, people say they have seen them but scientist can only guess. Can you tell me if there has ever been a life created without another life? If not then how can you study that? What I mean by that is, if there is no evidence that there is something intelligent that created the universe, there is also no evidence that a life has been created without another life.

No, neither should be taught at schools as neither carries any more proof than the other. UssjTrunks

[QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="flavort"]

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]BTW, flavort, can you give us a piece of evidence for creationism?mig_killer2

the lack of evidence that supports macroevolution. The contradiction of theoriesin how the solar systems evolved. Like the spinning of the planets and the pattern of orbit has been found to be different than once thought. They were thought move in the same pattern but do not. The answers to how water was put on earth. Computer simulations show that uranus and neptune could not evolve near their present location. Based on demonstrable science gaseous planets and the rest of our solar system did not evolve. Scientist cant tell us how the moon formed. Microevolution is used as argument for macroevolution when microevolution consist of small changes and macroevolution consist of upward change in complexity. Spontanious generation has not been observed. While scientist agree life comes from life. There are plenty more.

There are so many more out there, my point is everybody says that because there is nothing observable to study means it is not so. It is only a false sense of security in their argument. There are many things unknown to man, like what the force that created the universe and what precedes it. It can be a force that is not measurable because that force became an non-usable energy after the fact. The models of the big bang are insufficient and were created to get the result necessary. Like this theory issue, it is a theory and can be studied but does not mean it is so. You have to make note that creationism is not about finding a creator. It is looking for a intelligent solution for the creation of the universe, not trying to fill hole in a broken theory. It deserves acknowledgement and research just as much as a theory full of holes. This whole argument on your side is masking other possibilities that are just as important as any other one that scientist find credible. It is like believing in ghosts, Can science prove ghosts, people say they have seen them but scientist can only guess. Can you tell me if there has ever been a life created without another life? If not then how can you study that? What I mean by that is, if there is no evidence that there is something intelligent that created the universe, there is also no evidence that a life has been created without another life.

[QUOTE="Stealth-Gunner"]

[QUOTE="flavort"]my faith is not in question at all. You fail to acknowledge the false ideas in science as fact. life comes from life ask any scientist.flavort

What do you mean life comes from life...

I mean how can a live be created without something livingto createit?

we're here aren't we. so it obviously happened :wink: also, for the 300th time. evolution does NOT encompass the origin of the universe ( if there was one ), the origin of earth, or the origin of life on earth.

Separation of church and state. So no :|

ok, ive just scimed this thread. look at the new super viruses. the have evole from somthing. We cant disprove creationalism, because we dont know what was here since the big bang. We can disprove evoltion because we havent sent any rovers to Mars. And no, it shouldent be taught in PUBLIC schools