toldailytopic: Should creation be taught in public school?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alencon

New member
The educational system is so screwed up, that it should be taken from the government and given back to the private sector, private schools, parents and churches. That way the kids are not spoon fed the tripe that is called 'science'. Parents will have a choice in what their kids are taught.
Science is what keeps you warm in the winter, provides enough food for you to eat and clean water for you to drink.

Science is what keeps pestilence away and provides medicine to help you recover when you do become sick.

Science has conquered smallpox, polio, measles and a dozen other horrible diseases and has saved literally millions of lives.

Science is what provides the computer and internet connection that allows you to express your opinions on this forum.

You are entitled to your opinion, but if you think science is such "tripe," allow me to suggest you consider giving up the things science provides you like food, water, medical care, light in the darkness and even something as trivial as the entertainment provided by computers, televisions, radios and motion pictures.
 

eameece

New member
These are not theories, beanie brain. Big difference between observable phenomena and a theory. Nobody ever observed an ape evolving into a man. That's just a theory. Before you cry foul, you walked right into that one mixing theories with observable phenomena.

I am of the opinion that they should yank evolution from the schools. It's idiot theory, turning out a bunch of nitwits thinking they are part ape. Kids are starting to act like apes. There's certainly no ape in my family tree.

No there isn't. But there is a common ancestor to both apes and humans in your family tree. Back there about 6 million years ago. It's a deep tree, bro!

I think there is a way to teach creation and intelligent design, even as science, if people want. Just review all the evidence it claims, and put it to the test, according to methods of science as currently taught. I don't think it would last too long. But it would serve to clear the air.

Meanwhile, like people say, in a religion class it's fine. It's true though, that science has hidden beliefs. That's why philosophy exists. Not yet taught on the high school level; I think it should be, but I admit it's for intelligent folks.

I think a lot of people get a lot of mileage out of the battle between creation and evolution. Polls show most people are in the middle, but the theories and research in the middle gets no press. We'd rather have the battle and keep the nation divided. It's better politics for some folks like Karl Rove.
 

eameece

New member
Science is what keeps you warm in the winter, provides enough food for you to eat and clean water for you to drink.

Science is what keeps pestilence away and provides medicine to help you recover when you do become sick.

Science has conquered smallpox, polio, measles and a dozen other horrible diseases and has saved literally millions of lives.

Science is what provides the computer and internet connection that allows you to express your opinions on this forum.

You are entitled to your opinion, but if you think science is such "tripe," allow me to suggest you consider giving up the things science provides you like food, water, medical care, light in the darkness and even something as trivial as the entertainment provided by computers, televisions, radios and motion pictures.

These guys really want to advance the prosperity of our nation, don't they. :second:
 

eameece

New member
You are right, there are intelligent people on the other side. Newton was involved in alchemy, and he was smart. I had a friend who graduated from MIT, and firmly believed in astrology. Thousands of smart people subscribed to Aristotle’s earth-centered cosmology before Galileo, some US presidents were measured for phrenology studies. Yup, those things need to taught right along with the silliness about the earth being round, and the nonsense in chemistry about atoms that no one can even see.

Alchemy and astrology are cool subjects indeed! As long as you understand what they are saying.

http://philosopherswheel.com/neoplatonism.htm
 

Persephone66

BANNED
Banned
The educational system is so screwed up, that it should be taken from the government and given back to the private sector, private schools, parents and churches. That way the kids are not spoon fed the tripe that is called 'science'. Parents will have a choice in what their kids are taught.

Yupp, God done it. That's all kids or anyone really needs to know. We don't need none of that science tripe, we only need the Bible.

Biblical Medicine


Yupp, that evolution stuff sure is tripe.
 

eameece

New member
While the universal genetic code can be used as a reason to think common ancestry from a small pool of organisms is likely, the code can also be used as a reason to think a designer engineered the perfect code that could be used to produce a wide variety of life in the best way possible.

The "designer" is simply the truth of universal Mind and Law that always exists and always will exist. God is not an engineer that sat up in heaven and designed our Earth and its Life one day 4000 years ago. God is the eternal and infinite One, who was, is and ever shall be, world without end, Amen. If you really read and understood the Bible, you'd know that. But you'd rather have your battle and your beliefs.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Like I said, if creation is to be taught I'm glad it will not be taught by you:

The root of the word means "to hammer out" and a recent translation translates it as "vault". It's also referred to in Job 37:18. The sky is hard/strong as a molten mirror. NASB translates it this way NIV like this...
...and KJV like this:

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, [which is] strong, [and] as a molten looking glass?


The strength need not mean a solid sky. It probably refers to a cloud. And the nature of a molten looking glass is something we probably do no justice to in thinking "mirror".

And you also neglect to mention the rest of the chapter which uses the perfectly normal atmospheric conditions that nobody has any problems with. Winds coming from different directions, rain, thunder and lightning from clouds, clouds having no obvious support. Reading the full chapter describes a storm, not the sky in general. And this to display the mystery and power of God.

But stick to your cartoon version if you wish. :idunno:

This makes no sense with a modern understanding of atmosphere, but with a hard vault separating waters above and waters below, it makes perfect sense.
The story makes no sense if the sky is a solid dome.

As does the imagery of the great dragon's tail in Revelation dislodging stars and having them fall to earth.
:rotfl:

When you use the word "imagery" that should be a large red flag. :chuckle:

The bottom line is the Bible was written by ancient people, who had an ancient understanding of how the earth and the sky "worked". And that is okay, because the Bible's message of salvation doesn't need modern science. Science simply isn't that important.
And maybe you're wrong. Maybe they were given a correct understanding by God (even if it was not fully grasped). That's possible, right?

That's because it was well understood at the time to mean a hard dome that held up water above it
That's the firmament on Earth (Genesis 1:6-8). It was the unbroken crust of the Earth as it was created. We can see the globe encircling seam that is a result of the rupture of the original crust with the wonders of Google Maps. :up:

and within the done the sun, moon and stars were fixed.
That's the expanse of heaven, also translated firmament (Genesis 1:14-18). Completely different thing and most certainly not solid. :nono:

You can read extrabilical sources that were very familiar to the writers of scripture(and most early Christians) to find out the exact nature of the firmament. This is primarily from the book of Enoch. It is even quoted in the book of Jude.
Or we can read the bible and figure out the truth. :thumb:

There's no Bilbical evidence that the firmament disappeared during the flood.
The verse you're looking for is this one:

Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

The fountains of the deep were "broken up" and the windows of heaven were opened. In that order. So it might well be reckoned that the first caused the second.

And a the end of the flood:
Genesis 8:2
The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

So it is very clear that two things featured in bringing water to the Earth - fountains and rainfall. And one can easily account for the rainfall with the fountains. And one can easily account for the fountains by putting the firmament (in Genesis 1:6-8) within the Earth's ancient ocean (the 'deep').

Science is what keeps you warm in the winter, provides enough food for you to eat and clean water for you to drink.

...you think science is such "tripe,"...
And if IK had said "science" was a crock you might have a point. Instead you conflate evolution with science.

Atheists should learn to debate what is actually said rather than what they wish was said. :up:
 

Alencon

New member
And if IK had said "science" was a crock you might have a point. Instead you conflate evolution with science.
"Science" is precisely what IK did say. I will repeat the quote for your benefit.

That way the kids are not spoon fed the tripe that is called 'science'.

Please note that it does in fact say "science" and not "evolution." In that statement the "tripe" is not limited to evolution. If that's what IK meant, then let IK clarify.

Then IK can explain to me how science can accomplish all that it does when one of its central unifying theories, The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution, also known as The Theory of Evolution, the basis of bountiful food, clean water and new medicines, is "tripe."
 

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame
Being trivially dismissive is your most persuasive argument?

Not quite as trivial as arguing creation/evolution with an athiest. The conversation will bear no fruit, so whats the point? I'm sure there will be things we can dicuss here on TOL in the future but, this one is pointless in my opinion. Sorry, if that sounds trite...I stated my opinion to the question, you disagree, I'm good with that.
 

DavisBJ

New member
Not quite as trivial as arguing creation/evolution with an atheist.
As per discussions on evolution, I have numerous scientific published studies, and in most cases I have no idea whether the authors are atheists or not. In a few cases, I know some of the most credible evolutionists are good Christians.
The conversation will bear no fruit, so what’s the point?
When one side has a stance that is immune to impartially evaluating evidence, then you are right. Thankfully, that mindset is usually limited to those fundamentalists who fear to objectively look at science.
 

Sherman

I identify as a Christian
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
One film that I challenge you folks to watch is Expelled by Ben Stien. Ben Stien not a Christian. This documentary showed how the academic elites control the educational system.

Evolution and the Big Bang are the sacred cows of academia. Anyone that challenges these are put down.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Like I said, if creation is to be taught I'm glad it will not be taught by you:


Hast thou with him spread out the sky, [which is] strong, [and] as a molten looking glass?


The strength need not mean a solid sky.
But it does make a lot more sense. With a modern understanding of the atmosphere, would you call it strong in any way related to a solid object?

It probably refers to a cloud.
I've flown through a cloud or two, I'm sure you have as well. You wouldn't refer to them as "strong" would you?

And you also neglect to mention the rest of the chapter which uses the perfectly normal atmospheric conditions that nobody has any problems with.
Why would anyone "have a problem" with atmospheric conditions? The ancient viewpoint of the sky is phenomenological. The difficulty comes only in the parts of the sky that are not visible.

The story makes no sense if the sky is a solid dome.
The sky isn't *simply* a solid dome. There are three heavens, as you'd know from Paul mentioning being caught up to the third one. The lower "atmospheric" one, the upper dome, and the realm of God which is on top of the supporting dome, which is the Heaven that most of us think of as the place Christians go after death or the realm of the angels.

When you use the word "imagery" that should be a large red flag. :chuckle:
Imagery has to make sense with one's understanding of the world.

And maybe you're wrong. Maybe they were given a correct understanding by God (even if it was not fully grasped). That's possible, right?
It's possible but there is no evidence for it in scripture. Either way I don't think it's important what the scientific understanding of the writers of scripture was. What is important is what their understanding of God was.

That's the firmament on Earth (Genesis 1:6-8).It was the unbroken crust of the Earth as it was created.
We've been over this stripe. You admitted you were wrong, and now you're back to the same nonsense. It's called HEAVEN. Heaven is not earth. Earth is not Sky. It's just amazing you are this stupid. But I guess when you read Walt Brown over and over you start to believe what is obviously contradictory.

And a the end of the flood:
Genesis 8:2
The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
And the rain comes from specific things called floodgates or windows that don't disappear at the end of the flood. You're more than happy to interpret the entire passage literally except for the floodgates, because windows/ gates have to be openings in something. Hmm I wonder what that something is . . . :doh:
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
One film that I challenge you folks to watch is Expelled by Ben Stien. Ben Stien not a Christian.
No, Ben Stein is an idiot.

This documentary showed how the academic elites control the educational system.
You mean slanted garbage set to tape?

Evolution and the Big Bang are the sacred cows of academia. Anyone that challenges these are put down.
Guess what? Talk about evolution in the wrong Christian universities and you're out!

And no, evolution and the Big bang are not sacred. But creationism isn't science and if you try to replace science with non-science, that's a problem.


I challenge YOU Inzl. Watch this documentary. It has actual *science* in it!
 

The Horn

BANNED
Banned
Teaching creationism in school as scientific fact makes about as much sense as teaching that Santa Claus and the Tooth fairy actually exist.
 

Skavau

New member
Ben Stein doesn't even understand the meaning of evolution. Quite literally. There is a video here (may contain some mild swearing, can't remember):

 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Should creation be taught in public school?

I am a Young Earth Creationist, but I doubt that most parents who send their kids to public school want my views taught to their children, so I have mixed feelings on the issue. Besides, it's not going to happen.
 

rexlunae

New member
One film that I challenge you folks to watch is Expelled by Ben Stien. Ben Stien not a Christian.

Ah yes, the film where the organizers kicked out PZ Myers from the screening, thus demonstrating that they are completely blind to irony.
 
Last edited:

HisServant

New member
It's a college topic.. a generally accepted theory that takes lots of actual observable scientific experiments to justify.

Given that our schools are failing at an alarming rate, getting back to the basics of the 3 basics seems to be something that would be more wise to argue about at this point.

Personally, I find the entire theory of evolution kind of fascinating, but given the level of science that is currently used as its underpinnings, I have no doubt that some new sort of theory of our beginnings will arrise in the next century or so.

To give an analogy.. we are at the 'flat earth' stage as to understanding our origins.. we still have the earth is round stage and the center of the universe stage to overcome before we have a real good handle on things.
 

voltaire

BANNED
Banned
The root of the word means
"to hammer out" and a
recent translation
translates it as "vault". It's
also referred to inJob
37:18. The sky is hard/
strong as a molten mirror.
NASB translates it this way
"Can you, with Him, spread
out the skies, Strong as a
molten mirror?
NIV like this
can you join him in
spreading out the skies,
hard as a mirror of cast
bronze?
This makes no sense with a
modern understanding of
atmosphere, but with a
hard vault separating
waters above and waters
below, it makes perfect
sense.
As does the imagery of the
great dragon's tail in
Revelation dislodging stars
and having them fall to
earth.
And his tail swept away a
third of the stars of heaven
and threw them to the
earth. And the dragon stood
before the woman who was
about to give birth, so that
when she gave birth he
might devour her child.
With our modern
understanding we know
that it is impossible for
stars to fall to earth, in fact
the earth would fall into a
star if it got near.
The bottom line is the Bible
was written by ancient
people, who had an ancient
understanding of how the
earth and the sky "worked".
And that is okay, because
the Bible's message of
salvation doesn't need
modern science. Science
simply isn't that important.---------Im not sure why you are going to such great pains to make sure firmament means a very hard solid shell covering the earth. Lets take it and go with it anyway. Its true that such a physical object is nowhere near what our atmosphere is. And your point? Yes, a dragon throwing down little points of light from such a shell would make sense to an ancient. So what? While it is true that it was ancient men who put ink to paper, it actually written by God himself. He inspired what was wrote. Nothing was written that he did not believe was true. Everything he wanted man to know was written. The message of salvation doesn't need science , but the creation story is not about the message of salvation and God would not lie about how he created the earth. God created science; he certainly thinks it is important and would not make an unscientific statement.
 

zoo22

Well-known member
One film that I challenge you folks to watch is Expelled by Ben Stien. Ben Stien not a Christian. This documentary showed how the academic elites control the educational system.

Evolution and the Big Bang are the sacred cows of academia. Anyone that challenges these are put down.

Expelled is a sham. Look into it. Yes, I've watched it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top