Religion (God)

hermione0457;80008 wrote:well i cant make an argument about stem cell or gay marriage... but i will make one on evolution. Here is my point. Isn't evoultion still a theory? Then why teach it and not Divine Creation? (or whatever its sctually called but you get the point) yeah, by scienfific standards its a theory, but so is Evolution. and my other point with this issue is this. They say another reason for not teaching divine creation is the fact that it is unfair to the "non-christian" population, who feel that God is being shoved down their throats. well its not fair for me, a christian, to have something that says what i believe in doesn't exist haved shoved down my throat. I'm not saying teach on or the other... whats wrong with teaching them both??

Yes it is a theory but it is a theory with support, it is not a faith based thing it is a science based thing. We do not say a book written thousands of years ago by someone no-one knew says its true so it must be. We have based our responses on the fact that the bone and body structure of us and other creature are so alike that we must have descended from a similar (if not the same) creature. its that or God is as all knowing and all seeing as you think seeing as how unoriginal he is...

Quote:Because God allows free will. And if you think about it, yes the words have been changed to suit our needs, but our use of words have changed since then too.

you just admitted that they have changed the words... if I say "though mayest rise above sin" then I change it to "though shalt rise above sin" Ive changed the entire context of the sentence going from you can choose your faith to you have to choose this faith... this is an example from the original hebrew bible to the ones that are in circulation now... so yes, the bible has been tampered with wether you want to believe it was on purpose or not it has happened...

Quote:Okay then, but your not getting the point of what i am trying to say. the analogy is a parallel between a watchmaker and his creation (the watch) and God and his creations (people, plant, animals...you get the picture). the type of watch or the history of the watch has absolutly NOTHING to do with the parallel!!!

This should be the right link to the clip... watch it for yourself before you argue about the history of the watch having something to do with my argument
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

apparently you didnt understand my point. my point is just because something is complex doesnt mean that it needed to be made by something, it all started in its most simple form in nature and evolved into what it is now...

Marine Corps;80011 wrote:Yes it is a theory but it is a theory with support, it is not a faith based thing it is a science based thing. We do not say a book written thousands of years ago by someone no-one knew says its true so it must be. We have based our responses on the fact that the bone and body structure of us and other creature are so alike that we must have descended from a similar (if not the same) creature. its that or God is as all knowing and all seeing as you think seeing as how unoriginal he is...

then in theory why are there still monkeys or whatever we evolved from around... why are there still those primates and not a whole bunch a humans???

Marine Corps;80011 wrote:you just admitted that they have changed the words... if I say "though mayest rise above sin" then I change it to "though shalt rise above sin" Ive changed the entire context of the sentence going from you can choose your faith to you have to choose this faith... this is an example from the original hebrew bible to the ones that are in circulation now... so yes, the bible has been tampered with wether you want to believe it was on purpose or not it has happened...

i never said that they didn't... and again two words... FREE WILL

Marine Corps;80011 wrote:apparently you didnt understand my point. my point is just because something is complex doesnt mean that it needed to be made by something, it all started in its most simple form in nature and evolved into what it is now...

ok, sorry bout that one. its early and i havent quite woken up my brain.

but how about the "offending non-christians" argument... can that stick when evoultion offends christians.

Quote: Isn't evoultion still a theory?

"Theory" doesn't mean what you think it means: in science, a "theory" is not "lol a guess!" - a theory is a collection of facts that are used to model and explain the world. Hence the theory of gravity or the theory of magnetism - it isn't that these things are just guesses. It isn't that I can go into a physics classroom one day and demand "Hey guys, gravity is great and all, but its just a THEORY - just like my theory that heavenly angels dressed in walrus skins are pushing everything down!".

Quote: yeah, by scienfific standards its a theory,

No, it isn't. Divine Creation doesn't seek to analyse evidence to explain the world (evolution takes our observation of animals and organisms in order to explain things. Creationism just says "I'm correct, just cuz!"), it doesn't have ANY predicitive powers whatsoever (Evolution makes predictions about what will happen to organisms and systems, and is thus the foundation of modern medicine, biology, etc,. Creationism just says "God did it", and so you can't predict anything), it isn't falsifiable (We can test whether the mechanisms of evolution hold up in a labratory. Creationism requires our faith)....creationism doesn't get anywhere near being a scientific theory.

Quote: whats wrong with teaching them both??

Well, I believe that *I* created the world in exactly 192.56611236593 days, so let's divide up our classrooms into 3 sections: one for creationism, one for Zaschism, and one for the most strongly supported scientific breakthroughs of the modern era.

Quote:Because God allows free will.

Science shows that this isn't the case. Furthermore, if God allows for free will, then why does he poison that by talking at all? After all, my will is somewhat infringed upon if you say "Well, you have choice A and B, but if you choose B then I'll mess you up!". If God is willing to do that, why doesn't God just come down redraft the Bible? We'd still have our "free will", but we'd just have better information on which to make our decisions.

Quote:then in theory why are there still monkeys or whatever we evolved from around... why are there still those primates and not a whole bunch a humans???

Evolutionary pressures didn't select for them. This is like asking "Well, if we *REALLY* go from being babies to being adults, then why are there still babies? Oh, gotcha there! I guess that means babies are, in fact, not human!" - it's absurd. Evolution isn't a process from "the bad" to "the good". Evolution simply means that the allele frequencies in certain populations will changed based on mutations and environmental pressures. For humans, our environment made being intelligent and using tools something that resulted in more reproduction. For other primates, that didn't happen - they had no need to develop larger brains or use tools or develop sophisticated language in order to survive.

Quote:i never said that they didn't... and again two words... FREE WILL

Free will is an absurd notion because we don't get to choose our desires, and our desires are the foundation of all of our actions. Science is increasingly showing that the illusion that we make a choice comes *after* the choice is actually made. Furthermore, once again, free will is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to your argument - either God has already infringed on free will by providing a Bible at all, or providing a Bible isn't an infringement on free will and thus he can provide us with a new one.

Quote:but how about the "offending non-christians" argument... can that stick when evoultion offends christians.

Because schools are not meant to be places where everyone just feels good :) Schools are meant to be places where learning occurs - and learning what is true is the primary function of schools. What if the history of slavery offends some white nationalist? What if he says that slavery never occured? DO we need to teach his version of history, too? Of course not, because his version of history is false, and it isn't the job of schools to make him feel better in his delusional belief.

You don't seem to know anything about the fundamental basics of what evolution even means. How much research have you done?

hermione0457;80013 wrote:then in theory why are there still monkeys or whatever we evolved from around... why are there still those primates and not a whole bunch a humans???

things evolve according to their environment so just because there are still primates (monkeys as you state) that doesnt mean that we couldnt have come from them, we could have just come from a certain species or group of the primates which needed to adapt to the change in environment.

Quote:i never said that they didn't... and again two words... FREE WILL

let me direct you attention to this
Quote:after some thought i have realized that there is no way to prove that the ancient text has been tampered with from the get go. Of courses there is no way to prove that it hasn't been either. because of my faith i believe that it hasn't, but its up to you to choose what you want to believe, not me.
which shows that you believe that the bible hasnt been tampered with but you state up above that they have thereby contradicting yourself...

Quote:ok, sorry bout that one. its early and i havent quite woken up my brain.
lol no worries I shouldnt have said the second one so sharply, sorry bout that...

Quote:but how about the "offending non-christians" argument... can that stick when evoultion offends christians.

christianity isnt even the biggest religion in the world so why always consider just them? Athiesm isnt a religion its a science so whats wrong with teaching a science, with supported facts, in a place of higher education? there are plenty of christian schools in the world so if they want to keep their children from learning what could potentialy be the truth (trying not to put down religion to much like zasch) about their creation they can send them there...

Marine Corps;80045 wrote:Quote:
after some thought i have realized that there is no way to prove that the ancient text has been tampered with from the get go. Of courses there is no way to prove that it hasn't been either. because of my faith i believe that it hasn't, but its up to you to choose what you want to believe, not me.

which shows that you believe that the bible hasnt been tampered with but you state up above that they have thereby contradicting yourself...
QUOTE]

Ok.... i am i confused teenager..... this is what i get for dying my hair blonde!!!!

ok moving on..... please.... no one take me out of context... not that anyone has but now wouldn't be the best time to start

if i haven't said it already... i'm new to my faith and im an extremly confused teeneager.... meaning at some point i am going to contradict my self... its just the way i am

Now.... here it is... the thought o' the day.... well there will be more but you get the point.....

In MY OPINION, I honestly have no clue what all had happened to the bible of the years. but this is what i do know.... the bible has gotten lost in translation.... but since i cant read hebrew, latin, or any other (dead/almost dead/not commonly used in the U.S.) language that i can't read, ill never really know the intent that they had.... and since none of the people that wrote it aren't exactly wandering the earth... can't exactly ask them what they meant or what God was telling them to write.......

If i have contradicted previous posts, please ignore them and please over quote and argue with me over this one...

ok so after some thought i get what you all are trying to say and i agree.... kinda

i think ID (Intelligent Design) (btw thats what it was called, sorry for the previous error) should be taught in schools....

just not in science classes.... it just not well scientific (i know, duh)

but in another thread in "Intelligent Design, Please Respond."

she meantions a teacher thinking that ID is unconstitutional...

here is the original post... with the part in question in a different color

jojobear;14831 wrote:I go to Rio Rancho High School. As many know, the issue of ID has risen in three major areas... one of which decided to teach it, another deemed it unconstitutional, and then there is my school-- still deciding... deciding whether or not ID is constitutional. It allows for teaching creationism, and "intellegent pushing downing" amongst other religous factors. However, with a lack of teachers qualified to teach this, and many students against it, the school board, (two of three who are of the religion) are for it. In my years at high school, I have been taught that science is something that can be proved. Now, the issue is lying on my school, and whether or not, throughout the nation ID will be allowed to be taught in the science class. I personally believe that it belongs in a philosophy, or a humanities class if they are so hell-bent on teaching it. Not in a science class. Any opinions? please... This is our last hope for keeping the science teachers who are still sound of mind.

it may be my faith clouding my judgement... but i don't see how it is unconstitutional.......

any thoughts??????

Courts have found ID to be unconstitutional because it violates the separation of church and state. They found intelligent design to simply be creationism in disguise (indeed, in the most popular "intelligent design" teaching material called 'Of Pandas and People', after creationism was found to be unconstitutional they tried changing all references to 'creationist' with 'design proponents' - they messed up once, though, and it ended up being 'cdesign proponentists') - since creationism is the creation myth of Christianity, teaching it as an "alternative" to established scientific theory is the promotion of religion by the state, which is barred under the first amendment.

as in the other thread..

any objections to it being taught at all???

in a humanities type class or a science elective.... NOT MANDITORY????

hermione0457;80092 wrote:Marine Corps;80045 wrote:Quote:
after some thought i have realized that there is no way to prove that the ancient text has been tampered with from the get go. Of courses there is no way to prove that it hasn't been either. because of my faith i believe that it hasn't, but its up to you to choose what you want to believe, not me.

which shows that you believe that the bible hasnt been tampered with but you state up above that they have thereby contradicting yourself...
QUOTE]

Ok.... i am i confused teenager..... this is what i get for dying my hair blonde!!!!

ok moving on..... please.... no one take me out of context... not that anyone has but now wouldn't be the best time to start

if i haven't said it already... i'm new to my faith and im an extremly confused teeneager.... meaning at some point i am going to contradict my self... its just the way i am

Now.... here it is... the thought o' the day.... well there will be more but you get the point.....

In MY OPINION, I honestly have no clue what all had happened to the bible of the years. but this is what i do know.... the bible has gotten lost in translation.... but since i cant read hebrew, latin, or any other (dead/almost dead/not commonly used in the U.S.) language that i can't read, ill never really know the intent that they had.... and since none of the people that wrote it aren't exactly wandering the earth... can't exactly ask them what they meant or what God was telling them to write.......

If i have contradicted previous posts, please ignore them and please over quote and argue with me over this one...
well if you want to go by the bible then cain is still walking the earth... but thats because he killed abel, got cursed, and was told to walk the earth until the end of time... but anyways as for your "any objections to it being taught at all???" I couldnt care less as long as no-one in or around the class involves me in anyway except an intelligent theological debate like the one taking place here...

what your religion guyz?