Post Reply
Page 4 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Creation and Bible in the School.
3 years ago  ::  Jul 16, 2011 - 12:08AM #31
anidominus
Posts: 105

Jul 15, 2011 -- 9:26PM, amcolph wrote:


Not all Christians are Young Earth Creationists, and not all of them want Creationism taught in public school science classes.  Perhaps you should be more specific.



My statement was fine.  If it doesn't apply to you then it doesn't apply to you.  Would my statement had been clearer if I used the phrase "some Chrisitian...."?


It makes a significant difference whether it was World History or Science.



 In this climate, I doubt it.  Do you really think the seperation of church and state people would be fine with creationism being taught as word history?  The point is, people need the option.  If they want to teach creation science then let them.


It must be an unusual community indeed in which all the taxpayers, all the parents and all the students are YEC Christians.



All the people didn't want the war in Iraq, but all the law abiding people will help pay for it.  All the people didn't want obama care, but all the law abiding peole will help pay for it.  "All" have never been a requirement for any tax dollars to be used for a purpose, only the dominance of opinion.


  Even so, to teach young-Earth creationism as science would be to seriously mislead the students, as it is definitely not science.




That's one opinion, and until you prove the big bang or whatever other kind of theory you guys have floating around out there it will continue to be an opinion. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 16, 2011 - 8:21AM #32
amcolph
Posts: 18,251

Jul 16, 2011 -- 12:08AM, anidominus wrote:


 


My statement was fine.  If it doesn't apply to you then it doesn't apply to you.  Would my statement had been clearer if I used the phrase "some Chrisitian...."?



Most young-Earth creationists are Dispensationalists--that is, they are only "Christian" in the broad sense which also includes other novelty sects like the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses.  To say that young-Earth creationism is a "Christian" doctrine is thus somewhat misleading.


 

In this climate, I doubt it.  Do you really think the seperation of church and state people would be fine with creationism being taught as word history?  The point is, people need the option.  If they want to teach creation science then let them.



In World History would be fine, along with other religious creation myths, not as World History.  It isn't history any more than it is science. 



All the people didn't want the war in Iraq, but all the law abiding people will help pay for it.  All the people didn't want obama care, but all the law abiding peole will help pay for it.  "All" have never been a requirement for any tax dollars to be used for a purpose, only the dominance of opinion.



It is in the public schools.  There is no reason why any student should be subject to religious indoctrination by a sect he does not belong to.




That's one opinion, and until you prove the big bang or whatever other kind of theory you guys have floating around out there it will continue to be an opinion. 




Scientific theories are never proven.  They are accepted as provisional explanations for a group of phenomena until disproven by contradictory evidence.


Young-Earth creationism as a scientific theory was disproven two hundred years ago. 


 

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 16, 2011 - 11:33AM #33
anidominus
Posts: 105

Jul 16, 2011 -- 8:21AM, amcolph wrote:


Most young-Earth creationists are Dispensationalists--that is, they are only "Christian" in the broad sense which also includes other novelty sects like the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses.  To say that young-Earth creationism is a "Christian" doctrine is thus somewhat misleading.



Many times, a simple yes or no would be fine.  As the information provided here is irrelevent and doesn't answer the question.


 


 

In World History would be fine, along with other religious creation myths, not as World History.  It isn't history any more than it is science.



There is no diffrence between the "In" and the "As".  Anything taught in World History is being taught as World History regardless if only a particular culture believes the history.  It's World History according to that group.  Since no one knows exactly how World History started then each group should be allowed the freedom to teach as little or as much as the diffrent opinions that are available.  It's no diffrence when there is a diffrence of opionion on other issues related to world history.  You may teach the dominating opinion along with several other opinions.


This should also be the same in science class when things are disputed.  There are things in science that people don't dispute because its a fact.  There is nothing wrong with presenting facts as facts, however, science has moved in to the realm of teaching theories as facts and then disallowing any other conflicting theory the time of day.  If the conflicting ideas are so stupid, disprovable, and wrong, then there shouldn't be a problem in letting it be heard because then people get an opportunity to hear how bad it is themselves and go their own way but that's not what is happening.


It is in the public schools.  There is no reason why any student should be subject to religious indoctrination by a sect he does not belong to.



If this were true then nothing controversal would ever be taught in schools.  Pro homosexual activism is happening all over the US in schools and many Christians don't want that in their local schools.  Unless you pose to tell me that religious indoctrination is bad, but political indoctrination is just fine.



Scientific theories are never proven.  They are accepted as provisional explanations for a group of phenomena until disproven by contradictory evidence.




Um... scientific theories can be proven and when they are they become facts.  Unless you're just being semantical with your words and if that's the case you are correct.



Young-Earth creationism as a scientific theory was disproven two hundred years ago.




Wishful thinking on your part.  If it was so disprovable then they shouldn't have any problems with talking about creation science and then presenting the experiement that disproved it.  This has been done in other areas of science so why not this one?  The fact is, they haven't disproven anything and the reason they don't like creation sceiecne is because the consequence of it being true would turn all of sceince upside down.  People don't like to have 30 and 40 years of their work flushed down the toilet and they will do anything to protect it regardless of how scientific they are because scientist are people.  People will fight to the death to protect the status quo.  This has been proven over and over again.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 16, 2011 - 1:08PM #34
amcolph
Posts: 18,251

Jul 16, 2011 -- 11:33AM, anidominus wrote:


 


This should also be the same in science class when things are disputed.  There are things in science that people don't dispute because its a fact.  There is nothing wrong with presenting facts as facts, however, science has moved in to the realm of teaching theories as facts and then disallowing any other conflicting theory the time of day.



With respect to the biological theory of evolution, there are no credible competing theories. 


With respect to the origin of the universe, the various competing theories are presented.


 


If this were true then nothing controversal would ever be taught in schools.  Pro homosexual activism is happening all over the US in schools...



I believe that to be false.  Do you have any actual evidence to the contrary?


 


 


 


Um... scientific theories can be proven and when they are they become facts.  Unless you're just being semantical with your words and if that's the case you are correct.



  I'm not just "being semantical."  Scientific theories are based on facts.  They never become facts.


 



Wishful thinking on your part.  If it was so disprovable then they shouldn't have any problems with talking about creation science and then presenting the experiement that disproved it.  This has been done in other areas of science so why not this one?



It has been done.  It's just not worth taking too much time in science classes dwelling on discredited theories from the 19th century.



This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 16, 2011 - 1:46PM #35
anidominus
Posts: 105

Jul 16, 2011 -- 1:08PM, amcolph wrote:


With respect to the biological theory of evolution, there are no credible competing theories. 


With respect to the origin of the universe, the various competing theories are presented.



I believe that to be false.  Do you have any actual evidence to the contrary?


 


I believe that to be false.  Do you have any actual evidence to the contrary?




www.tysknews.com/Depts/Educate/Homosexua...
www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_in_S...
www.jeremiahproject.com/trashingamerica/...
www.massresistance.org/media/video/brain...
www.religioustolerance.org/homteach.htm
tnjn.com/2008/feb/21/homosexuality-in-sc...
www.citizenlink.com/2011/07/07/32025/


It has been done.  It's just not worth taking too much time in science classes dwelling on discredited theories from the 19th century.



I believe that to be false.  Do you have any actual evidence to the contrary?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 16, 2011 - 2:21PM #36
amcolph
Posts: 18,251

Jul 16, 2011 -- 1:46PM, anidominus wrote:


Jul 16, 2011 -- 1:08PM, amcolph wrote:


With respect to the biological theory of evolution, there are no credible competing theories. 


With respect to the origin of the universe, the various competing theories are presented.



I believe that to be false.  Do you have any actual evidence to the contrary?



Do you know of any credible competing theories which are not being presented?


 




LOL!


It has been done.  It's just not worth taking too much time in science classes dwelling on discredited theories from the 19th century.



I believe that to be false.  Do you have any actual evidence to the contrary?





Plently, but I believe that the discussion is more appropriate on the Origins board, as you appear to believe that young Earth creationism is actually scientific, rather than just a religious doctrine you want introduced into the public schools.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 16, 2011 - 9:16PM #37
christzen
Posts: 6,848

May 31, 2011 -- 2:09AM, Vistronic wrote:

Creation by God should be taught as a option to secular origin of life.
In addtion The Bible in western history and us history should be taught.
I see no establishment of religion stating the above.

Allow the schools the freedom, no fed thought police needed or wanted.

Vis. 



 


I will agree,when the Christians also agree to let schools teach the Hindu version of Creation which states that the Universe is in a constant cycle of something like 711 TRILLION years of existence,followed by the same amount of nonexistence,and then repeat the existence/nonexistence cycle eternally.


 


Not a Hindu,but fairs fair,and the Hindu version makes more sense than any of the religious explanations.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 16, 2011 - 11:36PM #38
anidominus
Posts: 105

Jul 16, 2011 -- 9:16PM, christzen wrote:


May 31, 2011 -- 2:09AM, Vistronic wrote:

Creation by God should be taught as a option to secular origin of life.
In addtion The Bible in western history and us history should be taught.
I see no establishment of religion stating the above.

Allow the schools the freedom, no fed thought police needed or wanted.

Vis. 



 


I will agree,when the Christians also agree to let schools teach the Hindu version of Creation which states that the Universe is in a constant cycle of something like 711 TRILLION years of existence,followed by the same amount of nonexistence,and then repeat the existence/nonexistence cycle eternally.


 


Not a Hindu,but fairs fair,and the Hindu version makes more sense than any of the religious explanations.





If there is a community of Hindu's out there that want that version of creation in their schools I'm perfectly fine with letting them have it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 16, 2011 - 11:41PM #39
christzen
Posts: 6,848

Jul 16, 2011 -- 11:36PM, anidominus wrote:


Jul 16, 2011 -- 9:16PM, christzen wrote:


May 31, 2011 -- 2:09AM, Vistronic wrote:

Creation by God should be taught as a option to secular origin of life.
In addtion The Bible in western history and us history should be taught.
I see no establishment of religion stating the above.

Allow the schools the freedom, no fed thought police needed or wanted.

Vis. 



 


I will agree,when the Christians also agree to let schools teach the Hindu version of Creation which states that the Universe is in a constant cycle of something like 711 TRILLION years of existence,followed by the same amount of nonexistence,and then repeat the existence/nonexistence cycle eternally.


 


Not a Hindu,but fairs fair,and the Hindu version makes more sense than any of the religious explanations.





If there is a community of Hindu's out there that want that version of creation in their schools I'm perfectly fine with letting them have it.




 


 


So most of the public the schools you are thinking of belong to the Christians ?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 16, 2011 - 11:53PM #40
anidominus
Posts: 105

Jul 16, 2011 -- 11:41PM, christzen wrote:


Jul 16, 2011 -- 11:36PM, anidominus wrote:


Jul 16, 2011 -- 9:16PM, christzen wrote:


May 31, 2011 -- 2:09AM, Vistronic wrote:

Creation by God should be taught as a option to secular origin of life.
In addtion The Bible in western history and us history should be taught.
I see no establishment of religion stating the above.

Allow the schools the freedom, no fed thought police needed or wanted.

Vis. 



 


I will agree,when the Christians also agree to let schools teach the Hindu version of Creation which states that the Universe is in a constant cycle of something like 711 TRILLION years of existence,followed by the same amount of nonexistence,and then repeat the existence/nonexistence cycle eternally.


 


Not a Hindu,but fairs fair,and the Hindu version makes more sense than any of the religious explanations.





If there is a community of Hindu's out there that want that version of creation in their schools I'm perfectly fine with letting them have it.




 


 


So the schools you are thinking of belong to Christians only?





I don't know what you're talking about.  If you are implying that no law or behavior be implemented in schools unless there is 100% agreement I would have to believe you have a severe lack of understanding of law.  Law does not require, nor has it ever required, 100% of a population to agree with a proposed law in order for it to become law.


I don't understand why this is so difficult for you freedom loving people to understand.  There is a reason Mormons dominate Utah and in particular Salt Lake City.  The reason is simple, they did not gel well with the other religious populations and so they left and formed their own cities elsewhere.  That's Freedom.


There is a reason why when I drive down Buford Hwy in Georgia that there is a stretch I can't find any English.  It's because the people who live and shop over their are prodominately Hispanic and Asian.  I don't have a problem with it.  If I don't like it I can drive my car elsewhere and if I can't, I don't have to stop at any of the stores.  That's Freedom.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook