Creationism SHOULD be taught in school. ( alongside science theories! )

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Krazysh0t

lol
mind firmly closed
you lose your own struggle for understanding that way.
indeed you could benefit from the teachings of jesus

I'm an ex-Christian. I've been open minded about the bible. I spent the better part of the first half of my life being open minded about Christianity. I stopped believing because the religion cannot prove any of its claims while everyone from the believers to even the church fails to behave like Jesus taught. The US seems to think that Jesus and guns are compatible for instance.

So I find it easier to steal the teachings that make sense and are logical (like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you") and apply them while discarding all the fluff and superstition.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

the things you claim to use that you like in the bible can also be found in science.

the 10 commandments are just the basis for current and the laws that govern such.

ex. SIN
sin is just a send that fails to reach the receiver and that energy in turn creates a drag or loss on the sender

sin= no destination
send=in route to destination
sent=delivered to the mark

of coarse this is all based on phonics and not writing

dude it is all there but takes much understanding

jesus had a unique outlook cause he was from the source and not just a part of the whole as we are

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

*sigh* this thread was resurrected for no good reason, lol.

I've conceded something like a year ago that I was wrong, yet people want to discuss this more, I suppose. I'm not longer a part of this discussion really. Someone replied wayyyy later on.

now you have been witness to a real life reserrection

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: deadlyhope

Creationism is bogus, IT SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS. Keep religion out of schools and we'll keep science out of your church.

Not as a science, but as a part of learning world cultures and world philosophies.

I think there is a great benefit to learning of (say) Hinduism, ancient world cultural beliefs, African culture and native beliefs, Native American culture and beliefs (or Australian Aboriginal, NZ Maori, English Celts, etc.), old-world western cultural beliefs, which includes Judeo-Muslim-Christian beliefs.

Those studies would touch upon creation beliefs/stories of each of those cultures.

Put it this way, if my child came home from school and said they learned about Biblical Genesis and/or the Hindu Vedas in science class, I'd be upset. However, if she said they learned about it in world culture class, then I'd be glad the school was teaching a well-rounded curriculum.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Krazysh0t

the things you claim to use that you like in the bible can also be found in science.

the 10 commandments are just the basis for current and the laws that govern such.

No they aren't. Half of the commandments are strictly about worshiping god and the other half are about morality. Science addresses neither.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Krazysh0t

the things you claim to use that you like in the bible can also be found in science.

the 10 commandments are just the basis for current and the laws that govern such.

No they aren't. Half of the commandments are strictly about worshiping god and the other half are about morality. Science addresses neither.

well i guess that is very well settled in your mind so the rest of the world can give up on understanding because it is now settled in your mind

you are wrong but you will not realize it until you try to understand.

the science is in them but you gotta search for it

did you know that words mean things and sometimes they mean more than one thing.

the fundamentals of current reside in the ten commandments and you simply stating that it is not does not render the fabric of the universe inert.

so easy to disagree but super hard to search for truth at least for you

let us take do not kill for example

now how far would anything get if it killed everything in its path? what characteristics would be imparted upon that killer ? how long would we last if we killed? so many more questions on the subject but i fear you will not even make it this far into the post much less actually ponder such.

a reply to: howtonhawky

did you know that words mean things and sometimes they mean more than one thing.

So what? Science has one EXACT definition. It is a way to answer questions about the universe that adheres to a strict process of testing and experimentation to get the most exact answer. You can't arbitrarily decide it means something more just because you want to reconcile it with religion.

the fundamentals of current reside in the ten commandments and you simply stating that it is not does not render the fabric of the universe inert.

This claim makes zero sense. You mean current, like electricity? Because no. There isn't electric current in the Ten Commandments.

let us take do not kill for example

now how far would anything get if it killed everything in its path? what characteristics would be imparted upon that killer ? how long would we last if we killed? so many more questions on the subject but i fear you will not even make it this far into the post much less actually ponder such.

This is philosophy, not science.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

lol you do not accept anything other than what you are programmed to and much worse you do not even try to see any likeness i speak of.

as if philosophy and science have no connections

being close minded is far worse than being ignorant

the connections between science and religion are real life

huffington

Below are listed the seven days of creation, day by day, and what happened according to Genesis in the Old Testament. With each day we examine how it corresponds with current scientific information. In this comparison, the seven days are not important; it is the description of what took place on each day, and in what order, that is relevant.

answersingenesis.org...

The Bible explains when God intervened supernaturally at key points in history in ways that affect what astronomers, geologists, biologists, and anthropologists study. Without this record, we would be in the dark about these events, but with it we can understand the world we see today.

truthfortheworld.org...

The Bible is not a geography book or an archaeology book. However, whenever the Bible makes a statement relating to these sciences, it is completely accurate. Notice the Lord’s statement for example, in Luke 10:30. Jesus made answer and said, A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Now, Jericho is northeast of Jerusalem, and normally we do not speak of going down when we refer to going north. We generally speak of going down south and up north, don’t we? Why did the Lord say the man went down from Jerusalem? It is because Jerusalem is some 2,500 feet (762 meters) above sea level. When one leaves Jerusalem in Palestine he goes down to go anywhere in the area. Therefore, our Lord’s statement is completely accurate, and is recorded accurately by inspiration. No, the Bible is not a geography book, but it is geographically accurate in every instance.

www.eternal-productions.org...

Science means knowledge, and true science always agrees with the observable evidence. Scientific research continues to unfold the wonders and mysteries of our universe. Interestingly, there is one book that has anticipated many of these scientific facts. That book is the Bible. This booklet presents 101 scientific facts found in the Scriptures. Many of these facts were penned centuries before they were discovered. Scientific foreknowledge found only in the Bible offers one more piece to the collective proof that the Bible is truly the inspired Word of the Creator. How does this affect you? The last several pages provide the answer – you need to read them carefully.

There can be a bridge if we want one

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Kryties

Well there goes the civilized request, right out the window from the get go.

If you knew more about this topic, you'd realize it's not magic, and that current studies of quantum physics and the like yield results far more insane than the existence of a higher being.

No, it's magic. You're saying that a big bearded man in the sky waved his hands and invented the universe, all based on a book of Bronze and Iron Age legends. That's not a theory that's a legend.
Evolution is based on science. Facts, observable behaviour, fossils... where do I stop?

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Krazysh0t

lol you do not accept anything other than what you are programmed to and much worse you do not even try to see any likeness i speak of.

as if philosophy and science have no connections

being close minded is far worse than being ignorant

the connections between science and religion are real life

It's funny how you talk to me about programming when religion requires you to brainwash yourself through repetition to the point that you never question what you are saying.

Religion decides the truth then makes the evidence fit that truth. Science asks a question then build evidence to answer it. The two can NEVER be reconciled as their processes contradict each other. Religion comes down to glorified guesses using confirmation bias to never shake your faith and science updates its thinking as it is wrong.

You can call me close minded all you want and fling whatever other ad hominems you want because I refuse to agree with you, but at the end of the day you can never have the two together.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

surely you do not believe that i do not question my words.

you are still wrong despite facts that the two can be bridged.

when you look you can find all aspects of our current education in the bible.

not just science or philosophy

guess what the good news is.

you can be you and i will still love you as a fellow human

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Krazysh0t

surely you do not believe that i do not question my words.

You keep accusing me of being closed minded. So I'm going to go ahead and believe you don't ever question your faith. There now we are both arrogantly jumping to conclusions despite not knowing the other person outside of their screen name.

you are still wrong despite facts that the two can be bridged.

If I'm so wrong then explain how Christianity follows the scientific method. You still haven't done that but keep assuring me that I'm wrong.

when you look you can find all aspects of our current education in the bible.

That's strange. I can't find any references to nuclear physics in the Bible. I can't find anything about vaccines or supernovas or black holes or the Marina Trench.

not just science or philosophy

guess what the good news is.

you can be you and i will still love you as a fellow human

Let's put it this way. I trust science because science produces results that I can rely on. If I get sick, science has produced a medicine by studying the symptoms of that illness along with its causes and then producing a aid that will help my body fight the infection. Meanwhile, religion tells me to pray until I get healthier. If that illness happened to be Syphilis or some other highly deadly disease I'd rather not trust my health to prayer.

Until religion provides more than, "trust me I'm real" there is no point in believing in any of it. As such, the teachings are fine but the superstition is useless.

a reply to: Krazysh0t



the info you requested is in my post if you search but you do not want truth you want division.

so be it

Creationism should absolutely be taught in schools.

How will the children learn how to ID and dismiss BS if we don't teach them?

originally posted by: deadlyhope
I've seen a lot of threads, and plenty of articles and opinions elsewhere saying that creationism should not be taught in school, and frankly, I must disagree. School is supposed to teach the kids to think for themselves, not to follow the agenda of one political party. Evolution, and creationism should be taught in the same classroom as these are both the most widely accepted theories on how the world came about. If a third opinion came about, and was accepted and believed by a large amount of people, I would encourage that being taught, too.

You see, it's not about religion. I wouldn't tell the teacher to teach about prayer, morality, they aren't going to tell these kids how to conduct their lives under the banner of a specific sect, that's not what i am talking about - I am talking about teaching the most commonly accepted theories on how this world came about, even if conservatives dislike science and evolution, and even if liberals dislike creationism.

If anyone here on ats is several billion years old and can prove they are so old, we can have a law, or fact, or assurity on how the world came about, and we can be sure that schools only teach that. In the meantime, while we are working with theories, while we don't have a DVD that recorded earth billions of years ago, we should be teaching kids in an open minded way, we shouldn't be so quick to pigeonhole their thinking to accept only one answer - an answer that is just as much a theory itself as anything else.

I believe this should apply to all classrooms - teach the kids real history, tell them how other countries, and we interpret that history, then let them decide for themselves how to learn from the past. When I grew up I was simply reading a comic book featuring the great hero, USA.

While I realize I'll get some flack from the other side - please keep it civilized, and attempt to explain why the most common theory - THEORY - about how the world was made, should not be taught to children.

For the record - I'm talking about how the world came about, not about mutations of species and evolution over time - I realize some aspects are indeed facts, and believe schools should teach them as such.

Cheers ats, have a great weekend.

-deadlyhope

This is really simple.

Creationism is NOT a theory. It's a HYPOTHESIS. The big bang is an actual theory. A hypothesis has no evidence to back it up, while a theory can and does. You need to up your education, real talk.

originally posted by: peck420
Creationism should absolutely be taught in schools.
How will the children learn how to ID and dismiss BS if we don't teach them?

Then... on to chiropractic treatment!

the·o·ry
ˈTHirē/Submit
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.


hy·poth·e·sis
hīˈpäTHəsəs/Submit
noun
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

creationism is both a theory and hypothesis




it really just depends on ones desire to degrade or renew the line of thinking

originally posted by: howtonhawky
the·o·ry
ˈTHirē/Submit
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.


hy·poth·e·sis
hīˈpäTHəsəs/Submit
noun
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

creationism is both a theory and hypothesis

it really just depends on ones desire to degrade or renew the line of thinking

No. The "limited" evidence is a book written by a person with no actual evidence, there is no evidence of God, therefor there cannot be evidence of him creating the planet. You don't understand what "Evidence" is.

Ha! To OP. I don't think you know who is running things in 'schools'.

And for those looking for material evidence of God. If God wanted his presence known, as a fact, in this world, there would be no question of it. On the other hand, if He wished to be concealed, you would not find any evidence of it. No evidence does not equal does not exist. This world, IMO, serves a purpose. A purpose chosen by God.