It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Battle Against Teaching Evolution in Texas Begins: Should creationism win out, textbooks throughout

page: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   


Calling him a scientist is rather demeaning actually. If he truly had a direct connection to God the Creator, then he would by that nature have an understanding that transcends even science. As he would know everything, or at least, access to the knowledge of everything.
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Jesus had many names and titles. I rightly, added scientist to the list.
See the definition of scientist. "As he would know everything, or at least, access to the knowledge of everything. " Your statment defines him as a
scientist.

Titles of Christ, from Bible, that start with the letter A.
Advocate (1 John 2:1)
Almighty (Rev. 1:8; Mt. 28:18)
Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:8; 22:13)
Amen (Rev. 3:14)
Apostle of our Profession (Heb. 3:1)
Atoning Sacrifice for our Sins (1 John 2:2)
Author of Life (Acts 3:15)
Author and Perfecter of our Faith (Heb. 12:2)
Author of Salvation (Heb. 2:10)




posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Parabol
 


I was atually referring to Parabol's avatar, from the Pink Floyd album 'Dark side of the Moon'

(Although there really is no 'dark side'...a misnomer)

WW



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Howie47

Jesus had many names and titles. I rightly, added scientist to the list.
See the definition of scientist.


In fact, you should infer the definition of 'science' and 'scientist' from what everyone had said in this entire thread, rather then me infering a definition of 'scientist' from you one post!

But anyways, I am not trying to undermine Jesus. And my point stands, titling Christ, in light of his direct connection to an All-Knowing Creator, as a 'scientist' is absurd, as his knowledge at that point would transcend science. What use would he have with the 'scientific method' if he was already privy to the answer?

If you give credence to The Gospels then calling him a scientist is as obsolete as calling him a carpenter..



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Parabol
 


Parabol people can be Anti-Church and at the same time Pro-God.

All the points you brought up in context to Keenan was views on religious orthodoxy and the Church.

I personally saw a paradigm change in Tools music, a spiritual shift if you will, from Lateralus. In fact the song Parabol, very much alludes a transcension into the Divine. From 10, 000 days the song 10,000 days, suggest similar imo. Anyways, I don't think Maynard is an atheist by any stretch.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I think I'd put myself in the group of anti-religion, pro-God. Maynard is definitely one of those writers that you can learn a lot about if you know how and where to look. At first I enjoyed their style of music but as I began listening to his words and symbolism I found he was pretty deep. A very intelligent man, check out some of his interviews if you never have.

What's great about his writing is that he focuses, to me at least, on the right things. The personal, spiritual side of religion and God. When I went to church I never felt like anyone taught me how to understand my consciousness, or the nature of my being. There's such a wide world there if you look for it, but I feel the general nature of 'preached' religion is to stay on the surface, sort of an 'everyman' type strategy.

Once I started seeing the deeper personal side some of the Bible meant a lot more to me, when I saw that it didn't need to be divine. In the sense that, God didn't have to come down and tell these people to write, they were men and women like you and I who were inspired to write about their lives or life in general. Some of the writing is just beautiful on it's own, and when I began to appreciate that I think I saw the idea of God in a less fearful, overbearing way. Everything became more relaxed, I have no fear of hell or death whatsoever. I'm not saying I'm the most righteous person but I have no reason to fear those things. I don't think about heaven either, I'm sure something is there but doing my best to get there seems pointless. I should live my life the way I want to live it, and if that's sinful, then it's sinful, but it's my choice. I don't 'do good' because I want to go to heaven or avoid hell, I do it because I choose to and it makes me feel good. Not that other people don't do it for those reasons, but personally, that's how I changed.

I know this seems off topic but for me it's about the point of this evolution vs creationism argument. Who cares? What does it matter if you believe otherwise? Like with abortion, I think people should make their own choices. If some lady down the street and a doctor agree to the procedure, then who am I to tell them to stop? What right or power do I have? The act affects my life in no way at all, just like others believe in creationism doesn't affect me.

Now, when it comes to teaching my child in school, I care.


reply to post by weedwacker

Ahh, it was the Floyd. What an incredible band and album. I can't think of that many albums which listening to the first song almost requires hearing the rest of it. I wish people made music like this today. Damn you Nickelback!!! *pan to overheard shot, shakes fist in the air*



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
My stance still stands in regards to schooling:

Creationism and or ID theory does not belong in Science class but it does belong in school.

For one primary reason if nothing else: School's purpose is to prepare children for the real world. In the real world religions and spirituality is huge, regardless of which side you end up on.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Just what if both sides of the arguement were right, except that the creationist would have to concede that the GOD that they think made us is really the the true GOD's that helped create our physical containers in their likeness and that evolution does indeed take place as is scientifically evidenced, but not in the fashion or by any means who the scientific community would have us believe based on thier so called facts and findings.

The problem of course is that those of the religious contingent would have to give up the concept that humanity is a lot older than they seem willing to agree too. And if they were to pay more close attention to the book of Genesis and the plural uses of various words then they would have to concede that there were more than just one GOD that created us.

As for science, I believe strongly that many of them at various levels of the "in the know" variety know the truth and is the way of most educated teachings the truth has been changed to protect the few and many institutions including religions.

It still has to be pointed out that like in so many things about or world and the all that goes on, that politics and religion are really just two different sides of the same coin as is science and religion for that matter as well.




posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Enjoying this debate, so i'll chime-in again:

Personal belief is a HUGE part, obviously. I'm not a smart scientist, or a
smart Catholic; but i DID stay at a Holiday Inn last night!
just kid'n...

Seriously, fossils can't be denied; but i guess God can. I'm just not entirely
convinced of evolution of humans through present fossil comparisons!

"Intelligent Design" implies creation from someone. Be it from invisible
dieties, or a superior laboratory experimenter... My question is "WHO"? or
"WHICH"?

With all the UFO sightings, it's possible that 'we' were created by a more
advanced other-world-lifeform, who comes back periodically, to check on
us, & see how we're doing-

Boy, they must be furious with us!!!!!!! (wars, murders, crime, corruption)

And if it WAS God, (and we're taught that Jesus is coming back), then he's
gonna be angry, too! (wars, murders, crime, and NON-believers)!

I try to balance both; because i believe we are responsible for how we
treat others; (by man's law, AND God's law)



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by FRIGHTENER

Personal belief is a HUGE part, obviously. I'm not a smart scientist, or a
smart Catholic; but i DID stay at a Holiday Inn last night!
just kid'n...


That doesn't beat how much money I saved by switching to Science



Seriously, fossils can't be denied; but i guess God can. I'm just not entirely
convinced of evolution of humans through present fossil comparisons!


The facts that support the theory of Evolution cannot be denied, no. That would be an intellectual travesty. The oh so important why is still very much debatable. That's paramount.


"Intelligent Design" implies creation from someone. Be it from invisible
dieties, or a superior laboratory experimenter... My question is "WHO"? or
"WHICH"?


No matter what, no matter what belief system, or flavor of science, you subscribe, you have to address the idea of Origin. The beginning of the beginning. The Alpha point. Chicken egg paradox. What came first? More importantly then 'what', is purely the acknowledgment that there was a first...or that there wasn't a first. Either way, the implications are so very staggering..

If the Universe always exsisted and wasn't "created", then it didn't come from anywhere, it just was, the matter and the energy just was, and by that nature, will always be. That's mind boggling. Where did the matter and energy come from? No scientific theory can rectify that. The idea that the Universe just always was, is impossible through a scientific rationale *at least the type of science discussed in this thread*. But I believe in miracles so I believe the Universe always was


My theory on God making the Universe is that the Universe wasn't made, it always was, and I call that 'wasness' God. By Universe I am really talking about existence itself and not necessarily the known Universe

Now if the Universe didn't always exist. That implies it was made from a force outside Nature. And since the Universe is Nature, It wouldn't make intellectual sense to call that force scientific, for that reason. It would make more sense to call an external force God, Divine, or a similar spiritual concept.

It's all about contemplating the origin of origin imho.


With all the UFO sightings, it's possible that 'we' were created by a more
advanced other-world-lifeform, who comes back periodically, to check on
us, & see how we're doing-


In light of all the UFO and abductions I would go so far as to say it's likely.

But them being our 'Gods' doesn't address the origin of origin paradox, as we could just say "well who made the aliens".



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy


That doesn't beat how much money I saved by switching to Science


Excellent come-back, Lucid; I love it!
Star!


No matter what, no matter what belief system, or flavor of science, you subscribe, you have to address the idea of Origin. The beginning of the beginning. The Alpha point. Chicken egg paradox. What came first?


Great comparison!



But I believe in miracles


Good to hear, so do i.


It would make more sense to call an external force God, Divine, or a similar spiritual concept.


Amen?


In light of all the UFO and abductions I would go so far as to say it's likely.


Me too, Scully!



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
You mentioned the scientific method of observation - unfortunately, empirical science, as it is called, is not now considered science and hasn't been for approximately 100 years. Unless you meant something else by "observation"...?


What? Empirical science is still alive and flourishing in the artificial "medical sciences" relating to diseases of thought. That form of medicine might have started with the bad science of Freud but it has continued right up to today with very, very little in the way of any actual science. Not one consistent physical cause has been given for any disease in the DSM IV. Yet everyone with a TV "believes", for example, that depression and ADHD are a fully qualified diseases. But a real disease needs a physical cause and not only a statistical diagnosis.

Jon



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Of course evolution is real. It is very simple.

This is how it works:

Say you have five rats. Only two out of three of these rats live long enough to have little ratty babies. Half of these ratty babies survive.

Another of these rats manage to have ratty babies but these babies die shortly after being born so don't have babies themselves.

Now let's say there was a very harsh winter and the rats that had a gene which gave them very warm fur survived. All of those rats which didn't have the warm fur gene or who didn't inherit the warm fur gene (like the ratty babies that died) die.

These means that the next generation of rats will ALL have the warm fur gene because the cool fur gene doesn't exist anymore.

This is evolution.

If you didn't understand that that ask yourself:

How do you think things like viruses and bacteria change all the time? Why do we have different species of certain animals?

Just look at humans! We have different hair colours, skin colours, eye shapes! Where did these differences come from if not evolution? Now some people will misunderstand and think that I'm trying to say that human races are different types of humans etc... but I'm not saying that at all. Race doesn't even exist in humans biologically. But I won't get into a discussion of that because it's very complicated!



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I have a comment on the 'Jesus as scientist' aspect:

As humans, we obviously do not know all the underlying basics of our knowledge. We know that the brain controls the functions of the rest of the body. We know where (in general) inside the brain this happens. We do not know how. We know which chemicals are used to transmit messages from neuron to neuron. But we do not know exactly what information is transmitted by which neurotransmitter or how the different combinations work.

We know what life is (as it exists on this planet), but how does it work? What chemicals do what inside a living cell? We have mapped DNA, but we still do not know what gene does what in every case, or to what extent.

We know what matter is, it is anything which has mass. We know what mass is, a primary property of matter. Circular reasoning at best, but it's all we have. We theorize about protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, but no one has ever seen one. No one knows why a subatomic particle is a proton or a neutron, save by the definition. We do not know how.

We theorize about the properties of black holes, but the accepted theories change yearly. We think we know where they come from, and perhaps we do, but as yet I know of no direct repeatable experimentation being published on the theory. Are we correct? I think so. But then again, I could be wrong.

Throughout history, from the very first scribblings, man has been searching for knowledge of the world around him. He has found, tried, and finally discarded more theories than what have survived today. The earth is not flat. The sun does not circle the earth. Air is not an element. The speed of sound is not an upper limit. Hillary Clinton is not honest.
Rosie O'Donnell is not intelligent.


Jesus, as the Son of God, would by definition known all about these things. He would have been so far ahead of science, even the science of today, as to have His knowledge appear to us as 'magic'. So, yes, I would classify Him as a scientist, and the most accomplished one to ever live at that.

Of course, that last paragraph's reasoning would only hold for those who believe Jesus was the Son of God, the basis for it. If you don't believe that, you would of course probably disagree. But then again, if I were convinced that Albert Einstein was mentally retarded, I would tend to discount his theories as well. Neither denial would have any effect on the truth.

What is, is. What is not, is not. I am simply trying to understand it, not create it. As we all should be.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Jesus, as the Son of God, would by definition known all about these things. He would have been so far ahead of science, even the science of today, as to have His knowledge appear to us as 'magic'. So, yes, I would classify Him as a scientist, and the most accomplished one to ever live at that.



Classify him as a 'scientist' you guys are cracking me up


I think 'Anointed One' is more fitting. Why not just say enlightened? That's more accurate.

If his knowledge, as you said, transcends science, then so his classification also transcends the title 'sceintist'. No he was not the greatest scientist that ever lived. Because he wasn't a scientist at all. Being a scientist means you test hypothesis through the observation of trial and error (akward wording but you get my drift). Jesus Christ having a direction connection to the omniscient Creator, would already be privy to the outcomes and therefore would bypass the need for the scientific method altogether.

He was not a scientist, according to biblical literature, the most accurate classification would be to call him a transcended master.

**As for the other parts of your post: I agree, we still have sooo much to discover. So much in fact, we are no where close to proving or disproving God from a scientific viewpoint


[edit on 023030p://15u43 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

Has anybody else here seen this video? I'm simply amazed. One thing I was wondering, what about if you are taking a standardized class like AP or IB Biology in High School, both of which mandate teaching evolution? Are the students in Texas going to be SOL or do they get a special test? As for creationism, Intelligent Design, or whatever else people may call it, it has no business in schools. Not only is there no was to scientifically test it, it basicly says to accept things as they are and not look for a deeper understanding.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Classify him as a 'scientist' you guys are cracking me up

I think 'Anointed One' is more fitting. Why not just say enlightened? That's more accurate.


Hey, a laugh a day keeps the doctor away.
My bill for physician avoidance therapy is in the mail.


Seriously, after reading your post, I can't disagree. Perhaps the choice of the word 'scientist' would be inappropriate, if the definition is as you stated (and I am not denying that it is). I guess you could say I was using the definition of 'one who understands the universe'.

Hmmm, come to think of it, that wouldn't make sense at all in context with my post... OK, Lucid, you've got me.
I stand corrected.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 





If his knowledge, as you said, transcends science, then so his classification also transcends the title 'sceintist'.


Well then, that would make him King, or Chief, or Head of all scientist.
Are you happy with that?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by monkey_descendant
 


Very funny, thanks for YOUR definition of Evolution.
Most scientist have always called what you discribe. Mendelian inheritance, which was never confussed with Evolution. Untill recently. That is becuase
it is all they got left to call evolution.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


Well Howie, by linking to the Wiki reference, you just sorta shot down your own argument.

'Mendelian Trait' looks to me like something that leads to a genetic disease, such as Sickle-cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, and Cystic Fibrosis (particularly nasty, that one).

So, our wonderful, loving dictator in the sky, our imaginary 'friend'....the all-knowing, all powerful one who loves us SO much, sent all of the diseases, not only those three, but cancer and pneumonia and hives and shingles....oh, and did I mention AIDS?

No, of course not, wasn't god... he loves us, must have been the devil...except, oops! God is all-powerful and all knowing, but there's this other dude who is stronger??

This is where logic breaks down, sorry.

Maybe I'm too stupid to understand 'god's plan'....but, if I am a creation of god, then I should be able to understand, since I am 'made' in his image....

Oops, logic problem again, sorry....

WW



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Howie47



If his knowledge, as you said, transcends science, then so his classification also transcends the title 'sceintist'.


Well then, that would make him King, or Chief, or Head of all scientist.
Are you happy with that?


I am not upset or heated over this. Sorry you find my words offensive.

To answer your question: calling him the King, Chief or Head of all scientists is ...well...silly. If we accept the idea that he is in a 'transcended' position, then sure we can semantically say he is the "King of all scientists" but by that same train of thought we could call him "The King of all meth users".

Jesus Christ was not a scientist. It is really undermining him to call him that, or even call him a master of all scientists. If you give credence to the Biblical accounts, of course.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join