Why can’t Creationists teach an alternative? Are the ‘free thinkers’ - atheists scared of som

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
ething?"



See this short 4 minutes youtube… www.youtube.com...

Did you know that Einstein, Newton and yes Darwin would be banned from the Accepted Scientists Society today? Why, you may ask…?

Because their theories accounted for a framework of a “creator”

Doesn’t science often start with a debate? Isn’t empirical evidence a starting point? Are atheists really ‘FREE’ THINKERS? Then why deny tenure, ban those that believe in a creator?

Am I asking a hard question here? I don’t think so…freedom of thought mandates all credible alternatives be considered?

After all, it was Newton, who all academia respects today, who said… ”I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."

And…


"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system. I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."


Did you know….???....At the time of his death, he left more than a million words of notes on the Bible. Six years after his death, Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John was published. Not only was Isaac a great scientist but also a dedicated student of the Bible.”

OT just asking…


1) Thoughts on the video?
2) Thoughts on Newton’s quotes?
3) Thoughts on freedom of thought?
4) Thoughts on the banning of creationists?






[edit on 17-8-2009 by OldThinker]




posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Found another quote, relevant here:

www.dakotavoice.com...



In Optics, 1704, Newton wrote: “God in the beginning formed matter.”


Regarding the Bible, Newton wrote: “The system of revealed truth which this Book contains is like that of the universe, concealed from common observation yet the labors of the centuries have established its Divine origin.”


OT



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Still the question arise...

WHO is god? Von Däniken had one view for instance and several religions before Christianity had the same view.

There where several gods based on characters who where said to actually have had excisted according to their stories.

And in the beginning of the 20th century the church was still at power which is not the question today probably after the mediabreakthru in the late 1920´s.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Some more insight into Newton by Einstein here: www.preteristarchive.com...


The Newton papers, Ben-Menahem said, also complicate the idea that science is diametrically opposed to religion. "These documents show a scientist guided by religious fervor, by a desire to see God's actions in the world," she said.

More prosaic documents on display show Newton keeping track of his income and expenses while a scholar at Cambridge and later, as master of the Royal Mint, negotiating with a group of miners from Devon and Cornwall about the price of the tin they supplied to Queen Anne.

The archives of Hebrew University in Jerusalem include a 1940 letter from Albert Einstein to Abraham Shalom Yahuda, the collector who purchased the papers a year earlier.

Newton's religious writings, Einstein wrote, provide "a variety of sketches and ongoing changes that give us a most interesting look into the mental laboratory of this unique thinker."



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by m4ng4n
Still the question arise...

WHO is god? ...



m4ng4n, Sweet 4 wheeler!!!!


Not too concerned with WHO God is in the thread friend...

But more on the freedom of thought...and intellectual integrity....

What are the skeptics afraid of, that's the real question?

OT



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
you might be forgetting that if those scientists had have said 'god's a stupid idear you fools' then they would have been branded heratics and either killed or at least chased out of town.

I personally don't cair if people want to belive in wizards, however if i go to a doctor i want a doctor not a quack. Sure it's a valid scientific point that we don't know if a wizard created the earth, however teaching that truth comes from the bible rather than scientific method is not going to get science done - science which brought us computers, cars, radio, etc, etc.... unlike religion which brought us the holy wars, witch trials, book burnings, etc, etc.

Would you let someone who wants to kill children run your daycair center? Would you let a dem run your republican party? would you let a book burner run your libary? a nazi your fairness and equality program?

The right person for the right job, actually i know for a fact that personal belief is not an issue in selection - actually it's down to what you say in public, just look around this site for the things people claim 'a scientist said....' or 'scientists from england announced...' - an important and highbrow science establishment can't have some nutter using his position as a mouthpiece for whichever crazy cult or bronzeage mystery school he happens tobe a part of.

As for the 'free thinkers' jibe, no not all scientists are free thinkers, what are you stupid? haha, this is earth in the early 21st century! hello? This is a whole planet of people totally unable to think for themselves, either everyone is following some crazy fad and buying into whatever the TV sells them or they're part of some nonsence counterculture movement where everyone dresses the same, acts the same and says the same thing. This is most likely because we evolved from pack animals, or because god is crazy - whatever you believe.

Most scientists are outdated and wrong in most of their opinons, sorry thats just how life is - we don't know anything about anything yet in the big scale of things, we are working on getting closer to the truth however, unlike religion which is sticking dogmaticly to the first thing they thought of (well ok they've changed it a bit but they pretend they haven't, and they fought those changes every step of the way, i.e. womens lib)

This is the exact reason that science places need to make sure they don't let any wild eyes nutjob use his position to spout some insane nonsence which all you anti-science people will blog about on your electrical semiconductor mathmatics machines which science was more than willing to provide.

The cheek of religion calling science closed minded just boggles my mind, maybe its because i know history - the torment people like guttenburg suffered for daring to let people read the bible! Joan of Arc burned because her concept of god was a little bit diffrent than the people who captured her! The great libary of alexander burned to the ground on the grounds 'if its worth reading its in the bible so we know it already, if its not in the bible then its the devils lies so burn them all!'

History is full of examples of religion, certainly christian religions, not letting people have their say - now they cry and moan when science doesn't want to put up with their nonsence. HA billiant, i'm sure god will be real proud of you folks.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
In my country it's not a problem, we get taught physics in physics class, biology on biology class, philosophy in philosophy class and we even get the opportunity (as in you can choose to take that class) to learn religion in religion class.

Are you proposing that your creationist world view be added to the philosophy class curriculum?

edit: btw, when are we getting Friedrich Nietzsche at sunday school? We want to keep it balanced after all.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by madeioo]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
For those interested....see here: www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk...

Boy, it's alot about non science stuff from Newton...

I could only imagine this poor 'fellow' notice the pun


would have been rejected by Harvard, Princeton today....most definitely this guy would have been defamed, discredited and banned...today.

Such an (intellectual) shame...


OT

WHY?????????



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by madeioo
In my country it's not a problem, we get taught physics in physics class, biology on biology class, philosophy in philosophy class and we even get the opportunity (as in you can choose to take that class) to learn religion in religion class.

Are you proposing that your creationist world view be added to the philosophy class curriculum?

edit: btw, when are we getting Friedrich Nietzsche at sunday school? We want to keep it balanced after all.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by madeioo]


Hey thanks for the post...OT not proposing anything...really no one to propose too...


Just asking the questions here....that's all...

My world view, btw, is not so CUT AND DRY, so BLACK and WHITE...I believe synergies exist...and only the GREAT teachers see (and teach) this...no biggie tho!!

OT



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Oh my.... this should be interesting.


Creationism (Intelligent Design) should not be taught in school for two very good reasons.

1. Evolution is only a Theory.

2. Intelligent Design does not even QUALIFY as a theory.

Do you want to know more?

-Edrtick



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by NatureBoy
............As for the 'free thinkers' jibe, no not all scientists are free thinkers, what are you stupid? ....



HA! HA!

You sound like OT's wife...you two haven't been talking have you?

OT

No jibe, whatever that means



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
Oh my.... this should be interesting.


Creationism (Intelligent Design) should not be taught in school for two very good reasons.

1. Evolution is only a Theory.

2. Intelligent Design does not even QUALIFY as a theory.

Do you want to know more?

-Edrtick



whew.....


Edrick, do you have a lawn-mower? How much do you have to cut?

OT



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 




What are the skeptics afraid of, that's the real question?


What do you mean? What are they afraid of?

Let me ask you this: if they pushed for teaching of Scientology or Islam or any other religion, especially their creation stories, would you be very afraid? Why or why not?

I can see intelligent design being a valid scientific theory, but those "stories"? Come on.

If there were people pushing for teaching of earth resting on turtles or earth being flat, wouldn't you be very, very afraid?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Why would they? Aren't there religious scientists nowadays?
More importantly, is Newton respected and admired for his scientific discoveries or for his religious views?
What does one have to do with another.

Hitler was religious man, should we require that Mein Kampf be required reading?

I fail to see what one's religious views have to do with one's professional achievements.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by Edrick
Oh my.... this should be interesting.


Creationism (Intelligent Design) should not be taught in school for two very good reasons.

1. Evolution is only a Theory.

2. Intelligent Design does not even QUALIFY as a theory.

Do you want to know more?

-Edrtick



whew.....


Edrick, do you have a lawn-mower? How much do you have to cut?

OT


Okay.... What?


if you have a question for me, I would appreciate if you enunciated it...

-Edrick



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


???

I'm sorry friend, did i studder?

OT



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by Edrick
 


???

I'm sorry friend, did i studder?

OT



Ok, i'll bite...

1. Yes

2. Till my lawn no longer violates city ordinances... (below 18 inches)

-Edrick



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by OldThinker
 




What are the skeptics afraid of, that's the real question?


What do you mean? ......


Hey DA, hope all is well?

Is my question confusing to you?

OT



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by madeioo
Why would they? Aren't there religious scientists nowadays?......


Great questions there friend! OT likes the way u think...

OT

ps: check out most of them, that are/do...you'll find them teaching in some small college somewhere, rejected by the biggies, because of their dual expertise...research it, pls!



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Creationism should be in a religious class,its not scientific.If it was taught in a science class it would be a very short course thats all i can say,God did it..class dismissed! kids would probably like it though.That is all creationists have,they have absolutely no evidence..none...not even a sentence nevermind the thousands upon thousands evolution has with nothing to refute it.Creationism is for lazy minded people or ones that are allergic to evidence and the logical thought process.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join