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.

 

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

page: 16
11
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I believe you may have misunderstood my point. I was using the term "informs" both in the sense of information systems, wherein it is generally used to mean "to provide additional information/data/understanding of or to", and the ontological sense, wherein it is meant more literally as "to give additional shape/form/detail to". I do not refute or dispute the validity of your points, I merely point out that they are sterile data unless or until someone informs them. Would you truly know any of that without something more? Would you understand without additional information or experience? If you tell a child that 2+2=4, the child might accept this as a piece of data, but the child will not truly know this or understand it. If you tell the child that if you gave him or her 2 apples and then gave 2 more, the child would have 4 apples, the child would probably accept this on faith, but would still not truly know or understand. If you give a child 2 apples, and then give a child an additional 2 apples, then the child can see and understand. Then the child knows that he or she has 4 apples, where before there were 2 and then 2 more. This is my point. This is the way in which the the world informs the senses, the senses inform the mind, the mind informs science, and finally science informs faith.




posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


The simple answer would be "no". The more complex answer is that creationism is not yet a cohesive whole which does not entirely stand up to close scrutiny, and as such should not be presented as such. Those parts of it that bear intense scrutiny and stand up to the scientific method may be taught as science, but as a whole, it is not science, and would be better presented as faith or philosophy.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by PsychoHazard
 



Oh, I got it now, very good....

Thanks for coming over on OT's thread!




posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Scientific evidence in the bible?

Yea... sure.





reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Yea NDE's. I don't often think about how things are spelt, just put my hands on autopilot and whatever happens happens lol. It's like reverse dyslexia.

NDE's are by and large explained by science as the effect of a damaged and oxygen deprived brain (usually from lack of bloodflow.) Failure of Proprioception is what causes the "out-of-body" sense and I have experienced this. Many other aspects are recreatable in the lab. There are some oddities with the phenomenon but there isn't much sense putting 'soul' in these discrepancies.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by PsychoHazard
 


In the OP if I have not misunderstood, the OP is stating that we should give scientists' beliefs a closer look since they have discovered scientific laws and such.

Some scientists support Creationism. Does that mean it should be taught in the classroom?



Knowledge is a good thing...helps folks, make good decisions....we should not restrict scientists...
Agard, E. Theo
Allan, James
Anderson, Kevin
Armstrong, Harold
Arndt, Alexander
Austin, Steven
Barnes, Thomas
Batten, Don
Baumgardner, John
Bergman, Jerry
Boudreaux, Edward
Byl, John
Catchpoole, David
Chadwick, Arthur
Chaffin, Eugene
Chittick, Donald
Cimbala, John
Clausen, Ben
Cole, Sid
Cook, Melvin
Cumming, Ken
Cuozzo, Jack
Darrall, Nancy
Dewitt, David
DeYoung, Donald
Downes, Geoff
Eckel, Robert
Faulkner, Danny
Ford, Dwain
Frair, Wayne
Gentry, Robert
Giem, Paul
Gillen, Alan
Gish, Duane
Gitt, Werner
Gower, D.B.
Grebe, John
Grocott, Stephen
Harrub, Brad
Hawke, George
Hollowell, Kelly
Holroyd, Edmond
Hosken, Bob
Howe, George
Humphreys, D. Russell
Javor, George
Jones, Arthur
Kaufmann, David
Kennedy, Elaine
Klotz, John
Koop, C. Everett
Korochkin, Leonid
Kramer, John

......from our kids, in the classroom...they have a lot to teach us!

OT

Letters "L-Z" / more, here: www.christiananswers.net...

[edit on 19-8-2009 by OldThinker]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


But it's not science so it's not taught in science class.

There are 100's of thousands of scientists in the world and you have this small list of people don't subscribe to Evolutionary Theory.

I couldn't begin to list the scientists who don't subscribe to creationism.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by PsychoHazard
 


I agree. Just because there are Christian scientists doesn't mean their beliefs are true. An hypothesis or theory has to stand on it's own.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 




NDE's are by and large explained by science as the effect of a damaged and oxygen deprived brain (usually from lack of bloodflow.) Failure of Proprioception is what causes the "out-of-body" sense and I have experienced this. Many other aspects are recreatable in the lab. There are some oddities with the phenomenon but there isn't much sense putting 'soul' in these discrepancies.


Yes, some are explained by science, and yet people know the difference. Science can not explain how some NDE experiencers come to know different things during the experience such as surgicial tools and not only that, but outside the operating rooms!

Besides, how would anyone be fully conscious during clinical death? That is just not possible.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Science can not explain how some NDE experiencers come to know different things during the experience such as surgicial tools and not only that, but outside the operating rooms!

Besides, how would anyone be fully conscious during clinical death? That is just not possible.


Yes I've heard that but I've never seen anything outside of anecdotal evidence.


People could believe they were conscious during clinical death when it's just a few moments of residual awareness plus a distorted sense of time.

But the thing that gets me is the fact that people see numerous different gods of all different religion. So these experiences are mutually contradicting. Doesn't make any sense.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by PsychoHazard
 


I agree. Just because there are Christian scientists doesn't mean their beliefs are true. An hypothesis or theory has to stand on it's own.


Yes, true....


but we must take it on a case by case, study by study basis...you are not proposing we should CENSOR anyone, are you? WELL< THAT"S WHATS GOING ON!!!!

How about CWG, who discovered over 300 findings, accepted, peer -reviewed etc...who said, "“The secret of my success? It is simple. It is found in the Bible.”

or..."I love to think of nature as an unlimited broadcasting station, through which God speaks to us every hour, if we will only tune in."

or...

"Reading about nature is fine, but if a person walks in the woods and listens carefully, he can learn more than what is in books, for they speak with the voice of God."

?????



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


but we must take it on a case by case, study by study basis...you are not proposing we should CENSOR anyone, are you? WELL< THAT"S WHATS GOING ON!!!!


No it's not, don't be silly. Inside of science you don't get to simply voice opinions and beliefs because it's very restrictive to the evidence side of things.

OUTSIDE of science, anyone can say whatever they like and this is where laymen and scientists voice their beliefs.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


We can continue this debate in one of other threads
We are getting way off topic.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


I had and OBE once. Was trippy. I was sick like always with OBE's but not deathly sick. My proprioception went and I'm sitting there looking around feeling completely disconnected from my body. Like Deja vu it only lasted a few moments but it was memorable, not mystical.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Welfhard is correct. Just because a well known scientist believes in something does not mean it is true.

If a Creationist scientist unified the fundamental forces of nature, would it mean that Creationism is true?

No one is censoring anything. Like I said, a theory or hypothesis has to stand on it's own. If Creationism is based on even few evidence, then so be it. Then we'd actually have a viable alternative.



How about CWG, who discovered over 300 findings, accepted, peer -reviewed etc...who said, "“The secret of my success? It is simple. It is found in the Bible.”


Forgive my ignorance, but what or who is CWG? Of course one can find the secret of success in the Bible or any book. Bible is not unique.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 


but we must take it on a case by case, study by study basis...you are not proposing we should CENSOR anyone, are you? WELL< THAT"S WHATS GOING ON!!!!


No it's not, don't be silly.


Tell that to Dr. Gonzales....I dare you!


The Iowa Board of Regents rejected on Thursday an appeal by a professor who said he was wrongfully denied tenure by Iowa State University because of his views supporting intelligent design.

While ISU officials have maintained that their decision last spring on Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez 's bid for tenure had nothing to do with intelligent design, e-mails exchanged by ISU faculty – who voted against his tenure and statements in Gonzalez’s tenure file – suggest otherwise.

Gonzalez, assistant professor of astronomy and physics, has written papers on intelligent design and has asserted his views in a book which was published in 2004. He is also a senior fellow at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank on intelligent design.

The e-mails and documents obtained last summer by Discovery Institute through an open records request were not allowed as evidence by the Regents during their consideration of the case. The board also denied Gonzalez's request to give an oral argument at the closed session but did allow him to be present when the votes were cast. Regents rejected his appeal in a 7-1 vote.

“We are extremely disappointed that the Board of Regents refused to give Dr. Gonzalez a fair hearing in his appeal,” said Gonzalez’s attorney, Chuck Hurley. “They say in Iowa that academic freedom is supposed to be the ‘foundation of the university.’ That foundation is cracked.”

Iowa State denied Gonzalez tenure last spring, a decision upheld by university president Greg Geoffroy. Thursday's vote was the last chance for Gonzalez to appeal within the regents system.

Craig Lang was the sole regent who voted in the professor's favor.

"Dr. Gonzalez is so sure that he has done the things necessary for tenure," Lang told the Des Moines Register. "Let's just reconsider."

Gonzalez claims he met the criteria for promotion.

Casey Luskin, program officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute, believes the outcome would have been different if e-mail records were allowed as evidence in the case or Gonzalez was given a chance to address the board.

“The Board of Regents would not allow into the record extensive e-mail documentation showing that Dr. Gonzalez was denied tenure not due to his academic record, but because he supports intelligent design," said Luskin.

"Then the Board refused to grant Dr. Gonzalez the right to be heard through oral arguments. Does it come as any surprise that now they denied his appeal?”

In 2004, Gonzalez authored the book "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery," a pro-intelligent design book.

The following year in August, three ISU faculty members circulated a petition with a statement denouncing the use of intelligent design, which disputes parts of the theory of evolution, in the science curriculum.

"We … urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university of 'science and technology,' convey to students and the general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science, and reject efforts to portray intelligent design as science," read the petition's statement, which received 120 signatures.

Gonzalez said he thought the incident contributed to his denial for tenur
.


source: www.christianpost.com...

Your denial disturbs me greatly!!! I could post a few dozen exactly like this, someting tell me you like sand in your ears.....



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 




I had and OBE once. Was trippy. I was sick like always with OBE's but not deathly sick. My proprioception went and I'm sitting there looking around feeling completely disconnected from my body. Like Deja vu it only lasted a few moments but it was memorable, not mystical.


So did I, but it is not a NDE.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Fair point! Nice answer friend, thanks.

Some scare OT too...

but not my best pal JC, nor this guy, what's ya think? www.youtube.com... its only 9 min

[edit on 19-8-2009 by OldThinker]


I think exactly as I always have, religion IS politics.
I think the term "spiritual advisor" is nonsensical.
I think that any discussion with a focus on belief immediately becomes marginalized.
Mostly I think the whole science/religion-centered "science" debate is laughable.
Why ?
Because there are too many creation myths each with its own take. The only explanation of creation I have encountered that is dispassionate and consistent is the "science" one.
Creationism and its redheaded stepchild ID have an agenda behind them. The Theory of Evolution simply "is", it evolves (pun intended) and changes as our knowledge grows.

Lastly and none too seriously, any so called scientist that will embrace the "jesus horsey" set needs to be examined really, really hard...then given a nice padded room.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Well, that was wrong for them to do that, if the story is true.

Teachers have the right to hold any belief they have outside the public school.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Another!


Recently, the scientific establishment claimed another “prominent casualty as the Royal Society’s director of education, Michael Reiss, stepped down” (“Creating Controversy,” 2008, 199[2674]:4). What happened, exactly? Reiss, an evolutionary biologist and ordained Anglican priest speaking at the British Association for the Advancement of Science Festival in September 2008, simply “called for creationism to be discussed in UK science classes” (“Creating Controversy,” p. 4, emp. added). “Creationism,” he said, “is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view” (as quoted in Mitchell, 2008).

The greater scientific establishment was none too happy with Reiss for his comments about creationism. Reiss “provoked the anger” of many of the members of the Royal Society (Mitchell, 2008). The leading members wrote to the society’s president “demanding...Reiss step down, or be asked to step down, as soon as possible” (Mitchell, 2008, emp. added). According to the World Socialist, “Reiss was forced to resign” (Mitchell, 2008, emp. added).

Some may wonder why science societies, science departments, etc., are dominated by atheistic evolutionists. Could it be the result of years of dissidents being forced out? The fact is, scientists open to the idea of an intelligent Designer are some of the most discriminated-against people on Earth. Question the theory of evolution publicly, and a scientist must be prepared to lose his job and reputation in the scientific community.


more: www.apologeticspress.org...



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Nor was mine. I don't have any reason to believe that these experiences have anything to do with a soul. Consciousness is a property, a emergent behaviour in a super-compartmentalised network of features. (similar to the 'net-behaviour'/'swarm behaviour' of flocks of birds and schools of fish). This property is altered when the brain malfunctions. This is what science explains and it pretty much covers everything.

I would like to believe in the soul but I'm naturally critical of faith.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join