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

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NatureBoy
...This is most likely because we evolved from pack animals, or because god is crazy - whatever you believe.

....



pls elaborate this line, ok?

OT




posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by madeioo
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.


Right. One has nothing to do with another. If a Muslim or any other religious person discovered the law of gravitation, would it make their belief more correct?



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


Nothing whatsoever.

If I believe in a pink unicorn in the sky and discovered a law in mathematics or science, will it mean that my belief is true?

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Deaf Alien]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
Creationism should be in a religious class,its not scientific.....



Why so such narrow thinking....certainly there are some religious nuts out there....

but why such a strong dichotomy friend?

You sound like a censor....

OT

ps: is that what you meant? I dunno.....



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 




Is my question confusing to you?


Actually no. I answered your questions with my own questions.

I do not see any answers?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


DA, are you discounting TRUTH?

OT



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by OldThinker
 




Is my question confusing to you?


Actually no. I answered your questions with my own questions.

I do not see any answers?


'Answers' are way above our pay-grade friend...are you looking for an argument? Not here...


This discussion is about intellectual integrity...letting all have a voice....OT's from America....home of the free/brave stuff....



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 




DA, are you discounting TRUTH?


The truth about what?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Science requires evidence to substantiate its claims...something creationism doesn't have.Simple,shouldn't be taught in a science classroom.



[edit on 17-8-2009 by Solomons]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

It is known that Einstein occasionally made passing reference to God, and he made some very remarkable deductions, and possessed a very keen mind. But his forebear, Sir Isaac Newton, if he had been alive during the lifetime of Einstein, might well have outshone even that masterful physicist in his technical pursuits, and might have been more outspoken about his spiritual insights.


source: www.associatedcontent.com...

And Newton would have been marginalized to teaching at Washington bible College: www.bible.edu...


Oh well, think the world would have listened then?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 




'Answers' are way above our pay-grade friend...are you looking for an argument? Not here...


I'm looking for an arguement? You're the one who stared this argument, this thread.



This discussion is about intellectual integrity...letting all have a voice....OT's from America....home of the free/brave stuff....


Well, then you have no qualm about letting other people of different beliefs have a voice? You have no qualm about letting some people teach kids that earth is flat or rests on turtles in science class?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Science requires evidence to substantiate its claims...something creationism doesn't have.Simple,shouldn't be taught in a science classroom.



[edit on 17-8-2009 by Solomons]



Why...How....do you sound sooooooooo confident...with a 'hypothesis'?

Your std deviation is wanting friend.....

OT ASQ CSSBB here....



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Back when I was in primary school, if I had to chose between a class teaching about how grass grows or a class teaching about sky wizards molding clay into people and talking snakes in gardens with magical trees, I'm pretty sure I know which one I would want!


However, I believe a school should teach science as science. Religion should be taught by parents (or guardians.) Of course, judging by how many parents I see that get frustrated when their kid walks away from the tv and attempts to talk, I can see why some parents would rather not have the job of teaching religious values to their children when there is a lot more to explain than just what channel the next cartoon comes on.

I went to a public school that had priests as guest speakers teaching religious values in class, prayer every morning, and prayer clubs like mad. I always wondered why they were there, and why my education had to be interrupted to do something that my parents were already doing at home when I was supposed to be going to school to learn.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by OldThinker
 




'Answers' are way above our pay-grade friend...are you looking for an argument? Not here...


I'm looking for an arguement? You're the one who stared this argument, ......


Sweet, i gotta STAR.....OT's first


OT



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

It is known that Einstein occasionally made passing reference to God, and he made some very remarkable deductions, and possessed a very keen mind. But his forebear, Sir Isaac Newton, if he had been alive during the lifetime of Einstein, might well have outshone even that masterful physicist in his technical pursuits, and might have been more outspoken about his spiritual insights.


source: www.associatedcontent.com...

And Newton would have been marginalized to teaching at Washington bible College: www.bible.edu...


Oh well, think the world would have listened then?


We all know that Newton was a Christian of some sort.

But what religion was Einstein a part of?

Many scientific and mathematical discoveries were made by Muslims.

If Einstein was a Muslim, would you have subscribed to Islam?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by niteboy82
 



Honored to have you niteboy82,

Glad you posted!

OT



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
I'm looking for an arguement? You're the one who stared this argument, ......

Sweet, i gotta STAR.....OT's first


OT


*chuckles* I like your sense of humor.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Science requires evidence to substantiate its claims...something creationism doesn't have.Simple,shouldn't be taught in a science classroom.
[edit on 17-8-2009 by Solomons]


Solomons,

Glad you have joined, you mean like these guys....are you ready to research their findings....AND their FRAMEWORK....????

Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)

Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]

Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)

Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)

Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]

Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]

Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)

Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)

Duane T. Gish (biochemist)

John Grebe (chemist)

Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

George F. Howe (botanist)

D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)


James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)

Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]

Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)

Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

Frank L. Marsh (biologist)

Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)

Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)

William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)

Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

A.J. (Monty) White (chemist)

A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)

John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien

Originally posted by OldThinker
I'm looking for an arguement? You're the one who stared this argument, ......

Sweet, i gotta STAR.....OT's first


OT


*chuckles* I like your sense of humor.



Thank you friend, I respect your line of thinking, always have...

OT



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


Creationism doesn't have proof? lol. Would you agree that statistics is a science? Well if you do then think on this statistically speaking of course. Evolution..a theory mind you...taught as science.....hmmm. Ok life just begun. Do you know that there is a greater chance for a blind man to complete a rubics cube than life just to begin. Ok you say. Now do you know that if the world was filled with blind men shoulder to shoulder and they completed the cube at the exact same time is also more statistically to occur. Now fill our galaxy with blind men shoulder to shoulder with the cube and they complete it at the exact same time. Yep you guessed it. lol--->no evidence for Creationism.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

This discussion is about intellectual integrity...letting all have a voice....OT's from America....home of the free/brave stuff....


Because science doesn't care about you having a voice, it cares about truth. That is why in biology class we learn that the heart serves the purpose of pumping out blood to the rest of the body, and not that it is where you fall in love with that cute boy/girl sitting on the back of the class.

Philosophy and biology are two completely different subjects, you want creationism taught at schools i recommend trying to get it into the philosophy curriculum





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join