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: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 




Sorry DA, what questions specifically am i ignoring? This thread has been hopping, sorry...one more time?


Okay, I will repost one of my posts:


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 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaisyAnne
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I agree with Newton.
But not within a Judeo-Christian framework.



Meeeee too!!!!!

OK, but I think you are missing the OP?

After you answer the OP, please give more detail to your post? Who's framework would it be?

OT curious.....



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Thank you for the welcome? I'm certainly no one special.
And I can't say I wonder why. People will often not allow anything that does not fit within their scope of beliefs to be considered credible or possible, regardless of plausability.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Ok here it is.

How would one increase his Faith insomuch to as show the power of it to a non believer. Or can they, thinking of Jesus when he was back in Nazarath, show it to a non-believer.


C, the answer to your MOST PROFOUND question lies in my signature....really simple and you can do it every day, with those you come into contact with....


Have you seen Harold Blackaby?

OT



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


No i dont know of him. Thanks for the answer, it is true.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


Time for bed...Good night all, and i had fun.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by OldThinker
 




Sorry DA, what questions specifically am i ignoring? This thread has been hopping, sorry...one more time?


Okay, I will repost one of my posts:


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?



If after peer review, experience, knowledge over time, and TRUE....no, who cares who finds? OT doesn't....


ID? "those stories..." yeah, pretty out there....but I've found THOSE that believe THOSE stories are the most TRUSTED FOLKS in the world....


OT's no fundi, but manI would trust my kids with them....good people, really....


but of course, there are some WEIRDO'S for sure, but the majority are good people....certainly a higher percentage there....just look at what they founded....

Also, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Brown, University of Pennsylvania, Cornell and Dartmouth were BIBLE Colleges, back in the day, did you know that?

Also, Christians can be proud to know that they virtually invented hospitals. Christians early on began to take care of the poor and sick in their neighborhoods. By the year 251, the church in Rome supported more than 1,500 widows and needy persons, all of whom were "fed by the grace and kindness of the Lord." Two great figures in fourth century Christianity, St. Fabiola of Rome and St. Basil of Caesarea went further and built large complexes with their personal fortunes. Basil's "new city, the storehouse of piety," contained hospices, training facilities for those out of work and, of course, areas to tend the sick. St. Jerome wrote of Fabiola, "Was there a naked or bedridden person who was not clothed with garments supplied by her? Were there ever any in want to whom she failed to give a quick and unhesitating supply? Even Rome was not wide enough for her pity." And, oh yes, all for free.

Source: findarticles.com...



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by OldThinker
 


No i dont know of him. Thanks for the answer, it is true.



We'll talk tomorrow of him....

here's a youtube that may also answer your question....its only 10 minutes....cu in the morrow friend, good night!

OT

link: www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Question for the OP -

Is there any actual Creationist Scientific research to teach? If there is - then fair game, at the appropriate academic level.

If there isn't, then it's hardly an alternative to evolutionary science, is it?

Until there's some science to teach, Creationism has no place in the science classroom. Because it's not science. Science being the thing taught in science classes.

Philosophy? Have at it. Religious studies? Go for it. Biology? Not until there's something relevant to teach.

May as well ask why they're not teaching basic welding in History class. Two different topics.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
JET LAG????


Is that what they call it?


Well its got me....


Talk to skeptics and believers alike, tomorrow....


but please if you stumble on to this thread, let not it be I'm right, your'e wrong...but an answer to the OP, ok?

Should'nt all views be heard?


Good night all!

OT



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Darn it I just deleted my original post.



If after peer review, experience, knowledge over time, and TRUE....no, who cares who finds? OT doesn't.... ID? "those stories..." yeah, pretty out there....but I've found THOSE that believe THOSE stories are the most TRUSTED FOLKS in the world.... OT's no fundi, but manI would trust my kids with them....good people, really....


I am confused
Are you or are you not a fundie?



Also, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Brown, University of Pennsylvania, Cornell and Dartmouth were BIBLE Colleges, back in the day, did you know that?


So, basically, you'll give more credience to those scientists who believe in anything? Are you telling me that you would believe in scientists who believe in a pink unicorn in the sky?

I am just asking.


If you were living in a different time where everybody believed in a flat earth.

Some scientist discovered electricity. But he believes in the flat earth theory.

You, against all common sense, will or will not believe in his belief about the flat earth. You just understand electricity.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
There is a movie out right now that will answer everybody's questions about a lot of things. It's the most awesome movie I have ever seen.
For those of you who are opposed to religion of any kind; if you can just sit tight through those parts, there is so much other vital info in this vid as well.
It is freely available on youtube and here on ATS.

But there are a lot of censored parts on youtube. ATS has it in it's unedited entirety. The PTB have gone to great lengths to stop us from learning some of the truths in this film. Look for it, it is called...'The Arrivals.'



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
The reason is quite simply Creationism is a religious belief, whereas Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory. Religious beliefs have no place in public schools.

Newton's, Einstein's, and Darwin's quotes about God and religion are irrelevant. Their comments are not science, and have no place in a scientific discussion. I'll listen to what Newton or Einstein have to say about physics, or what Darwin has to say about biology. But when it comes to theology, they are out of their fields. Incidentally, Newton also spoke highly of alchemy and even astrology.

But let's say that religious beliefs should be taught in schools. OK, you've got the Judaeo-Christian Genesis story. But then you've got the Creation stories of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, the Australian Aboriginal peoples, Native American peoples, many different groups in Africa, and so on. If you want to teach one, you really should teach them all.

The so-called "persecution" of Creationists exists, in the sense that those who express unpopular views find that they have trouble getting funding. This has always been true among the scientific community. It is not a new phenomenon. Isaac Asimov, respected a scientist, had to write science fiction stories under a pseudonym, lest he be thrown out of the field he was in. Many scientists whose works we now accept and admire, died in poverty and obscurity, simply because their ideas were too different from what the current thinking was. This is still happening, and yes, Creationists suffer as much as anyone else for being different. But not more.

Charles Darwin had a problem with the notion of God presiding over Nature. So much of Nature is cruel and horrific, that he had a hard time reconciling that with an almighty, loving God. He said,

"I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice."
.

Those "Ichneumonidae" Darwin referred to are the ichneumon wasps. They sting a caterpillar to paralyze, but not kill it, then lay their eggs inside. The caterpillar remains unable to move but alive as these eggs hatch and consume the poor creature from the inside out. This doesn't mean he didn't believe in God, but it does suggest that he didn't believe God was directly responsible for all of Nature's cruelty.

Finally, the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with Creationism or Creation. It doesn't address the issue of how life began. It discusses evolution, not creation. To criticize Darwin's theory for not answering a question beyonds its topic is useless. It's similar to challenging Newton's theory, because he doesn't explain how the Universe was formed. You don't challenge his theory on the basis that Newton fails to explain how matter came into being in the first place. He's talking about how matter behaves now, not how it originally got here. Similarly, Darwin discusses how species behave now, not how life was created.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Should'nt all views be heard?




Well, yes and no.

It's not about the views being heard, it's about where they should be heard.

Physics class doesn't tend towards talking about poetry. Not because the views are verboten, but because they're not really related to the subject matter - despite the number of physicists who read and write poetry. It's because it's a physics class, which is about physics.

Creationism is not science. Thus teaching it in a science class isn't appropriate. It's not a question of denying the right to speak, it's a question of finding the appropriate place to do so.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Here is a link for the un-censored version of the movie, 'The Arrivals.'
Watch it, Download it and tell everybody you know about it! The PTB want this info stopped.
media.abovetopsecret.com...

The film is produced by religious persons, but they still have hit on and revealed some shocking truths. Very interesting.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

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


They're not afraid of anyone. The reason why they don't teach ID or creationism it's not possible to even test. Evolution isn't even debated anymore. It's not a absolute fact, nothing in this universe is, except for math, but evolution is a scientific theory, and theory is the closest thing to fact in science. It's able to be tested. Heck, it's able to be tested in a 10th grade Biology class.

The reason why I bring up evolution next to creation is because it partially argues that, and that's the whole arguement in the US. Evolution does not argue everything. Abiogenesis argues the beginning of life on earth. Big Bang is the creation of the physical universe etc.

You have Occum's razor in your headline, so imagine this: What's easier to imagine, everything evolving to what we have over a long period of time, or everything being poofed into existence 6000 years ago? That's like walking up stairs to reach the roof, or jumping to the same roof.

ID argues, that in the big bang the universe comes from nothing, when in fact ID argues itself that the universe came from nothing as well.

Einstein referred "God" as in nature itself, and not as a supreme being. Newton only mentions God because science was not as advanced as now, and was invoking the God of the Gaps theory.

Yup. Forgive me if I'm not too clear and didn't bring up all points, I'm a bit sick and it's 1:30am on the east coast.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


Another angle for you:
Imagine for a moment you were living on a world a lot colder than here. Your body isn't based on water (its frozen) but on liquid ammonium. (Would (propably) work almost the same as water)
Now you are sitting on a rock, enjoying the sun and the warm -70 degrees C wondering about life, and all that other stuff. You come to the conclusion that your world is perfect for you. Not only Is there an abundance of liquid ammonium, and without liquid ammonium there can be no life, also all that nasty oxygen (that would rip apart the ammonium) is bound to 2 Hydrogen atoms and all that stuff is in a solid state, making it impossible to drown in it. You look through a telescope and discover a world where 70% of the surface is covered in a unbreathable liquid and imagine in horror how it would be to live there. "cooincidence?" you go "Nah! This world is perfect for us. The frooglebraz made it!"

See: The world isn't perfect for us. We are perfect for the world. No suprise, since we evolved here, either. If we weren't we wouldnt have.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien



I am confused
Are you or are you not a fundie?







No way....they do more harm than good sometimes....

OT's talks with JC, and listens to the RED LETTERS....

Have you met an authentic christian?



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by FantasmaTaans

You have Occum's razor in your headline, so imagine this: What's easier to imagine, everything evolving to what we have over a long period of time, or everything being poofed into existence 6000 years ago? ...


Why do you limit my belief to six thousand yrs?
(Question)


Yeah goo, time and chance is more plausible (sarcasm)

OT



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442
.....Creationism is not science. Thus teaching it in a science class isn't appropriate. ....



These scientist would disagree with you friend...


Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)


more: www.godandscience.org...



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join