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: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick

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



The next time you cut that lawn, i want you to imagine REAL HARD that that mower just popped into existence, that their was no engineer, no manufacturing....

Than ask your self, am I more complex, than a mower?

Thx for answering friend!


OT




posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Only one of those scientists is in a field that has anything to do with evolution. And I think you'll find that Carl Woese is in fact quite a staunch defender of evolution, what with it being his life's work and all.

Is this creation science? Quote mining and misrepresentation?



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Only one of those scientists is in a field that has anything to do with evolution. And I think you'll find that Carl Woese is in fact quite a staunch defender of evolution, what with it being his life's work and all.

Is this creation science? Quote mining and misrepresentation?




vox2442....


deep breath ok?


The quotes are what they are, why put a narrowly interpretated fence around them? To discredit/ignore them?

Its ok, if we disagree...we disagree, no biggie...




posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by vox2442
 


You from Japan...or serving over there?

OT



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Creationists CAN teach an alternative... in church, whenever they like. As far as teaching it in school -- well, i have no problems with religion class, but how are you going to fit every single religion into the curriculum?

The scientist that were listed as being religious in this thread may very well be or have been religious, but that had NOTHING to do with their field of study in science. Religion cannot be tested with the scientific method, therefore it is not a science. Until religion is able to test its validity with facts (scripture doesn't count) then it does not belong in public schools or universities as a science.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

The quotes are what they are, why put a narrowly interpretated fence around them? To discredit/ignore them?


You picked a handful of quotes from some webpage that only served to show that you had not bothered to read what I had to say. Read that again. And again. Get it?

I'm calling you on it. You want to know why creationism shouldn't be allowed in science classes? Because it's not science. It's opinion. And it's not relevant to the subject matter when the subject matter is evolution being taught in a science classroom.

My mechanic is a good mechanic, but I don't ask him to do dental work. Do you?

No? Why not?



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
Creationists CAN teach an alternative... in church, whenever they like. As far as teaching it in school -- well, i have no problems with religion class, but how are you going to fit every single religion into the curriculum?

The scientist that were listed as being religious in this thread may very well be or have been religious, but that had NOTHING to do with their field of study in science. Religion cannot be tested with the scientific method, therefore it is not a science. Until religion is able to test its validity with facts (scripture doesn't count) then it does not belong in public schools or universities as a science.



Some good points here...

My day is just starting, I'll get back with you....

As an aside go here: www.creationsafaris.com...

You'll find history disagrees with you...and...

Most of the greatest scientists of the past 1000 years were Christians and creationists.
To these scientists, Christianity was the driving force behind their discoveries.
The Christian world view gave birth and impetus to modern science. .



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
You'll find history disagrees with you...and...

Most of the greatest scientists of the past 1000 years were Christians and creationists.
To these scientists, Christianity was the driving force behind their discoveries.
The Christian world view gave birth and impetus to modern science. .




And yet those great scientists of the last 1000 years have yet to prove that creationism is a fact or even have been able to provide something which can be studied. Does that not in itself tell you something?

Is the original question why can't Creationists teach an alternative? Would that imply that you would like Creationists to teach evolution? Why would they want to? If the question is why can't creationism be taught in a science class I think the dead horse will tell you it is because there is no scientific proof for creationism.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien

Many scientific and mathematical discoveries were made by Muslims.


Could you give some examples, please?



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Supposedly, Atheists had taken the term "freethinkers" from Deists. It makes sense because if you read any work from a deist from a few hundred years ago, you see that term mentioned a bit. Many atheists don't really have a good arguement as to why they think a creator doesn't exist, this could be because they are just rebelling against their parents beliefs. However, there are some atheists that do give good arguement, but of course in the end neither can proof if there is/isn't a creator. So really, atheists cannot really be considered freethinkers because many of them share the same problem christians, or any member of a revealed religion has. That is they cannot think outside their confort zone, hence the hostility.

Christians don't want to be bothered with atheist propoganda, just as Atheists don't want to be bothered with anything that is near the subject of a creator. It get's them red in the face pretty quickly. I don't understand this, a true free thinker could sit through anything and be able to discuss what they agree/disagree with. I'm personally a deist, and even though I disagree with any revealed religion and atheism, I still respect peoples natural right to an opinion. Plus, I could sit through any kind of church service without worrying about it "changing" my beliefs and ideas.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gargamel


You'll find history disagrees with you...and...

Most of the greatest scientists of the past 1000 years were Christians and creationists.
To these scientists, Christianity was the driving force behind their discoveries.
The Christian world view gave birth and impetus to modern science. .




And yet those great scientists of the last 1000 years have yet to prove that creationism is a fact or even have been able to provide something which can be studied. Does that not in itself tell you something?



Yeah, maybe the joy is in the journey....

Truth may take time to be found...I dunno?

OT



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darth Lumina
reply to post by OldThinker
 


.....So really, atheists cannot really be considered freethinkers because many of them share the same problem christians, or any member of a revealed religion has. That is they cannot think outside their confort zone, hence the hostility.

....



Very good point....

I'm just for open debate and no name calling, fair?

OT



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I don't know how I'd feel about creationism being taught in schools but I would love for ID to have a couple of weeks where it is discussed in the appropriate classes. About a year or so ago I was against having ID taught in schools but the more I learn about it, the more I support it.

When I was in school, we spent one year learning about creationism (YEC) and one year learning about evolution. I'm wary of teaching YEC because I do believe it is incorrect and goes against the evidence (I'm an OEC). So instead of the clash, I think ID would be pretty cool.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
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.



Indeed



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


By name calling, do you mean by using terms such as Christians and Atheists? I use the labels as examples to support my point. I do try to avoid the typical name calling that tends to happen on this site. It's easy to fall into that. I'm all for a debate without it resorting to childish mudslinging.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darth Lumina
reply to post by OldThinker
 


By name calling, do you mean by using terms such as Christians and Atheists? I use the labels as examples to support my point. I do try to avoid the typical name calling that tends to happen on this site. It's easy to fall into that. I'm all for a debate without it resorting to childish mudslinging.



No, not you...I like your points...

The name calling I'm referring to is when each side resorts to personal attacks, etc...

sorry for the confusion...

OT



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


That's interesting, because their field of study (in most cases) had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, but with their particular field of science. So saying Christianity was the basis of their research is just trying to push an agenda.

I read through your link and found no direct evidence to any discovery in relation to Christianity, but please, you're free to correct me if I am wrong.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: Starred and Flagged!

My thoughts on the video are exactly what a member posted earlier which was that they confused evolution with abiogenisis! :shk: What
's!

My thoughts on Newtons quotes are that he should stop anthropomorphising and start seeing things not only from his limited human [local] perspective [POV] but also include seeing things from a entire [global] perspective [POV]! :shk: Uncle Albert was a genius as well but he married his cousin so should I follow his morality? Newton was a genius also and also a christian so should I follow both?


My thoughts on Freedom of thought is couched in quantum uncertainty and consciousness mediated by the laws of reality, so yes its a valid possibility IMO! Oops Did you mean what are my thoughts on ALLOWING freedom of thought? If so then no it shouldn't be allowed and should be replaced by freedom to understand! Unchecked thinking IMO is dangerous and needs to be seriously curtailed! Care to refute?

My thoughts on the banning of creationists is that prohibition never works!

Personal Disclosure: I'm quoting myself from another thread to make some salient points.

ATS Source of self quote.
"Explanation: WTF?

Q:You say creationism is harmful to both religion and science. Why?

Dr. Parker: Creationism is totally unfounded. It is as dangerous as fundamentalism in other religions.

Q:Creationists say evolution and the Big Bang are just theories. What do you think?

Dr. Parker: The problem with calling them theories is that anything can be called a theory. It doesn’t suggest the probability of it being right. On probability, you have creationism at something like 0.0001 per cent and evolution at 99.9999 per cent so it’s not fair to put them in the same category.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So creationism is totally unfounded with a probability of 0.001%
Then please tell me whether the Big Bang was an act of CREATION or not?
What does the current paradigm of science have to say about that!

Big Bang: Creation as proposed BY SCIENCE! RE: The THEORY!

CMB: Cosmic Microwave Background. Evidence of what was proposed above [i.e. CREATION!] BY SCIENCE! RE: The PROOF!

EPIC FAIL Dr. Parker! For him not to realize that the Big Bang is direct proof of creation [i.e 100% reality & NOT just a probability,] is to be scoffed at!

So Creationists say evolution and the Big bang are just theories! NOPE! EPIC FAIL to the person Questioning Dr. Parker.
As I fully believe in Science and the Big Bang and Evolution and Creationism and Intelligent Design and I also Experience the REALITY of all these things, then me just pigeonholing them as just theories would be disenfranchising the truth! And to discount ME from the demographic [RE: Creationist!] identified by the Questioner is to disenfranchise ME!

Personal Disclosure: mvirata hit the bullseye with the perfect quote! Star for them!

P.S. My answer to Dr. Parkers statement that "There are things beyond our realm we can’t solve with science." is that that is a victim mentality and is hardly productive at all and would ask that he amend his statement to include the word "YET" to the end, as this would allow the influence of time to be fully considered! "

Edited to fix spelling etc

[edit on 18-8-2009 by OmegaLogos]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by tungus
 


Well, for starters, there's algebra. There's also astronomy - not discovered by Muslims, but certainly developed and advanced by them. Why do you think so many stars have Arabic names?

Under Islam, science flourished while Europe wallowed in the Dark Ages.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Actually, not one of those scientists would bring God into a lecture on their field of expertise. The question isn't whether any scientists believe in God. Many do - possibly more believe in God than disbelieve. The question is whether they bring God into their science. They do not. They cannot. Whatever may be said about God, there is no reliable way to test His existence. He is outside the province of science.

So when Stephen Hawking talks about the Big Bang, or whatever he says, he's not claiming there's no God. He very well may believe that God was the author of the Big Bang, and oversees all the Universe now. But he doesn't claim this. It's not necessary for his theories. He's not saying, necessarily, that God is unnecessary. He's just not relying on the existence of Got so support his theory.

And so with the others. They may be very devout - in older days, scientists were often Roman Catholic priests. Lemaitre, Berkeley, Pascal, Newton, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, all either clergy or devoutly religious. They all saw the workings of God in nature, but they left God out of their science.

Religion has no place in a public school in the US. It belongs in the home.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join