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.

 

Ok then people, the next question- Why do you think Creationism SHOULD be taught in schools?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Because they are too cheap to pay for their children to go to a private religious school. The ONLY place creationism should be taught.

just my 2-cents

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Aggie Man]




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
You're right. Let's just teach the children one theory of life (which isn't proven) so they can't make the decision for themself on what to believe.

Nice



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
To make it simple.

Science (basic science) is kind of a ONE FITS ALL concept. Science is science. Of course you can argue theories.

Creationism various greatly around the world - in cultures - ancient history - etc.

There is no ONE FITS ALL Creationism.

Those pushing for Creationism in public school are actually pushing to teach their religious belief.

I do not want my child taught Christian beliefs.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by judgiebegoode
Well, evolution is based in science, and science is few laws and a lot of theories (beliefs).

Creationism, is design by some omnipotent force/being, based off of historical accounts of a bunch of people who decided to write their experiences down as a holy book.

So, my personal perspective, is that they should cover both. Evolution fits in with biology, and Creationism falls in with History. Let people make their own decisions as to what to believe.


Great! I vote that Hopi Creationism be taught in my public school.

ONLY Hopi Creationism.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Of course creation should be taught in schools. Just not in science class.

Evolution is a scientific concept, meaning it has evidence to back it up. Sure, it's got a few holes we haven't explained (YET), but it's the best we've got. Creation stories, however, aren't scientific and therefore have no place in a science class.

If creation is taught in a religious studies class, then there's no real issue now is there?

** when I say "creation" I don't mean the Christian concept of creation as found in the Bible, I mean the general idea that the life, the universe, and everything came from some higher power(s) **



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Point of clarity for all, “The Evolutionary Theory of Man” is the theory that man developed through the process of evolution. Evolution in itself is can be proven scientifically. “The Evolutionary Theory of Man” has not been, yet. They are not the same thing. Referring to them as the same thing confuses the debate.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
My Two Cents:

First things first, I do NOT subscribe to ANY religion and I am unbiased. This goes for ALL religions. Even obscure ones...

Creationism should be taught. It is a theory.
The big bang IS taught and it is only a theory.

Creationism should be taught as a higher being or a geneticist's point of view if he were to create life. Not as a religion.


Evolution can be applied to either theory:
A deity creates the universe and all living things with the power in their genetic coding to adapt to their surroundings as the species spreads.

Out of nothing a huge explosion occurs spreading dust, rocks, and primordial sludge outward. Through random occurrences and coincidences life forms. It evolves all the way to where it is now.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Sliick]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by stuckhere
Point of clarity for all, “The Evolutionary Theory of Man” is the theory that man developed through the process of evolution. Evolution in itself is can be proven scientifically. “The Evolutionary Theory of Man” has not been, yet. They are not the same thing. Referring to them as the same thing confuses the debate.


Man does evolve. Man has changed over the years.

See Playboys the evolution of women.

To deny that man has physically changed over the years by adaptation is ridiculous.

Did man evolve from primates? I don't know - - - but to deny the possibility is pure ignorance IMO.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by anonymouse876
Of course creation should be taught in schools. Just not in science class.

If creation is taught in a religious studies class, then there's no real issue now is there?

** when I say "creation" I don't mean the Christian concept of creation as found in the Bible, I mean the general idea that the life, the universe, and everything came from some higher power(s) **


You mean like mythology?

I happen to believe the ancient mythologies are based on reality. They should be taught as Creationism vs Evolution.

For that matter - I think the Terra Papers should be taught in public school as well.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Creationism should be taught in schools because:
First, when the VERY SAME evidences are examined by scientists who believe in creation, the conclusions are more reasonable and logical, and there is no need to develop the obviously evolving and somewhat wacky secondary assumptions that the evolutionists come up with.

Second, when you teach children that they are a product of chance and no different than other animals....since by accident they evolved one way and us another, then they begin to act like animals with no consciences.


Third, polonium halos, the unrefuted evidence earth was created cold....not a molten mass for millions of years as some theorize.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by one_man24
reply to post by ShiningSabrewolf
 


Don't want to turn this into another Creation vs Evo thread, so let's take religion out of this. Plain and simple, Evolution is as faith based as any religion. So you're children are still being indoctrinated by people who subscribe to a particulary FAITH based belief system. What's wrong with one more?


Um, not it's not. Evolution can be tested, over and over again, in different places. Creation cannot.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Here's a shorter video concerning polonium halos: www.youtube.com...

Our solar system contains evidence for creation:
Look at parts 1 to 9. Here is part 1: www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FantasmaTaans

Originally posted by one_man24
reply to post by ShiningSabrewolf
 


Don't want to turn this into another Creation vs Evo thread, so let's take religion out of this. Plain and simple, Evolution is as faith based as any religion. So you're children are still being indoctrinated by people who subscribe to a particulary FAITH based belief system. What's wrong with one more?


Um, not it's not. Evolution can be tested, over and over again, in different places. Creation cannot.


Creation is all around you, so how can it not be tested? Procreation can be observed all day long, no one has observed evolution.

Remember, creationists use the same evidence as evolutionists....only the explanations differ. I find the creation explanation for all the same evidences is much more reasonable and logical.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

Procreation can be observed all day long, no one has observed evolution.


Wrong ...

www.pnas.org...

Of course you probably would have known that if we taught science in church.

But that would be silly right?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I have never understood the negative attitude of humans being animal.

We are animal.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Creationism shouldn't be taught in public school unless it's part of a comparative religion course. Even then, I would question why that type of course was being offered at a grade school level unless it's an elective.

As many have said, Christian Creationism, although widely believed by many, does not have a place in a science class. It should not be offered as a counter to anything else being taught. Whether it's true, false, or partially right has no bearing on the scientific theory being given out simply because it's religion and not science.

BTW, I consider myself a Christian and a scientist.

Also, I would love to study more about what Sigismundus was saying.

Feel free to post some links on where I can learn more.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Hi Octotum--

I take it you are not fluent in the ancient languages of the Hebrew scriptures, otherwise you would have been more conversant with the material...more's the pity, I say...

But to answer your query, yes, I have an advanced theology degree and yes I can read Hebrew and Aramaic and Koine Greek as well as Latin and modern German. I also am very familiar with the texts about which I speak (not only the Masoretic pointed version of AD 960 from Leningrad, but also the Hebrew Vorlage Underlay to the LXX Seputaginta found amonst the scraps in Caves 1-11 of the Dead Sea Scrolls near Qumran) as well as the Aramaic Targums and the Sammaritan Pentateuch, so I can tell you as a point of fact that the Two Creation Myths of the Jews DO NOT IN ANY WAY MATCH EACH OTHER, neither in style, vocabulary, syntax, grammar, spelling, phraseology, Weltanschauung, theology or 'order of Creation' and just saying 'they agree' you 're not making any sense of the textual material in front of you.

Anyone who claims that that Creation Myth # 1 of the Jews (found in Gen 1:1 - 2:4a) and the second Creation Myth #2 (Gen 2:4b to the end of chapter 4) are even close to being the same Myth is a claim of persons who cannot read Paleo Hebrew, and have certainly not read the accounts 'side by side' --or what we call 'close-reading'.

Do yourself a BIG favour and get ahold of a torah-for-beginner's book called Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman, a student of the great Frank Cross of Harvard University--there is stil a paperback in print put out by Harper-Collins I believe--

ISBN: 9780060630355; ISBN10: 0060630353; Imprint: HarperOne ; On Sale: 8/25/2009; Format: Trade PB; Trimsize: 5 5/16 x 8; Pages: 304

You might have to read the material in chapters 1-4 several times if you are not already conversant with the texts. To get yourself warmed up, take a highlighter and highlight the First Creation Myth in Genesis, then Highlight the 2nd Creation Myth in Genesis; then read one, then read the other one----very very very very very closely--even in English, if that's all you can read. Then pick up a copy of the Scroll of the Book of the Prophet Hezekiel (again in English, if that's your native tongue), and see if you can spot any similarities with Genesis chapter 1. If you cannot, you are not reading the text closely enough, or with your eyes open.

You should STILL be able to see a difference in style and syntax (notice the repeated liturgucal formulae in Myth #1 since it was apparently recited at the post-Exilic New Year Festival each Spring 'glorifying Creation', whereas the Creation Myth #2 is lighter and is full of origin-myths about where names and persons and habits and places came from.

You should also see at a glance that the writer of Myth #1 recurrs in Genesis Chapter 5:1-3 where the word ELOHIM (KJV 'GOD') is used instead of YHWH-ELOHIM as in the 2nd myth (written out in English as THE LORD GOD); where the two different writers used two different names for the god(s) of creation....

Without a working knowledge of the text (and you do not seem to have acquired this yet) you really cannot discuss these issues intelligently. I'm sorry to be so 'Frank' with you, but really, someone has to, eventually !!



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Why must Creationism be linked to religion? I think much of life was created by beings or entities of a higher power than humankind now possesses. I don't believe they were Gods anymore than someone smarter than you is a God. I also have no idea of their motives. Maybe we were created to serve as vessels for life forms that could no longer take a physical shape? Maybe their physical shape was lost through what we would intrept as evil actions? No one knows. It could have even been future versions of ourselves.

I certianly don't think we were created so we could worship these beings or entities that created us. It just doesn't make sense that you would create something and then make them prove their worth through worship. If you are able to create, why not just mold everyone in the fashion you want and be done with it? You could simply program in a decision making process that would make them evolve like you desire. This free will stuff just doesn't coincide with God as a creator.

While I beleive that we were created, I also think that we evolve. I imagine we will one day be able to create an earth like planet through our science and understanding. Will that make us Gods? No.

As far as teaching it in school, it should be taught. But it should be taught from a broad perspective which includes a wide variety of possible creators, with a religous God being one of those.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Sigismundus - if you don't already have your own thread on these comparisons - - - you need to.

I appreciate your learned knowledge.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
Why must Creationism be linked to religion?


Have you read the Terra Papers? That's Creationism.

Have you read the RA Papers? That's Creationism.

Let's make those required reading and the study of Creationism.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join