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: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


I can reduce the time frame even further. How about a year. What evolves in such a short time frame, you ask? Viruses. Every flu season, the influenza virus mutates into a slightly different form. Mutation, the cornerstone of evolution is observed by virologists on a constant basis. The more complex the organism, the longer the time period it takes to evolve. In species as complex as humans, it takes tens of thousands of years.




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Don't know what is done these days in education, but, I think the real concern is the lack of an objective and balanced approach. Selling Evolution is as bad as selling Creationism via the Bible. When we don't see an objective, balanced, honest, open minded approach, something is wrong. The lack of an open mind from institutions that purport to be open minded, objective and scientific is a give away.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by Annee
 


That's all well and good ... but here's the thing ...

I want to indoctrinate our children now while their brains are juicy and impressionable.

I don't wanna wait till college .... or puberty. [/sarcasm]


OK - you mean "other people's" children?

"Culture is the hardest thing in the world to effect change"

We are talking about religion/god culture. We took Step 1 - - removing religion from schools. That culture is the one who is pushing to find an alternate route to put religion back in schools disguised as Creationism. And of course that would be Christian Creationism - - - renamed Intelligent Design.

What you and I believe is too foreign a concept to be inserted into that mess.

Some scientists today are recognizing consciousness etc. If "our" Creationism could be inserted under the label of science - - perhaps there is a chance.

However - - I suggest you invent a board game (in disguise) - - and perhaps make it free to all children's after care programs. FIRST - - get them thinking so they question what they have been taught - - by parents and teachers.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

What you and I believe is too foreign a concept to be inserted into that mess.


Ain't that the truth. (pun intended)


Though I wouldn't call it a belief, at least for me it lies in the absence of any conceptual truths, thus in the absence of belief.


However - - I suggest you invent a board game (in disguise) - - and perhaps make it free to all children's after care programs. FIRST - - get them thinking so they question what they have been taught - - by parents and teachers.


I would call it "things aren't what they're called" ...

For example:



This is not a tree, this is what we call a tree.

But that's for another thread.


[edit on 28 Aug 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Though I wouldn't call it a belief, at least for me it lies in the absence of any conceptual truths, thus in the absence of belief.



That sounds like a schrodingers dog twister.

To me accepting nothing is real - but a creation of thought - is real.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReelView
Don't know what is done these days in education, but, I think the real concern is the lack of an objective and balanced approach. Selling Evolution is as bad as selling Creationism via the Bible. When we don't see an objective, balanced, honest, open minded approach, something is wrong. The lack of an open mind from institutions that purport to be open minded, objective and scientific is a give away.


OK, I'll admit that it's been a few... ahem, decades since I graduated from high school, but I don't remember evolution being 'sold' to us. It was presented as the most likely possible explanation of the diversity of life on Earth. We were never told that we must believe it, just understand the science behind it. It was up to us to decide whether it was true or false.

Have things changed that much in this amount of time?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by John Matrix
 


I can reduce the time frame even further. How about a year. What evolves in such a short time frame, you ask? Viruses. Every flu season, the influenza virus mutates into a slightly different form. Mutation, the cornerstone of evolution is observed by virologists on a constant basis. The more complex the organism, the longer the time period it takes to evolve. In species as complex as humans, it takes tens of thousands of years.


Human remains have been found that are 5,000 to 10,000 years old and older.....and they look the same as we do....although smaller.....which is attributed to poor nutrition, not that they are less evolved. The only evolution I can accept is that of the spirit and mind of man. Some have evolved spiritually, some have devolved and some are static.
A virus is still a virus, regrardless of mutation. For example, a flu virus does not mutate into an organism, or to any higher form.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by John Matrix
 

...
In species as complex as humans, it takes tens of thousands of years.


Human remains have been found that are 5,000 to 10,000 years old and older.....and they look the same as we do....although smaller.....which is attributed to poor nutrition, not that they are less evolved.


Notice the part that is now in bold type. I said tens of thousands of years. The time period you mention is but a fraction of the total time that humans have walked the earth. You know, like 150,000 B.C.E. Now, given the billion years that life has flourished here, the fraction becomes even smaller.


A virus is still a virus, regrardless of mutation. For example, a flu virus does not mutate into an organism, or to any higher form.


That statement is, um, ignorant. It shows a total lack of understanding of the theory that you are so fervently bashing. But to each his own. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the creationist view has absolutely no data to support it. If it did, I would give it some thought. It has as much supporting data as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns and Pixies. And I didn't even get to the 'Talking Snake'! If you have a snake talking to you, you did not eat from the Tree of Knowledge, but the Mushroom of Illusion!



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I think this topic has degenerated into the usual creationism vs. evolution debate which wasn’t the original question.

Whether evolution is wrong or not this has no bearing on the validity of creationism.

For those arguing the point that creationism is a valid science can you provide the evidence for this?

Remember, however, that evidence for creationism does not consist of evidence against evolution, real or perceived. To prove evolution is true one does not have to invoke creationism. It should therefore be the case that to prove creationism one should not have to invoke evolution.

Once again, for those saying creationism is a valid scientific theory, please provide the evidence for this.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Me thinks your attackish disposition is the result of the very representation you display in your avatar.

Go back tens of thousands of years if you like, but you still have no proof no matter how far you retreat into those eons of time.

Order and complexity from chaos is not a product of time....that idea violates the law of entropy(second law of thermal dynamics).

Remember, all of the same evidences evolutionists rely on is the same evidences that creationists use. The only differences are the explanations, and that creationinsts don't have a need to form secondary assumptions like evolutionists so often do. To me, the creation model just makes more sense and evolution is the biggest conspiracy ever pulled off on mankind.

Polonium haos prove earth's granite was created and cooled within a few minutes.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ShiningSabrewolf
 

I thought the answer to this question was obvious.

So the Belief-System has enough Followers to continue existing.

Forced Indoctrination while very young insures they rarely look outside the Box.

The Believers are so intent on their Beliefs being the only right one, that they must force it onto everyone.... or damn them for not accepting it.

When enough people wake-up all those Belief-Systems will fade away into history like every single Edifice made by Man has done.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
How about you all follow little old Australia's lead?

In high school I was taught evolution in science class.

In religion we were taught overviews of all the world's major religions including Christianity. These included research into the sacred texts, afterlife beliefs etc AS WELL AS CREATION STORIES.

Why not do that? Teach both sides of it and let the damn kids decide themselves what they want to believe.

Neither side should be jamming their (currently unproven) views down the childen's throats. Let them make up their own minds when they get old enough.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Me thinks your attackish disposition is the result of the very representation you display in your avatar.


My avatar is because I think it's funny, nothing else. If you feel I'm directing it towards you, then... As to the 'attackish disposition', it's a debate site. It's what we do! If you are feeling attacked...


Go back tens of thousands of years if you like, but you still have no proof no matter how far you retreat into those eons of time.


This statement shows a complete lack of research on your part. Either that, or you firmly stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LALALALALALA" any time evidence is given or data is put forth.


Order and complexity from chaos is not a product of time....that idea violates the law of entropy(second law of thermal dynamics).


Thermodynamics has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Get back to me once you have a basic grip on the various sciences and especially those that deal with evolution. (Hint- Biology, genetics, zoology, and anthropology would be a good start). Also, the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. entropy, has nothing to do with "Order and complexity from chaos". The second law of thermodynamics, entropy states:


The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system always increases over time, approaching a maximum value.

Source.

Not one mention of order, complexity or chaos.


Remember, all of the same evidences evolutionists rely on is the same evidences that creationists use. The only differences are the explanations, and that creationinsts don't have a need to form secondary assumptions like evolutionists so often do. To me, the creation model just makes more sense and evolution is the biggest conspiracy ever pulled off on mankind.


Creationists only try to dispute the evidence. I have yet to see one use it to explain the Creation Myth. As to proof for it, the only 'proof' I've yet to hear is "It's in the Bible, God said it, and that's good enough for me!"


Polonium haos prove earth's granite was created and cooled within a few minutes.


Since granite is formed from sea water rushing into volcanic crevices on the ocean floor, of course it was created and cooled within a few minutes. No geologist will disagree with that. But it wasn't all created at the same time. It took a couple of billion years to form all of the granite on Earth today. But again, this has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, it's geology. You are just proving that we need more REAL science taught in our schools.

I do believe that there is a Divine creator, and that there is a plan. It's just not the simple, man made version that is in the Bible. It's far more complicated than that.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
Your understanding of evolution is as flawed and fictional as one_man's. If what you described is what you think evolution is, then one_man is right - You're just believing it on faith.

Oh, I do apologise, I didn't think I'd need to explain that I was hugely oversimplifying, in order to explain something to somebody who didn't have a clue. Next time I'll post six pages of science that he won't even read. Because that would be productive.



Jaxon is doing a superb job.


[edit on 28-8-2009 by Clickfoot]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
Human remains have been found that are 5,000 to 10,000 years old and older.....and they look the same as we do....although smaller.....which is attributed to poor nutrition, not that they are less evolved.

But why, to this day, do we still have a tail bone, if we never had a tail? Why would a 'creator' give us things we don't need? The only answer is that we did indeed have tails at some point - i.e we weren't 'human' as we understand now. We don't anymore. We evolved. We still have the bone - maybe some time way into the future, we will lose that bone. Then again, maybe we won't, since it's not causing us any problems. That's how evolution works.

As I said earlier, yes, I agree there are a lot of things that have no good explanation. But there are also a lot of things that can be used to prove evolution, and nothing, apart from speculation, that proves creation - even if you believe it makes perfect sense.

Genesis is not 'history recorded thousands of years ago' because there was nobody there at the time to record it.

But back to the original question, I really don't see the point or need to try and teach this stuff. There are many different 'creation' theories, and people will read the bible or other religious texts and learn this for themselves anyway. People are far less likely to read science books without encouragement.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Clickfoot]

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Clickfoot]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Clickfoot
 


Exactly which is why it should be taught. I homeschool, I am a Mystic Minister and a Death Survivor. But in my school I teach both, and in fact I teach a third "theory".

Why you ask, I am just assuming you might, because my children get a more rounded education and have a greater amount of data to pull from. It also spurs them on in the field of science (I myself am a Spiritual Scientist).

When we limited the information to only one set of parameters we are going against what science itself teaches.
If we have no opposing argument, we have no need to research, experiment or draw conclusions that must be proven.

My children had more fun and discussions when we taught both as they could see the flaws in both and begin to hypothesis other possibilites and even to wonder if the Bible is in fact correct, just not interpreted in a correct way which leads to a false assumption of facts.

If we all truly want to be the intelligent beings we are and the right to enlarge our awareness, then we should start with our children, and limiting access to a knowledge that spans the globe is a detriment to their growth.

I present both sides in a very clinical way, I then introduce other theories, then the fun gets going as we discuss each, ask myriad questions and do research on each one and then based on all we find, draw our own conclusions, keeping open the knowledge that we may be wrong and we will keep looking for the answers.

Becuase of my approach my children research everything and do not take anything at face value. This did more to broaden their minds. So until one or another theory is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, we should allow both presented side by side,if only for comparison purposes.

So, is this an acceptable post?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
The problem I have with Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") is that the basic premise is flawed.

The argument goes that the Universe is far too complex and intricate to have developed by chance, in a blind, undirected way. Something as complex even as a single cell, they say, could not arise out of random chaotic events. The human eye is a miracle of complexity, impossible to develop without guidance. The human brain makes everything else look simple - more evidence that there must have been some sort of guiding Intelligence that directed this creation.

As they say, "No Watchmaker, no watch". You can't get such an intricate Universe from blind chance.

The problem with this is that whatever Intelligence created the Universe would be even more complex, intricate, and miraculous than the Universe It (or He, or She) created. This inevitably leads to the question, who created the Creator? How could such a Creator arise purely by chance, if the Universe He created couldn't have done it?

The answer is usually, "Well, the Creator has always existed, and always will". Fine. Except, you can skip the Creator then, and just say that the Universe has always existed, and always will.

If you say that some super-Creator created what we call God, then we get into an infinite regress, creators of creators of creators. There is no end of it, each creator more wonderful and miraculous than the one before it.

There is no reason, though, to stop at one Creator, as the Intelligent Design folks would have us do.

Creationism has no place in a science class, because it has no physical evidence to support it. What people argue about is not Creation, but evolution. Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't addess the issue of Creation at all. He made no guess as to how life started, much less how the Earth started. All Darwin did was to observe that species change over time, and that over very long periods of time, mutations can lead to the origins of new species that had not previously existed.

The main reason you find Intelligent Design being forced into biology classes is that according to the Bible, no new species are possible. God created them all. Some have died out, but species reproduce "each according to its kind", as the Bible says. Darwin says that new species arise all the time, as the result of natural processes; and that the presence of various species now is a result of those same natural processes.

Intelligent Design seeks to argue about the creation of life; evolution discusses its evolution, without discussiing its origins. Intelligent Design, even if it were shown to be true, does not preclude the possibility of evolution now causing new species to arise through natural processes. It simply claims to excplain how life began.

So aside from everything else, Intelligent Design (or Creationism) and Darwin's theory of evolution are discussing two different matters.

[edit on 8/28/2009 by chiron613]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritwomyn
So, is this an acceptable post?

Absolutely.

I guess what I am trying to say, admittedly very badly, is that Darwins theories are trying to explain things using the pieces of evidence that we have. There are lots of holes and he fully admitted this. But this is the way science works. Explain what you can, and hopefully these holes will be filled by later research - or we'll find something else to explain them. We need people to keep looking, so it's important to teach this stuff properly.

Creationism, on the other hand, isn't really a "theory", it's more like an answer. "God created us". You can't explain how, it just happened. So there is little to study or learn from it.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
To the OP;

Make it equal......

I have said over and over agian it should be equal. God gives us a choice to chose him or not. In society we should have the freedom to chose weather we are for God or not.

In the Court Houses there should hang the 10 commandments on one wall and the evolution chart on another wall. In schools parents should have a choice between their child taking what you call "creation" or "evolution". There should be a minute of silence. One child can pray to God, and another can pick the lice from their hair in rememberance of their ancestors or what ever it is evolutionist do to honor their heritage. That way everyone would be happy. No?

Honestly in my state teachers can choose to teach creation or evolution, most chose evolution because it is a simpler concept to teach and learn.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Melissa101
 


This point of view just kills me. Why is it automatically assumed that if one accepts evolution that one is an atheist??? You can believe in a power higher than yourself and still accept evolution! THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!!

Also, while a moment of silence is perfectly acceptable, ONLY SCIENCE SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASS! Do we teach English in Math class??? Do we teach Math in History class??? No, we do not. The Creation Myth is a religious concept, and should be taught at Sunday School or at home.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join