I touched on this more recently, I sort of corrected myself. Allow me to find that post and edit this one. I still think schools are biased (at least some) due to the fact they don't exactly teach all the possibilities, however that's impossible itself, and where I think about origin of life, it should only be used as a basis for sciences.
The very fact you are unwilling to even consider the fact that you are wrong makes you close minded. Please show me evidence of his "poorly constructed" arguments, I understood quite clearly. Perhaps the reason the things *you* say don't get across is because of YOUR argumentative skills. There is a difference between discrediting something and ignoring it. "Case closed" sounds arrogant to me, and speaks of your close mindedness towards the opinions of others. It's not your argument to end. I can't imagine where that sense of self entitlement comes from.
But creation is a bias by definition. Rather than any need-to-believe, science is driven by a desire to understand. And the only way to improve your understanding of anything is to seek out errors in our current position and correct them. You can’t do that if you claim your initial assumptions are already infallible, and you can’t even begin to seek the truth if you won’t admit that you might not already know it, or that you don’t know it all perfectly already. Is it biased to teach creationism? Yes because creationism implies a creator and at some level the creator must be god which is an endorsement of one view point over another. Whereas, evolution can be reconciled in any religious manner. Creationism mistakenly identifies belief as knowledge. Unless you have empirical evidence for your cause it will not be taught and neither will U.F.O's, Big Foot or Nessie, no matter how many believe or want to believe.
This will be last post to you here. I have posted all the reasons I wish not to continue this debate. I obviously had to consider myself being right makes me consider my theory altogether. Oh its not his argumentative skills, its his misunderstanding then building on that misunderstanding. Case closed? Its not arrogance at all. The fact that I have the right not to continue this debate and yet YOU continue is proof of your arrogance towards my right. Its perfectly my right to end the argument. Since I won't reply to your posts after this, the argument stops. Very simple. I didn't claim creation to be infallible, and furthermore I even noted that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools unless you are choosing to believe what you wish is the origin of life. Couldn't creationism be taught as an empirical outline for evolution? The evidence we have is what is here now, and all that the Bible tells us. Though I believe that creationism is true, and as I noted on one of your blogs, and together with what I posted earlier, I hope I make sense. Since neither theory is proven, I think they should be taught alongside, however, when it comes to scientific purposes, I have no problem with the big bang and evolution being taught. However, being enforced upon this theory is what I don't support, and free flowing thinking is the way to go. I myself like to see science and creation together, and whoever does that has good thinking.
I apologise for calling you stupid. But the gullibility is obvious in the eyes of an atheist. From my perspective, you believe a false truth that is very easily seen through, thereby to me, you are gullible. Also... I'm going to edit that post. The stupid was a step too far. While we're on the subject of schools, however... You provided an assumption as evidence, not logic.
Your for what neither of us have, something to prove an entirety correct. Jesus claimed to be God, that is proven fact, multiple outside-of-Bible historical documents say he is "The supposed Christ," or "Claimer of Divinity." The part where faith comes is believing upon logic. It is proven fact that Jesus existed and claimed to God. What liar though spends his entire life pretending to be God, and continue that lie even WHEN HE WAS BEING CRUCIFIED! Or he was the calmest lunatic I've ever heard of....cooperating while being crucified....cooperation.....on a cross....think about it... The faith says he is God, fact says he claims to be. This is the way all of Christianity works. We base our faith upon fact and logic, not as you were ignorant enough to believe we accept everything by blind faith. The following is why I believe God exists, because no fact existed before the beginning, [that we can know] all we have for this is logic: The Need for a Creator How could the universe be without a creator? The universe is undoubtedly finite, or possessive of a beginning. The universe could not exist forever because it changes. Should the universe be eternal it would be like a number line, though we would always be on zero. There would be no date to build changes upon--we would always be in the beginning. We would be at the building point from which the never ending past would progress and the never ending future. We can't just start from one, because, what got us to one? And from where? It doesn't take much thought to see that the universe has a beginning... So, how much of the universe has a beginning....just matter? Or what about space and time? Yes, all of it. Matter we know has a beginning because it changes (temperature), it cannot exist without changing. Space is just the measurement between matter, not a dimension, just the volume of nothingness. So without matter, it could not exist. Time is what I was talking about at first, so we can all come to the conclusion that all three of those things, that make up the universe, have a beginning. Anything that has a beginning needs a cause: Basket>Weaver Report>Writer Program>Programmer Universe>God Q- What if it was just a big explosion? A-Needs matter, and pressure build up is change. Q-What if there was a world before this, with people and stuff? A-Needs change, they had to think walk around, breathe and eat didn't they? This sums up my whole theory, usually when I have these discussions though they go on...and on....and on....usually because the person I'm talking to is being a butthead and using anti-God jokes as debate points... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ That logic, you will say, is stupid, you will redefine words, treat me like an idiot, etc.. But deep down, you know you just DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE IT. That assumes that you are right, and we are wrong, why don't you try and prove yourself, like we have multiple times. We could be just as difficult as yall, and believe in God until you guys poofed up some evidence proving he doesn't exist, but no we try to have a debate, and you call names. This debate is becoming an insult fight....
My statement was directed as an explanation to a comment before this was moved to debates... We all think we're right. There's no avoiding that. The emphasis in my words is on "from my perspective". I'm not trying to dissuade you from your beliefs, those are your own and that's fine by me... I really don't mind you believing what you like if it gives you a better understanding of the world and/or makes you feel happier and more secure. I only have an issue when you and your beliefs "invade" others. Do not take the above as me saying you force your beliefs on people, that's not how those words are intended.
So yeah. Freedom of religion. Where do you think the line is for the advertisement of religion? I think it's at direct confrontation. As much as I hate late night "conversion" shows, at least everyone has the option to change the channel, whereas with face-to-face confrontations unassertive people could get forced into wasting their time instead of working up the nerve to stand up for their beliefs.
I thought The Bible was objectively true and unquestionable scripture according to your christian beliefs? I rather thought that this was the point of your vehemence in choosing your on perception of christianity as 'true'. If this is the case, how can creationism even possibly be not true in your mind? You don't consider other christian schools as even possibly valid, so why is this same principle (stemming from the same basis, the Bible), not applied here? Also, Nitrous has touched on why your side by side argument will never work. They cannot be taught side by side because they are not side by side principles, they are not comparable. As he just stated, the big bang teaches our understanding of the physical beginning of existence of the universe. Creation is, more specifically, about why this creation happened, and what happened before even. The difference in the nature of the two ideas, big bang and creation, is almost process and purpose, they are not equivalent in the principle's they discuss or try to answer, thus they are not two things that bear being taught alongside one another. This would present them as completely equal alternatives in every sense, they are not. Also, as has been the most common argument on this one, what exactly are you proposing by 'side by side' teaching here? First religious explanation should not be taught in science lessons, for reasons outlined by myself and cemented more recently by Nitrous' statements, the study and comprehension of religious scripture is not even close to science as a process. Also, again why is one religious theory being given preference here. I agree that Christianity is more relevant to, say, students in the US than Hinduism may be, but that means squat in terms of which one is more likely to be right (as if such an arbitrary measurement of likelihood to be right could ever be achieved, but still, preference cannot be given otherwise it undermines the whole point).
Bananas This is a perfect example of the surface logic that is used by Christianity to justify and recruit. Only on the thin surface layer does this make any sense or point to any proof for intelligent creation. I guess if you looked this over for a second, or heard someone say it quickly at a church function you may accept it at face value. The problem is you are comparing the universe to three man made examples. If you approach the analogy more logically and use natural examples it actually points in the other direction. How are these things created: Rock>natural processes requiring no intelligence Cloud>natural processes requiring no intelligence Atmosphere>natural processes requiring no intelligence Canyon>natural processes requiring no intelligence Mountain>natural processes requiring no intelligence Glacier>natural processes requiring no intelligence Lightning>natural processes requiring no intelligence Universe>natural processes requiring no intelligence Surface arguments are for people that will accept anything you suggest without even a hint of thinking through what was just said to them. The funny thing is that these arguments work! They work with many, many people. For evidence of that look no further than Kirk Cameron and his buddy trying to explain that there is a god because we can hold bananas: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4[/media]
"Behold the Athiest's worst nightmare". Yes Kirk, I do have a nightmare. Funnily enough it involves you, your friend sitting next to you, and a banana. You proceed to use the banana as an example of a fruit that has "Irreducible complexity", which means you favorite wizard-man MUST exist. You ignore evidence and reach an uneducated conclusion. It's a pretty bad nightmare.
A very good liar. You don't know this man. "Heard of" is the important thing here. You don't know this man; maybe he did freak out a little. And if he was a lunatic, he wouldn't suddenly become sane while being crucified and go "Oh snap, just kidding I'm not God," and then continue on. (If at any point in your subsequent response you decide to quote the Bible to show anything about Jesus, also state reasons that show the Bible to be a credible source.) Imagine any of these graphs representing the universe; the X-axis values are "times", and the Y-axis values are "changes". Then notice that these graphs can continue to infinite going in any direction. This means that - if the universe were to be represented by a graph - the universe does not require a beginning, and can therefore be infinite. Without matter, space is all that would "exist". You haven't offered any definitive proof either; I thought we had all acknowledged that no one can prove or disprove God. Also, please don't generalize like that and say people opposing you are "name-callers". If you are taking issue with certain people's methods of debating, tell them. Do not lump people into groups because they are debating against you. Believe what? There are so many things to believe; all have the possibility of being right... what to choose? HEY just a side note, this is starting to go into a religious debate not really related to the OP. We should probably take this to the God thread.
None of that is proof. Others have already shown how your logic is wrong so I won't do the same. I want evidence. None of what you described was evidence. They were reasons for doubting science, yes, but they did NOTHING to prove that a god exists. Unless you can do this, you have no rationalization for your beliefs, and you have to admit that you hold them through basic human stubbornness and a refusal to change your mind.
I command you to read the OP and see how this Debate is about WETHER TALKING TO CHILDREN AT SCHOOL ABOUT RELIGION IS RIGHT OR WRONG.
1) Oh, its absolutely true in my mind. My whole point as I had stated previously was that on a scientific studying basis I don't mind big bang/ evolution because that provides an easier route rather than depicting creation and whatnot. I also don't mind Christian schools. I myself go to one now. 2) I think I should clear myself up. I totally think the origin of life should only be used it needed and it is pretty much irrelevant in a science class. HOWEVER, if a school is to teach "how we got here" or "why we're here" my personal take on that is that they should teach all the major things. You can't just learn one thing and go completely uneducated on the other side of things (imo). It will also benefit students by helping them learn what they don't believe in or what they do believe in and it will help shape their future, whether its debating, or science.
True, but that's what theology classes are about; they teach all religions from an objective standpoint. Science class, however, is no place to be teaching religion.
That's why I stated that I don't mind big bang / evolution taught as a scientific basis, though irrelevant unless for purposeful studies, the origin of life teachings in school imo should be disregarded altogether.
This debate is straying off topic. Sorry I haven't been active in it, but I'm not even supposed to be using the computer right now.
So yeah. Freedom of religion. Where do you think the line is for the advertisement of religion? Is it something that should be taught at school, home or church? Also, how far would you be willing to go to advocate your beliefs, religious or otherwise.
People should not be able to preach religion, it's infringing on a basic human right of freedom of thought.