Fear terrorists? Nah, fear stupidity.Follow

It doesn't really matter how many people in the religious community believe it. Having a bajillion people believe something doesn't add evidence to it. We're interested in data here, not how well it polls on the street.

Creationism: The belief that the world was created by a divine being. This is based on religious texts and not hard evidence.

100% factual and ready to go. Really, nothing about that makes creationists sound "stupid" unless you're overly sensitive to the fact that there's no evidence supporting your beliefs.

yes i was but i was trying to be sensitive to your wants.

Ah, why don't you just go off and create "The School of People Who THINK They Know it All". Then you can teach your 100% flawless theories to the children of all the others who "know it all".

Maybe there should be a catagory of "fanatic evolutionists" also seing as you appear to fit that catagory well. Next we may see you scream "Darwin!" as you run into other religious buildings with bombs strapped to your chest.

/sarcasm off

Erm, because it's considered scripture? What does that have to do with whether it's factual or not? I'm not arguing whether or not the Bible is well translated, I'm saying whether or not the Genesis story has roots in scientific fact. Do you have a six thousand year old copy of Genesis to translate from? No? Can you admit that it was not an eye witness account?

Our system of dating is based on the assumed year of his death because the Roman Empire became Christianized and began using it. If China begins a world war and we all wind up using the Chinese calander, will that mean Christ no longer existed? Again, you're proving nothing here except what the dating method was on the dominant power in Europe. And that Europe went on to become the dominant power over most of the world.

Eh? I must have missed the newspaper the day the validity of the Shroud of Turin was proved. Last I heard, it was independently tested in three different labs and each came back with a date of c.1300 AD as to its creation and the age of the linen.

Most scholars I've heard of believe that there was a Jesus simply because the Christian cult evolved too quickly for there not to have been a leader and a catalyst for it. That doesn't mean he was divine. There is also no copies of anything written about Christ while he still lived, with the earliest Gospels being written around 70 AD. If you have access to pre-Christianized Roman historical records espousing the miracles of Christ as fact, I'd like to know of them.

Point, set, match, Jophiel!

Wootlestm!

Eh? Why is it "proof" to accept something purely because a book tells you so, but it's "half-fetched" to accept something because thousands of people have thoroughly researched something and come to a particular conclusion.

You are the one with assumptions here Empyre. Not Joph. Not me. You are assuming that everything written in the Bible is 100% correct.

We are assuming nothing. We only accept what is reasonably supported by the evidence and data. On the one hand, we have a shroud that some 15th century monk claims covered Jesus' body. There is no historical proof of this. Only one mans word. As Joph stated, the shroud has been tested several times by several different methods and has consistently been dated somewhere around 1300AD (the cloth specifically). How exactly do you refute that? How much proof do you need?

I have no idea what you are talking about with this alleged spear. This is the first I've heard of it. I'm going to assume (yeah, I know. But I'm betting I'm not far off), that this is yet another myth that has cropped up somewhere along the way.

As to Jesus leaving a tomb "guarded by Rome's best soldiers"? Huh!? Where did you get that? What bizaare version of any Gospel did you read? Did you just make that up? Did someone in Sunday School make that up? There is no mention that Jesus' tomb was guarded by anyone, let alone Roman guards. Um... Given that Jerusalem was basically the armpit of the Empire anyway (aside form being handy for trade), I seriously doubt that any Roman soldiers stationed there could by any stretch have been the "best" of anything.

By most accounts, Jesus' tomb was unwatched by anyone. In the Gospel account (Mark I think, but I'd have to check to be sure), the women arrive at the tomb to find the stone rolled aside and Jesus' body gone. Um... If there was someone there, don't you think maybe they would have mentioned it? Even if it was a simple "Hey Flavius? What happened to the stone?". Yet there's no mention of anyone being there, or an mention that anyone was supposed to be there. Why on earth would Roman guards stand over a Jew's tomb? No reason at all. No Jew would have, it was the Sabbath (and passover no less!). They all had to be indoors for the day.

For someone with such firm beliefs, you aren't terribly well informed about your own religion.



Um... I'm going to say this again. Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is a religious belief. You may call Creationism a "theory" all you want, but it does not have enough evidence to support it to justify teaching it in science class.


That's the real issue here folks. What should we be teaching our children in *science* class (biology specifically). My problem is that you can't *not* teach evolution. It's a legitimate science. The only reason to leave it out would be because it happens to contradict the religious belief of creationism. Thus, if we leave it off our public school curriculum, then we are allowing religious beliefs to determine our public school curriculum. Is there anyone here who's arguing for that?

So, we can't *not* teach evolution. Let's just accept that fact. We can't not teach evolution anymore then we can not teach chemistry, or physics. So, the next question becomes: Should we be teaching creationism in that same science class? I'd say not. It's not a science by any definition. It doesn't even merit a mention (as some are trying to suggest). Why mention it? I mean, I could mention old Monad theory as an aside to teaching physics, but we don't. We don't because Monad theory was based on a philosophical approach rather then a physical one. It does not belong in a physical sciences class (as biology, chemistry, and physics are). We are free to teach that in a philosophy class. Just as we are free to teach creationism in that sort of class as well (call it world culture, philosophy, religion, whatever).


The key point is that those ideas should be taught in the appropriate classes, and should be taught in such a way that it is clear that they are based on people's beliefs of how things are, and not necessarily based on any physical evidence.


I think it does a great diservice to hard sciences to toss ideas like creationism into the middle of them, and imply to a school child that they are equal in validity. They simply aren't. Not in the context of the class you are teaching anyway. You've got to remember that the whole point of teaching science classes to students is so that they learn the ideas of scientific method. You undermine the entire concept if you toss in unscientific stuff like creationism on an equal footing in that context.


I just don't understand why people have such a hard time with this. The two are completely different types of thought and are conclusions about things based on completely different processes. You simply can't compare them. You certainly can't try to teach them side by side in the same class as though they are equivalent "theories". They just aren't...

"By most accounts, Jesus' tomb was unwatched by anyone. In the Gospel account (Mark I think, but I'd have to check to be sure), the women arrive at the tomb to find the stone rolled aside and Jesus' body gone. Um... If there was someone there, don't you think maybe they would have mentioned it? Even if it was a simple "Hey Flavius? What happened to the stone?". Yet there's no mention of anyone being there, or an mention that anyone was supposed to be there. Why on earth would Roman guards stand over a Jew's tomb? No reason at all. No Jew would have, it was the Sabbath (and passover no less!). They all had to be indoors for the day. "

Actually gbaji, if you informed yourself about the religon you claim others know nothing about then you would know that the Roman's posted guards at Jesus's tomb so the apostles' would not come and steal his body claiming Jesus had risen again.

Next time inform yourself before you start.

Also, those of you who argue that the world cannot be created in seven days (even if there is a passage that states that one day of god is like 1000 years for us) You have to understand, the bible is made up of hidden messages and bizzarre messages. The problem almost everyone seems to suffer from is that they take the bible to seriously. Yes, some of the actions of the Old Testament can be accuratly counted historically, but, that is mere coincidence. With that said, one must consider that 1000 years for us could have been something that god(^^^) gave us to help understand the concept of his power.

As for evolution or creationism, many things go both ways.

Evolution
There are many holes in this theory, one of the more prominient ones I know of is that the existence of hominoids has been actively discredited

Another one being that many past evolutionary claims have been proven to be racial in nature and false, today's may not be but they are based upon the past claims.

Creationism
The idea that one being created EVERYTHING in the universe is always kind of hard for humans to grasp. (myself included)

Many of the hardcore creationists that I have met, I have found to be completly off the deep end about everything. So that could raise some questions about the theory and the people that sustain it.



My personal beliefs tend to float towards Evolutionism. That is not to say that I am not a Christian. One must always consider that god created our genes in such a way that evolution would shown under research in science so that our finite minds could grasp our own creation.

PS I also wonder if people took 3/4 of the energy they spent fighting over this subject and spent on making the world a better place if we would be able to create another high tech "Eden" so to speak.

PSS I also tend to wonder if God showed evolution in our genes so that I could get some humor out of reading the Linguistic Mutilage of each other that is see here. (You're not even debating with people you know in real life)


I may post more if I can motivate myself to organize my thoughts again.

[sm]Edited, Tue Feb 10 22:06:05 2004 by IceKnightRune

Just admit it, you pulled these gems outta your ***.

Well, hell. I honestly don't recall this in any of the gospels, or in acts. Can you provide a book and passage please? I'd look for it, but I'd have to read the entire NT to verify that it doesn't exist. You'd just have to tell us where it's written to prove it. Heh. Then there's the challenge of finding a NT in my house.

Heh. But then if we do take that as truth, then I guess the Romans were smarter then anyone gave them credit for...

I'd just like to point out, gbaji, that you say "heh" more than Beavis does.

Heh hehhehhehheh, he said "heh". Heh heheheh heh!

I know, it sounds like bull ****, but it's true.




Come on man, it's the journey not the destination :}

And thank you Jophiel for justifying me.

So originally, this thread was about Georgia banning a single word: evolution and replacing it with something like "biological changes over time". This strikes me as a bizzare, but possibly effective, means of combating opinions the majority (of an area) do not like: simply make them difficult to say.

These kinds of bizzare changes always make me suspicious that "somebody's brother" is going to make a fortune off it. Let's say Addison-Wesley is going to print a 5th grade biology book. They can make the special "Georgia Edition" where evolution is replaced with "biological changes over time", but is it worth their time and effort? Perhaps. Perhaps what the proponents really want is to support like-minded publishers: ones who might not give evolution as much credence as they could. Or perhaps they want Addison-Wesley to just make a special line of "Georgia" books. Maybe they already do. I wouldn't be really surprised.

Didn't Kansas outright ban the teaching of evolution a few years back? I think they did revise their position eventually. But the US has been struggling with these ideas for literally hundreds of years and resolution is not forthcoming. IIRC pi was set to be equal to 3 in a certain school district in the US a few years back. Although the kids were probably confused for a bit when they learned the truth, at least they learned that not everything the big people tell them is infallable.

But this is a public website where we are all anonymous here, so we can be honest. Let's not try to make it difficult for others to say what they want to say. If they want to say evolution or creationaism, let them.

I am troubled by the Georgia state legislature, but I would be less troubled if they just tried to ban teaching evolution at all. This other way seems somehow less honest.

As for fear, I don't much fear terrorists or the Georgia state legislature: I fear crime more, but not much. I fear bad drivers more, but not much. Look at the statistics: deaths from terror versus bad driving. I'm sure my (slight) fears are justified, and I take actions to minimize my risks.

Probably parents in Georgia can correct the damage the schools do, whichever side of this issue you are on.