According to the Reading and Writing and Religion II a report by the Texas Freedom Network, many Texas children are being taught creationism including the myth that the earth is only 6,000 years old. So what do you think of this development? What should we do about it? Should creationism be taught in schools?
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/01/how-texas-public-schools-still-teach-creationism (http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/01/how-texas-public-schools-still-teach-creationism)
Quote from: distraff on September 07, 2013, 10:20:49 AM
According to the Reading and Writing and Religion II a report by the Texas Freedom Network, many Texas children are being taught creationism including the myth that the earth is only 6,000 years old. So what do you think of this development? What should we do about it? Should creationism be taught in schools?
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/01/how-texas-public-schools-still-teach-creationism (http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/01/how-texas-public-schools-still-teach-creationism)
I believe you may have found the wrong board. We do not take lightly to baiting.
Quote from: distraff on September 07, 2013, 10:20:49 AM
According to the Reading and Writing and Religion II a report by the Texas Freedom Network, many Texas children are being taught creationism including the myth that the earth is only 6,000 years old. So what do you think of this development? What should we do about it? Should creationism be taught in schools?
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/01/how-texas-public-schools-still-teach-creationism (http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/01/how-texas-public-schools-still-teach-creationism)
So we should ignore the law, just to appease you and Atheists like you that take issue with kids taking an "ELECTIVE" course on origins of Religion?
From your link.
Quote2007 the state legislature passed a law allowing school districts to offer "elective courses on the Bible's Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament." The Supreme Court long ago ruled that such classes pass constitutional muster
I'm still wondering why we teach the myth than Man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years from apes, when there is ZERO evidence of that taking place today.
Quote from: Yawn on September 07, 2013, 11:37:55 AM
I'm still wondering why we teach the myth than Man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years from apes, when there is ZERO evidence of that taking place today.
Thanks to the hoax that lasted 50 years, the Piltdown man, an entire generation was led to believe that the missing link had been found.
Remember this? It was all because of the Piltdown theory.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F0%2F04%2FThe_March_of_Progress.jpg&hash=93c745b202eded3c88612519f495d5f24eed6a8d)
Hey, there's my cousin Harry!
While some (many?) of us believe Man is a special creation, and take the Scriptures literally, it nowhere says the earth is 6,000 years old. "We" believe that Adam & Eve were a special creation of the Creator and they were created 6,000 years ago (not the earth). Isn't it revealing that modern man developed cities, agriculture, writing and more only 6,000 years ago? There was a giant leap in the abilities of "Man" over those who existed previously and died out about 10,000 years ago. SOMETHING was different about that man and woman we call Adam & Eve. They suddenly became more like "gods" and less like animals (unless they're muslim :biggrin:)
Quote from: Yawn on September 07, 2013, 11:37:55 AM
I'm still wondering why we teach the myth than Man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years from apes, when there is ZERO evidence of that taking place today.
Actually evolution teaches that men and apes somewhere in the past have a common ancestor. Obviously our ancestor inherited the "get smarter" gene, whereas their ancestor inherited the "keep the fur suit and continue to hang around in the jungle" gene. I've never had any problem with the idea of evolution versus scripture. The idea that an almighty, omniscient, all powerful, immortal being should work on our time scales, according to our plans, or understanding, in line with something written by humans, strikes me as hubris on our part.
Quote from: mdgiles on September 07, 2013, 12:46:36 PM
Actually evolution teaches that men and apes somewhere in the past have a common ancestor. Obviously our ancestor inherited the "get smarter" gene, whereas their ancestor inherited the "keep the fur suit and continue to hang around in the jungle" gene. I've never had any problem with the idea of evolution versus scripture. The idea that an almighty, omniscient, all powerful, immortal being should work on our time scales, according to our plans, or understanding, in line with something written by humans, strikes me as hubris on our part.
:lol:
In all my years I keep finding. God keeps working in mysterious ways. You just have to love his sense of humor. We have yet to find all his creations on earth.
Quote from: mdgiles on September 07, 2013, 12:46:36 PM
Actually evolution teaches that men and apes somewhere in the past have a common ancestor. Obviously our ancestor inherited the "get smarter" gene, whereas their ancestor inherited the "keep the fur suit and continue to hang around in the jungle" gene. I've never had any problem with the idea of evolution versus scripture. The idea that an almighty, omniscient, all powerful, immortal being should work on our time scales, according to our plans, or understanding, in line with something written by humans, strikes me as hubris on our part.
Nice theory, but it isn't compatible with Scripture. And if Scripture fails on this point, how can you believe anything? The fact that you only get that it was "written by humans" and not understanding that it was authored by the Creator tells me that you don't take it seriously.
Quote from: mdgiles on September 07, 2013, 12:46:36 PM
The idea that an almighty, omniscient, all powerful, immortal being should work on our time scales, according to our plans, or understanding, in line with something written by humans, strikes me as hubris on our part.
Maybe that explains why I've only heard the "6,000-year-old-earth" theory from radical liberals, like Mother Jones.
And why I've never once heard a Christian say it.
Quote from: supsalemgr on September 07, 2013, 10:47:36 AM
I believe you may have found the wrong board. We do not take lightly to baiting.
I am discussing education and science. What board does that belong to?
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2013, 10:58:33 AM
So we should ignore the law, just to appease you and Atheists like you that take issue with kids taking an "ELECTIVE" course on origins of Religion?
From your link.
There is a big difference between discussing the Hebrew creation myth and telling children that the earth is 6,000 years old.
Quote from: distraff on September 07, 2013, 03:11:23 PM
I am discussing education and science. What board does that belong to?
This one: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/01/how-texas-public-schools-still-teach-creationism (http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/01/how-texas-public-schools-still-teach-creationism)
Granted, no normal person has ever called Mother Jones either "educational" or "scientific." But it's pretty obvious that's the site you're randomly bumbling around the Internet looking for; and it's filled to the brim with people precisely as smart and rational as you.
Quote from: Yawn on September 07, 2013, 11:37:55 AM
I'm still wondering why we teach the myth than Man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years from apes, when there is ZERO evidence of that taking place today.
We actually have entire species that mark these transitions. Species like homo erectus, homo habilis, homo neanderthal, and homo ergaster.
Again, I never said the earth is 6,000 years old. I did say SOMETHING happened to a certain creature called "Man" about 6,000 years ago. Before that, they didn't have agriculture, roads, cities, writing etc. Yes there were similar creatures much earlier, but no transition from one to the other. KIND reproduces after KIND. Man is a unique creature in which God placed the "spirit of Man (http://www.ucg.org/bible-faq/what-spirit-man)" THAT makes Man unique and why no other animal will ever "evolve" to do the things Man does today. Man is a unique creation. A friend used to say, Man is capable of living like gods on earth, or living lower than the animals. Removing God from the picture seems to make Man live like animals (China, Russia Cambodia)
Quote from: distraff on September 07, 2013, 03:42:58 PM
There is a big difference between discussing the Hebrew creation myth and telling children that the earth is 6,000 years old.
I highlighted it for you, it is an elective class for those wanting to learn about Religion.
Do you have an issue with people broadening their minds?
Quote
2007 the state legislature passed a law allowing school districts to offer "elective courses on the Bible's Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament." The Supreme Court long ago ruled that such classes pass constitutional muster
Quote from: Yawn on September 07, 2013, 04:05:42 PM
Again, I never said the earth is 6,000 years old. I did say SOMETHING happened to a certain creature called "Man" about 6,000 years ago. Before that, they didn't have agriculture, roads, cities, writing etc. Yes there were similar creatures much earlier, but no transition from one to the other. KIND reproduces after KIND. Man is a unique creature in which God placed the "spirit of Man" THAT makes Man unique and why no other animal will ever "evolve" to do the things Man does today. Man is a unique creation. A friend used to say, Man is capable of living like gods on earth, or living lower than the animals. Removing God from the picture seems to make Man live like animals (China, Russia Cambodia)
I am interested to know how you explain species like homo erectus, homo ergaster, homo neanderthal, and homo habilis.
And by the way, China is only 42% non-religious, Russia is only 13% non-religious, and Cambodia is 96% Buddhist.
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2013, 04:10:05 PM
I highlighted it for you, it is an elective class for those wanting to learn about Religion.
Do you have an issue with people broadening their minds?
Not when they are teaching pseudo-science.
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2013, 04:10:05 PM
I highlighted it for you, it is an elective class for those wanting to learn about Religion.
Do you have an issue with people broadening their minds?
That changes EVERYTHING. I was only responding to his words. I didn't realize it was an elective! Atheists really do want to close out all competing ideas. It's a complete non-issue.
Quote from: mdgiles on September 07, 2013, 12:46:36 PM
Obviously our ancestor inherited the "get smarter" gene, whereas their ancestor inherited the "keep the fur suit"...
I seem to have also inherited the fur suit gene.
Quote from: Yawn on September 07, 2013, 04:13:47 PM
Atheists really do want to close out all competing ideas.
Du-uh!
Every belief system in the world must, of necessity, contain some degree of intolerance. Atheism is the only exception to that rule: it consists of absolutely nothing BESIDES intolerance toward the beliefs of others.
Quote from: distraff on September 07, 2013, 04:13:09 PM
Not when they are teaching pseudo-science.
Who claimed it to be a science class?
You really are reaching here, it's a damned elective class, no one is forced to attend!
Would you be happier if it was a socialist teaching the benefits of Marxism?
Point is, offering classes on religion, folk lore, black history or even Marxist ideals, is irrelevant, knowledge kills ignorance.
If more people understood Capitalism and socialism, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today, and you further want to stifle education?
You're worse than the Religious zealots out there!
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2013, 06:54:03 AM
Who claimed it to be a science class?
You really are reaching here, it's a damned elective class, no one is forced to attend!
Would you be happier if it was a socialist teaching the benefits of Marxism?
Point is, offering classes on religion, folk lore, black history or even Marxist ideals, is irrelevant, knowledge kills ignorance.
If more people understood Capitalism and socialism, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today, and you further want to stifle education?
You're worse than the Religious zealots out there!
1: For the record, I would not be ok with our children learning the benefits of a failed economic system that has cost the lives of tens of millions of people.
2: I don't think any class whether it is a science, philosophy, liberal arts, or elective class is a class for pseudo-science. Pseudo-science should not be taught to our children in any class in any school period.
3: Knowledge does not kill ignorance in a populace that is ignorant. History should be an example. Even if children could figure out the truth, what is the point in misinforming them in the first place? Why not just teach them the truth?
4: If we are to present pseudo-science present it as pseudo-science and the refutations to it. Don't teach it as the truth.
Quote from: distraff on September 08, 2013, 11:55:10 AM
1: For the record, I would not be ok with our children learning the benefits of a failed economic system that has cost the lives of tens of millions of people.
2: I don't think any class whether it is a science, philosophy, liberal arts, or elective class is a class for pseudo-science. Pseudo-science should not be taught to our children in any class in any school period.
3: Knowledge does not kill ignorance in a populace that is ignorant. History should be an example. Even if children could figure out the truth, what is the point in misinforming them in the first place? Why not just teach them the truth?
4: If we are to present pseudo-science present it as pseudo-science and the refutations to it. Don't teach it as the truth.
You make an awful lot of assumptions based on someones opinion piece.
Do you know for a fact it's being taught as an infallible truth, or is it being taught in an historical context?
Using your logic, we shouldn't teach kids about Hitler because it might influence their minds towards hatred of Jews.
Point is, these are elective courses for people wanting to expand their knowledge base on a particular subject.
Maybe Atheists want to better understand what it is they are so against, giving them more knowledge so as to make a better argument against.
You can't fight ignorance unless you have a better understanding of the individual spewing it, and you are quickly becoming suspect as an ignorant bigot in trying to dictate what people learn.
On the courses being taught.
Public School Bible Courses
Bible courses can be an effective way to teach public school students about the importance of religion in history and literature. However, Bible courses in public schools must be taught in an academic, non-devotional manner that refrains from promoting or disparaging religion or promotiong one particular faith perspective over all others. Many courses fail this most basic test and jeopardize the religious freedom of students.
http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_religious_freedom_bible_courses (http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_religious_freedom_bible_courses)
Quote from: distraff on September 08, 2013, 11:55:10 AM
1: For the record, I would not be ok with our children learning the benefits of a failed economic system that has cost the lives of tens of millions of people.
2: I don't think any class whether it is a science, philosophy, liberal arts, or elective class is a class for pseudo-science. Pseudo-science should not be taught to our children in any class in any school period.
3: Knowledge does not kill ignorance in a populace that is ignorant. History should be an example. Even if children could figure out the truth, what is the point in misinforming them in the first place? Why not just teach them the truth?
4: If we are to present pseudo-science present it as pseudo-science and the refutations to it. Don't teach it as the truth.
Fine, then we must also toss out the big bang myth, since it has no basis in fact, only speculation. Macro evolution as well, must be thrown out, it in no way has been tested and proven to exist, therefore it is a myth. Global Warming and/or cooling depending on the "expert" you are talking to, has also never been proven as fact, more myths, throw them out.
By the way, you are not the first Atheist to show up and try to stir the pot, be respectful or you'll end up in the same boat all the rest have.
Quote from: JustKari on September 09, 2013, 02:04:21 PM
Fine, then we must also toss out the big bang myth, since it has no basis in fact, only speculation.
Actually we have the background radiation of the big bang event. That is pretty strong evidence right there.
QuoteMacro evolution as well, must be thrown out, it in no way has been tested and proven to exist, therefore it is a myth.
We know of dozens of species that show that evolution is real. Species like homo neanderthal, homo erectus, homo habilis, and homo ergaster.
QuoteGlobal Warming and/or cooling depending on the "expert" you are talking to, has also never been proven as fact, more myths, throw them out.
Actually about 97% of climate scientists believe that humans are a factor in global warming. The physics of global warming is sound. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We now how much CO2 warms per unit. We know how much CO2 we have. Therefore we can predict the amount of warming we should expect. There predictions match up with the warming we are seeing.
Quote from: distraff on September 13, 2013, 10:52:32 AM
Actually we have the background radiation of the big bang event. That is pretty strong evidence right there.
Actually you have what they "believe" to be the radiation from the big bang. It is still a theory, one that they teach as fact.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100613212708.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100613212708.htm)
QuoteWe know of dozens of species that show that evolution is real. Species like homo neanderthal, homo erectus, homo habilis, and homo ergaster.
Do you have any idea how long the people lived before the time of about Abraham? Methuselah at 969 years, was the oldest recorded in the Bible before the Lord started to shorten lifespans. What happens to the human skeleton as you age? Tell me that that could not easily be the skeleton of a very, very old person. Gravity alone would make the hunch over time.
QuoteActually about 97% of climate scientists believe that humans are a factor in global warming. The physics of global warming is sound. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We now how much CO2 warms per unit. We know how much CO2 we have. Therefore we can predict the amount of warming we should expect. There predictions match up with the warming we are seeing.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/ (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/)
They may agree, but that does not make them right. The great majority of scientists thought the world was flat too.
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2013, 12:27:27 PMBible courses can be an effective way to teach public school students about the importance of religion in history and literature. However, Bible courses in public schools must be taught in an academic, non-devotional manner that refrains from promoting or disparaging religion or promotiong one particular faith perspective over all others. Many courses fail this most basic test and jeopardize the religious freedom of students.
That's not how liberals see the world. It's not really possible to teach someone ABOUT Christianity without "promoting it." That's how the Christian faith is typically proselytized: by simply telling people about the faith. And that is specifically what liberals are trying to abolish.
More aggressive religions, such as Islam and Communism, don't work that way. The only way they can work is by first attacking and destroying all other belief systems, and then collectivizing all thought.
Ergo, any curriculum aimed toward increasing government control over individuals (which, by definition, is the only possible goal of a centrally-dictated education system) must require students to demonstrate constant "tolerance" (i.e. obsequiousness) toward beliefs which require unquestioning submission to authority, and rabid INtolerance toward public recognition of any belief system which includes the concept of a spiritual authority existing separately from governmental authority.
Quote from: kopema on September 13, 2013, 05:24:11 PM
That's not how liberals see the world. It's not really possible to teach someone ABOUT Christianity without "promoting it." That's how the Christian faith is typically proselytized: by simply telling people about the faith. And that is specifically what liberals are trying to abolish.
More aggressive religions, such as Islam and Communism, don't work that way. The only way they can work is by first attacking and destroying all other belief systems, and then collectivizing all thought.
Ergo, any curriculum aimed toward increasing government control over individuals (which, by definition, is the only possible goal of a centrally-dictated education system) must require students to demonstrate constant "tolerance" (i.e. obsequiousness) toward beliefs which require unquestioning submission to authority, and rabid INtolerance toward public recognition of any belief system which includes the concept of a spiritual authority existing separately from governmental authority.
That is exactly why history is sooo important, it's also the reason libs are repeating the mistakes of the past, they know nothing of history, except the filtered PC version being taught.
Quote from: JustKari on September 13, 2013, 04:54:23 PM
Actually you have what they "believe" to be the radiation from the big bang. It is still a theory, one that they teach as fact.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100613212708.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100613212708.htm)
Do you have any idea how long the people lived before the time of about Abraham? Methuselah at 969 years, was the oldest recorded in the Bible before the Lord started to shorten lifespans. What happens to the human skeleton as you age? Tell me that that could not easily be the skeleton of a very, very old person. Gravity alone would make the hunch over time.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/ (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/)
They may agree, but that does not make them right. The great majority of scientists thought the world was flat too.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi703.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww39%2Fsue3843%2Fouch.gif&hash=7ee0b5dd358ed854408707812095115de86a9f51) that's gotta hurt!
Quote from: JustKari on September 13, 2013, 04:54:23 PM
Actually you have what they "believe" to be the radiation from the big bang. It is still a theory, one that they teach as fact.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100613212708.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100613212708.htm)
Yes, but the big bang theory predicted that we would have a mostly uniform background very low frequency radiation, and that is what we see. We know it is not coming from stars because it is too uniform. So this radiation is an example of the big bang's predictive power. Also stars have the hydrogen helium concentration that the big bang theory predicts. The big bang theory has incredible predictive power and is able to predict things that we later find to be true. So either all these prediction confirmations are all by chance or the theory is true. The vast majority of scientists are confident of the latter.
QuoteDo you have any idea how long the people lived before the time of about Abraham? Methuselah at 969 years, was the oldest recorded in the Bible before the Lord started to shorten lifespans. What happens to the human skeleton as you age? Tell me that that could not easily be the skeleton of a very, very old person. Gravity alone would make the hunch over time.
Scientists can actually tell the ages of these skeletons through a variety of forensics methods. Believe me, these people are a lot less than a few hundred years.
Quotehttp://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/ (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/)
They may agree, but that does not make them right. The great majority of scientists thought the world was flat too.
The reason why our predictions were wrong was because very little warming happened in the 2000's. This is because the ocean cycles were cooler than expected, and the sun was also cooler. See the images below. However once we account for these factors, we see a constant rise in temperatures. See the video below.
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/climatechange/2012/590x331_02101703_feb10fig7.jpg (http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/climatechange/2012/590x331_02101703_feb10fig7.jpg)
http://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/ssn_predict_l.gif (http://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/ssn_predict_l.gif)
The "No Warming in 16 Years" Crock (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W705cOtOHJ4#)
Quote from: JustKari on September 13, 2013, 04:54:23 PM
Actually you have what they "believe" to be the radiation from the big bang. It is still a theory, one that they teach as fact.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100613212708.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100613212708.htm)
It was predicted before it was discovered. "If the Big Bang theory is correct, this is what we should see..." We see it.