Creationism in schools

Now show your PROOF OF CLAIM highlighted in red letter above.

 

I didn't write it.
<<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC >>>

 

On the contrary fellow. What I highlighted is YOUR version of a former elongated writing. The former writing has not been clarified by the author and therefore remains in its original condition. Your writing however is YOUR interpretation of what you believe was the intent of that former author and is therefore your declaration.

 

totally agree, if one wants to learn the scientific explanation, they go to science class, they want a mythical creation story they go to a religious class of their choice like Sunday School, or I am sure many schools offer a world religions course as a elective as well

 

In all honesty I don't think that creationism in public schools would be that much more absurd than the amount of liberal indoctrination that goes on in there already. We had a liberal poster the other day who said he was a 'student' and he was spouting rhetoric that Israel was today's Nazi Germany, and praised the LA police shooter for 'killing pigs'

I do believe in evolution for the record, but I believe that evolution and belief in God don't contradict.

 

your right, they do not contradict, there are many creation myths that are compatible with science, probably many I have never even heard of...

.

 

The two Biblical stories are not among those though. Here are the two ordeer of events as described in the Bible:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#order

Neither of these stories reflect the order of events as established by the physical evidence in the universe or of life developing on Earth. So either "god" created a hoax by creating physical evidence that contradicts what "god did" in creating the universe and life in the universe or the Biblical stories of creation were fabricated by men because they simply didn't know the answer when their children ask, "Where did we come from?"

It is somewhat ironic that a literal belief in the story of creation is uncommon amoung Hebrew scholars and it is the Hebrew teachings that Christians refer to in creationism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution

As noted the foundation for the Hebrew belief that the Biblical stories, such as the creation story, are figurative and not literal goes back as far as the 11th Century. When the facts contradict the Bible (Torah) then typically most Jews are pragmatic and accept that the Torah contains parables and stories that are not the literal truth but instead are about teaching a religious philosophy of life and a belief in god.

Yes, there are a minority of fundamentalist Jews that do believe the Torah (Old Testemant of the Bible) is literally true but then even their beliefs have been proven wrong. For example the Books of Moses were not written by one person based upon expert linguistic studies. At least three identifiable authors have been identified based upon linquistic styles and perhaps as many as five. It is doubtful that Moses was the author of any of them as the age of the liquistic styles do not correspond with the "age of Moses" based upon the Torah.

So it is irnonic that fundamentalist Christians believe that the Hebrew teaching that they plagerized from the Hebrew religion are literal when the Jewish people and Hebrew scholars generally don't accept that as being the case. We can also note that the Christian religion did not believe that the writings in the Bible were literal or inspired by God until centuries after the death of Jesus. The "church" merely made things up as then went along.

I will return to another point and that is that the Biblical teachings of creation are not the only religious teachings of creation and if we're going to teach religious teachings of creation then we should teach them all (or as many as we can) because they all have a common origin but the stories are vastly different. It would be my belief that if we taught all of the different stories of creation that mankind has invented and believed in then intelligent people would see through the brainwashing and realize that they are all absurd. The two Biblical stories of creation, which contradict each other, are no more creditable than the ancient Greek, Hindu, Shinto or Nordic stories of creation as all are contradicted by the physical evidence.

 

Well Then. We agree on an issue.

 

You people seem incapable of separating what Genesis says from what the church leaders of centuries loing past SAID the bibke SAID.

There is a big difference between that and reading the actual text:


1) It is clear that the Universe DID have a beginning, 13.9 billion years ago.
(Gen 1:1)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id19.html
2) The hot spinning molten matter that was to coalesce into the planet Earth was without form:
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id132.html
3) There were seven long Cosmic "days" since that Big Bang, which we call the seven cosmic/geological Eras
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/Eraclock.jpg
4) A Cosmic Dark Age did precede that advent of let there be light to flood the cosmo:
(Gen 1:3-5)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/DarkAge2.jpg
5) There was one ocean, once, where all the waters had been collected together
(Gen 1:9
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/superocean.jpg
6) Pangea/Rodinia did actually confirm that the dry land appeared surrounded totally by water
(Gen 1:10
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id123.html
7) The Plant kingdom did establish itself before the Animal kingdom
(Gen 1:11
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id18.html
The Sun and the Moon and all the Stars were "MADE," given authority over circadian Earth Time as soon as life appeared:
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id126.html
9) Man WAS the last step in the evolution of Dominant Life on earth.
(Gen 1:27)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/sethNoah.jpg

10) Man HAS managed to form a mental IMAGE of "Father Nature" by understanding of His Laws and creation

11) Gen 5:2 says god called them, the man and his wife, the "Adamites," a species:
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created
12) Gen 4 and gen 5 list the 22 names in the genealogy of our most ancient forbearers, as does Paleontology list the 22 now extinct species of humans in the ascent to modern man.

 

The trailer park is immune to irony. They have an angel with a flaming sword keeping that away.

 

We now have evidence from genetics that all Modern Men living outside of Africa carry the genes of Neanderthals.

The Bible states that hybridizations took place, and we are the only humans left whi could be the sons-of-god, so Genesis 6:4 seems pretty much scientifically confirmed:

Gen. 6:4 There were giants, (Homo Erectus of Methusaelian and Methuselahian kinds according to the bible), in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God, (that line of ascent which would not become extinct, Methuselahian links, through Seth, i.e.; Modern Homo Erectus), came in unto the daughters, (the sister species of Tubal-cain, Naamahians, a late stage Neanderthal type), of men, ("daughters" of the previous adaptation of the Methusaelian line of Cain, i.e.; Homo antecessor, derived through the line of Cain), and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men, (Neanderthals), which were of old, (powerful) men of renown (physical strength).

 

Yes, the dimension are in a scale of the dimensions of the human brain and central nervous system, while the exaggerated cubits imply that it was a whole species that had evolved into the new world after the "fllod" that occurred while a mass extinction of all other types of humans took place concurrently.

 

What the hell is a Homo Erectus of Methusaelian? Since when was Homo Erectus a giant? Where are you getting these obscure interpretations from and why do you think they are correct?

 

That picture makes no sense. Cubits have specific measurements, you can't just randomly divide the CNS into what the picture shows, it makes absolutely no sense. What exactly are the divisions in the picture even supposed to represent? How are they related to cubits?

 

Your diagram doesn't match up with reality.

source

So height and width aren't even close to the same. And the width isn't 60% of the length. It's more like 84%. If we converted it to your "cubits", it would be 50(l) by 42(w) by 28(h).

 

A comparative study of various creation myths is worthwhile, if the curriculum can accommodate it.

A few, I suppose, but most don't seem very interested.

A study of what people believe or have believed is certainly illuminating.

Nor are they incompatible since their are devout religionists that readily accept the science of evolution. The controversy is between religionists, not between religion and science.

Indeed. If science pretends to be religion, it is diminished. When religion aspires to be science, the consequence is a self-inflicted wound.

 

It should be taught under the subject Theology. I think Theology should be part of the curricuum the study of religion is very important because since the dawn of time religion has been part and instrumental in shaping human civilization.

 

you know this how? when exactly was this dawn of time?

 

So, you weren't actually listening when I explained to you how wrong that supposed scale was? You know, if you are going to debate with someone you should probably read and try to understand what they say, rather than ignore it and pretend the exchange didn't happen.

 

You think he meant that literally? Go find Incorporeal, he'll back you up on this one.

 

Actually I do support his inquiry. A claim regarding "the dawn of time" was made and a proper and just inquiry was posed and was waiting for a proper and just answer. Instead of answering you go off topic by the comment referencing me. What did I have to do with that topic of conversation?

 

Creationism in schools

In my opinion, education as a general rule should focus on those aspects of reality that we, as a civilization have agreed upon as factual, or at least theoretically possible.

Pretending an unknown and barely imaginable force decided to make something out of nothing, then took a glob of mud it had created to form the complexity of us is simply beyond acceptable. In my opinion even the most active imagination would be hard pressed to make up something as out there as the creation story..It is almost as good as Scientology.

Teaching our children myth is pretty cool...telling them it is truth is not.

 

I agree and therefore suggest that the very mention of that fairy tale creature referred to as 'Socrates' should be banned from our schools; also, anyone who promotes such teaching should also be banned from the school system.

BTW tecoyah, please go here www.thefreedictionary.com/fact and look at the 2.c. definition.

 

I learn it from athiest and secular history books that are taught in private and public schools that early civilization such as in Egypt have been worshipping gods since the dawn of time that is why they have the pyramids, I guess you must have skip those classes.

 

I love the honest answer. Now let me ask you this: What god did the Neanderthal worship? Show proof of claim.