Creationism Your thoughts

[Zerox]

Listen, people. Jesus loves you. Denying him and his glory will only cause you an eternity of pain. Return his love and joy will follow you all the days of your life.

How can we return, or truly love someone, who we have got virtually nothing from, they haven't talked to us, we haven't seen them, or anything. It's somewhat impossible to feel that way about someone you've never seen or heard from, surely?

You really could have put that message so much less...spamlike. Sounds like a demented Catholic email, quite frankly. Seriously, reading it just sounds...retarded.

'Jesus loves you' okay, maybe. Where's the evidence for that?

We're hardly denying him totally, either.

Just saying that won't work. You may be able to say 'I am Catholic, I believe in Jesus', but then, deep down at your center, do you truly believe what you are saying? No matter how much you try to persuade yourself, do you really feel like that? Do you believe it really? basically, your subconscious. It's almost impossible to force yourself to feel that way.

And surely only believing in Jesus/God for the sake of not wanting to go to Hell (if it does in fact exist), would basically be only fooling yourself, and wouldn't really be truly believing as I said above, so telling someone to believe in Jesus on those grounds is, ultimately, PHAIL.

[Bitter Buffalo]

He talks to us all the time. Through our hearts.

[Mac Sirloin]

Listen, people. Jesus loves you. Denying him and his glory will only cause you an eternity of pain. Return his love and joy will follow you all the days of your life.

You blind follower fucks make me sick, you think that by spewing this garbage to everyone else means thet you're a btter person, but you aren't.

Mullet God is displeased.

[Nate]

Whooo... Keep it on topic people. We're here to discuss Creationism, not the existence or love-life of any deity.

[Hobo]

I, for one, agree with Bitter Buffalo

[used:)]

I think creationism should be given the chance to be studied in public schools as an elective but not as a required class. My World Cultures class is almost like Religious Studies as we've been learning much on Islam and all of its goods and bads for history. I think "Religious Studies" is more appropriate. "Creationism" has always had a very Christian connotation for me.

[Bullet Magnet]

That is the difference between teaching Genesis as science, and learning about the world religions, which is what I did at school.

[Salamander]

believe in Jesus

You really have to put that in context, that can mean more than one thing. It can mean "I believe that Jesus lived" or "I believe that Jesus is God's son and I worship him".

Anywho, Creationism shouldn't be taught in science, it is a belief, it is not a scientific theory. Creationism should be taught as an alternate to evolution, but not in a science class.

[mudling]

Actually Zerox, technically we have got everything from him, since through his sacrifice we can live on forever (Through heaven), rahter than just die as the punnishment for sin is. Also, due to the triolgy thing, some argue that Jesus is God, or a part of God, as is the Holy Spirit and therefore technically Jesus created everything, I guess anyway.
On topic, I agree, creatism should be taught through religeous studies, which should be taught in all schools, yet optional in non religous schools, I guess, but it is important to understand other people's religeons in order to respect them.
Also, on the other hand, theories like the big bang theories and the theory or evolution maybe shouldn't be taught untill science becomes optional (Year 11 in Australia), aslong as they respect the facts that their theories could be false, and explain that it may not be correct, or at least don't completly deny or other theories and religeons.

[Zerox]

Actually Zerox, technically we have got everything from him, since through his sacrifice we can live on forever (Through heaven), rahter than just die as the punnishment for sin is. Also, due to the triolgy thing, some argue that Jesus is God, or a part of God, as is the Holy Spirit and therefore technically Jesus created everything, I guess anyway.

I understand that point, but can your true thoughts really be forced to believe that this all really happened, since pretty much the only way to know this is people telling you. And considering that almost all the people who say 'I love Jesus, believe in Him' to me are complete and utter retarded fags, quite frankly. Doesn't really inspire you to believe it...

On topic, not much can be said that hasn't already. Teach it in optional (curses, I'm in a Catholic school >.<) religion classes, but not as science, for it doesn't make sense. However they manage to make it look like it makes sense to the pupils...

[Laser]

what about creationism being taught in a totally different lesson altogether?

It can be called "religious sciences" and it is optional when you are allowed options

[Zerox]

what about creationism being taught in a totally different lesson altogether?

It can be called "religious sciences" and it is optional when you are allowed options

Creationism isn't nearly a large enough topic for a single lesson.

And regardless, that is not the best choice for a lesson name...still not scientific at all, is it?

[Havoc]

I dunno how creationism is taught in the first place. With science class I can understand how you can fill a few lessons with explaining how life began. How everything connected to each other and stuff like that. With creationism, how does that work? Same story with the words 'made by God' pasted at the end?

Also, and I can't believe I only come up with this now, doesn't creationism directly contradict the bible or am I confusing it with some other religion theory? As in, Adam and Eve were the first two people on the planet, but that doesn't fit the picture if the big bang is supposedly created by god in the first place. For that matter the world wasn't created in 6 days but in just 1, with a really big bang.

EDIT: Going on with a different thing, I just found this in the internet and I must say it reflects my view on the matter pretty clearly. I agree with most the things this guy says for that matter, it's getting scary .

Folks, we really need to make a concerted effort to extract our heads from our asses on this particular issue. If you support the idea of Intelligent Design being a part of high school science curriculum, then that strange smell you keep wondering about is your colon. Check your fiber intake while you're down there.

The Intelligent Design "Theory" is based on a philosophical premise called the "Telelogical Argument". Basically, this argument states that complexity implies a designer, the universe is complex, therefore the universe has a designer. As a philosophy major in college, this argument was a "point and laugh" issue even to most first year philosophy students. We wondered how it was ever considered valid enough to be written down at all, much less travel through the anals of history to be discussed to this very day. We theorized that perhaps it was chiseled on the same slab of stone with "Mary Had A Little Lamb", and we simply couldn't bring ourselves to throw away such a delightful little tune, regardless of the psudo-philosophical vomit that might have been written next to it.

The argument is terribly easy to destroy. In the first place, the idea that something complex requires a designer is nothing more than speculation. There's simply no evidence to support it. It's just an idea someone's brain puked up because it helped them convince people there is a God. Second, the concept of "complexity" resides entirely within human opinion. "The universe is complex! It must have a designer!" Because it's complex for you doesn't mean it's complex to everyone. In fact, if you believe everything around you is complicated, then it probably just means you're a moron.

Now, I personally don't care what cock-eyed, half baked horse shit people dream up to fool themselves into believing what they want about the universe. And proving that Intelligent Design is not science is child's play. But what I find distressing is the prevailing attitude in the US that the practice of "science" is whatever any turd-beaten yahoo believes it should be.

A great many level-headed people have said, "Intelligent Design should not be taught in science class because it isn't science." What could be more simple? What we forget is that the people who believe in Intelligent Design must, by default, believe that the universe caters to the ideas of man. This includes science. And the response comes back, "Well, I believe it is science!" After which the argument is tossed into the realm of personal opinion in which there is no possibility of right or wrong and we must then weigh what must be done based on the touchy-feely, neurotic sensabilities of the flag-waving, church-going majority.

The fist waving march of this self-serving bullshit must end. Period. "Science" has a definition. And that definition is not shaped by the fickle whimsey of whatever you and your inbred cousin believes it is. There is no "science" tailor made just for you. There is only science. You cannot produce a calculator and begin to add figures incorrectly, claim that "I believe this is math!" and have the PR coach of the day pat you on the back and re-assure you that everyone's ideas are equally as valid. Science is what it is, and if you believe it's something different, then the definition isn't changing for you. You're just wrong.

A "theory" is not a idea you had while scarfing down your chicken tikka marsala for lunch. We hear this on a daily basis. "I have this theory..." No, you don't. A theory is a scientific model that can be backed with evidence and be able to be falsified. The "Intelligent Design Theory" is not a theory, as there is never the possibility that it can be falsified. It doesn't matter what you believe a theory should be. It's not even the "Intelligent Design Hypothesis". An hypothesis must be able to be tested! It's the "Intelligent Design Shit-That-Someone-Dreamed-Up" and nothing more!

Putting aside how valid Intelligent Design may or may not be, it can be shown, without a doubt, that it is not science. In science class, we don't put down our science books periodically to sing a number from "My Fair Lady". We don't suddenly have our papers graded on the basis of how well we design our sentense structure and spelling. Science is taught in science class. And the very notion that "junk philosophy" can and should be nudged into the science curriculum is suggestve that science is simply another unfalsifiable practice, the borders of which blur at the whim of whatever unsubstanciated explanations of the universe that care to rub shoulders with it. It is an outright insult to everything that science stands for.

Folks, Intelligent Design is simply a spiritual penis measuring contest. It's not enough that religious ideas are taught in their own classes. Imaginary bullshit must be tossed in with empirical scientific methods to suggest that "our religious ideas are just as valid as your science". If all the faith-based groups wanted was to have children given "alternative ideas" about where the universe might have come from, they could have it inserted into a number of courses under which it would be valid material. The insistence that Intelligent Design be taught in science class, even though it is not science is simply an attempt to slap science in the face and secure the fears that our children won't grow up to possibly reject the frightened-cave-man explanations of the universe that have made us feel comfortable all our lives.

If it were any other ideas than Christian ones, no one would even think about introducing them into a science class. And personally, I'm completely appauled and somewhat terrified that the very definition of "science" has become a dictate of the moral majority.

- 2 Gryphon

[Bullet Magnet]

Also, on the other hand, theories like the big bang theories and the theory or evolution maybe shouldn't be taught untill science becomes optional (Year 11 in Australia), aslong as they respect the facts that their theories could be false, and explain that it may not be correct, or at least don't completly deny or other theories and religeons.

Have you read a single post of mine in this topic? Bloody hell. Bloody hell!

Generic awesomeness

Win.

[mudling]

Hmm, guess I'm wrong.
I don't accept the genisis as fact, I accept it on stories which meaning's are true, and could be based on true stories, like most of the Old Testament.
That being said, I still beleave in God.
So no, creatism shouldn't be taught as it's own subject, but part of religous studies, sure.
So, Havoc, according to my beliefs, God could of created the big bang.

[Zerox]

Also, and I can't believe I only come up with this now, doesn't creationism directly contradict the bible or am I confusing it with some other religion theory? As in, Adam and Eve were the first two people on the planet, but that doesn't fit the picture if the big bang is supposedly created by god in the first place. For that matter the world wasn't created in 6 days but in just 1, with a really big bang.

The Big Bang theory was come up with by Steven Hawking (who's awesome), and he wasn't around when the Bible was written. Some Christians believe that God created the Big Bang, in preference to some the absolutely ridiculous ideas of Creationism (in scientific terms, that is...though not all of it is science. It is a blatant fact that inbreeding causes problems.) Therefore, that's why Creationism doesn't fit with that.

And one thing while I remember, the Bible's kinda contradictory. God is God. God is everything, literally, and can do anything. So why would it take 6 days to create the Universe? Why would he need to rest, if he's God? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever...

[mudling]

If he's God, we can't he force us to beleave in him?
That we know, free will.
Why did he gives us free will?
We know that too, and you can go on untill you find an answered question, and maybe it's better for us not to know, and besides, would you realy want God to come down from the heavens and tell you?
If you stick by the New Testament in terms of straight facts, you can't realy go wrong there, as I have said many times, the Old Testament contains many stories and symboligy which gives true meanings and can be based on true stories often.

[moxco]

Evolution is right.
Adam and Eve is wrong
I am right.

[Strike Witch]

<.<

Gravity exists because an apple hit Newton on the head.

Duh.