Low IQ's and Conservative Values Linked

[bbsam]

Not a try at all. The science used is the same. As I just stated, the starting point is the only difference. You obviously have never even really taken a real look at the science involved from a creation science point of view

Then the only difference is that Creation Science says, "God started it," and evolution science says, "We are still learning more about the origins of the universe." Why is it important to bring God into it? Nobody is assaulting religion. Nobody is saying, "God didn't do it." All that is being said is that some people believe because they were taught in their religious up bringing that there is an intelligent being that created or influenced the creation of the world. I happen to be one of those people, but I don't understand why what I learned in church needs to be taught in schools. There are alot of empty pews all over the country where people can determine what is true about "In the beginning...."

 

[Jones]

And the way evolution is taught now in our schools has our beginning in never never land. There is a reason for that, it cant. It should have to since it is being taught as fact but cant get past that hurdle of something coming from nothing. It simply has a "faith" that something not supernatural must have happened because here we are.

You're confusing evolution with abiogenesis, they're not the same thing and abiogenesis is not taught in school. Evolution as currently taught is a perfectly valid scientific theory regardless of how you think life first arose.

The only difference between the way that creation science differs with evolution is the starting point.

If that were actually true we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Evolution offers no starting point at all except that everything "somehow" came from one original source. Creation sceince has a creator in the begining and that everything evolved from different "kinds" instead of one source. The sciences used is the same sciences.

The fact that evolutionary theory posits no starting point means you're free to think whatever you like about that. The fact that creationism relies on a supernatural "Creator" means that it's not science.

 

[tourists24]

Then the only difference is that Creation Science says, "God started it," and evolution science says, "We are still learning more about the origins of the universe." Why is it important to bring God into it? Nobody is assaulting religion. Nobody is saying, "God didn't do it." All that is being said is that some people believe because they were taught in their religious up bringing that there is an intelligent being that created or influenced the creation of the world. I happen to be one of those people, but I don't understand why what I learned in church needs to be taught in schools. There are alot of empty pews all over the country where people can determine what is true about "In the beginning...."

That is not the only difference. Even if you remove the "God started it" part the starting points are different. One has everything evolving from one original source and the other has many different kinds and evolving from that. And almost all scientists who teach evolution either do say "God didnt do it" or will not answer at all. I simply find it much more plausible to believe we have evolved from a human source rather than one original source. One source that says everything on this earth is related to one another. It cannot even be shown how man is connected to that original source but is being taught as a scientific fact.

 

[804brown]

Creation science is every bit the scientific as any other explanation of how we all got to where we are.... Evolution the way it is currently taught has as much faith as proof itself

Do not pray in my school and I will not think in your church!!

 

[wkmac]

Do not pray in my school and I will not think in your church!!

Actually, anyone is completely free to pray in school at any time and in a purely voluntary action on the part of the one praying, I completely support that. Even if the prayers are to a god that I don't believe even exists, if an individual needs prayer to get through some event or moment and I see they are praying, I will remain as quiet as possible to respect them in that moment. If the teacher or some authority figure came to stop that person acting freely in their own space, I'd joined them in a heart attack to fight on their behalf. That's the kind of fight I love!

When it becomes organized, compulsory or forced in anyway by a group against another individual's will, now I'll fight you on that one. I may debate issues but I do strongly believe in self ownership and self determination.

 

[trplnkl]

It's impossible to force someone the pray, can't be done. Influence them to pray, yea that can be done. I see nothing wrong with a group of like minded people praying together and even asking others to join them(although IMO, personal prayer is the way to go). No one's rights have been taken away in that scenario, in any setting. I'll not intentionally interrupt anyone's praying. Yes, I do mean anyone.

 

[wkmac]

It's impossible to force someone the pray, can't be done. Influence them to pray, yea that can be done. I see nothing wrong with a group of like minded people praying together and even asking others to join them(although IMO, personal prayer is the way to go). No one's rights have been taken away in that scenario, in any setting. I'll not intentionally interrupt anyone's praying. Yes, I do mean anyone.

Agree but my caveat is no force or compulsion and that even includes peer pressure to conform. Freely, voluntary actions even by groups are still individuals acting upon self determination so what applies for one applies for the larger several or many!

In the case of christians, I'd remind them of Jesus' instruction on how to pray in Matthew 6:5-8 so this begs the question IMO about the act of public prayer in the first place. But then the writer of 1 Timothy 2:8 seems to contradict what Jesus is teaching so I'm sure the many apologists will have an answer to the obvious contradiction.

 

[moreluck]

You swear to tell the whole truth, SO HELP YOU GOD????? Hmmmmmm!

 

[island1fox]

If you don't like the word system, fill in the word that best fits. But the question still stands. Intelligent Design implies a "higher power", but most of the religions and theologies that have a creative influence also have a destructive one. Does this destructive force have a function in Intelligent Design? If so, what is it? If not, why not?

bbsam,

Ask the next Martian you see -or rather the people that believe in a more intelligent being somewhere else in the Universe or Galaxy --or ask the "sun " worshipers is the moon the opposite ?

All beliefs all theories involving how life as we know came into being --shame some "open Liberal " minds are so closed.

Implies higher power ????? For you --Many believe as stated a "more Intelligent" power ---higher -lower who knows ? I know some very Intelligent people that I would not consider "higher" than me.

 

[tourists24]

You're confusing evolution with abiogenesis, they're not the same thing and abiogenesis is not taught in school. Evolution as currently taught is a perfectly valid scientific theory regardless of how you think life first arose.


If that were actually true we wouldn't be having this discussion.


The fact that evolutionary theory posits no starting point means you're free to think whatever you like about that. The fact that creationism relies on a supernatural "Creator" means that it's not science.

Im not mistaking anything... I never even mentioned abiogenisis.... I simply point out that evolution runs from what cant be answered. The evolution you mention is not what is being taught in schools. Evolution points toward everything evolving from a single source (sludge? insert whatever scientific word you like). Where is the proof of this original source? (not even to mention where that came from). Its not there.... there isnt proof. If evolution were scientific and factual then it could show how every single lifeform here today comes from that. It cant. To do that would have to show how something comes from nothing in and of itself. In order for this to happen, new "and" additonal DNA would have to be created from nothing. In order for a human of today to be here evolution would have to prove every step of how we came to be. Evolution cant do that. Think of all the variations of lifeforms would have to be shown. We would be related to everything from trees, fish, birds, grass,,,,etc. No.... evolution occurs through mutations, shifts, and loss of already existing DNA. You cant create humans from sludge.

 

[wkmac]

You swear to tell the whole truth, SO HELP YOU GOD????? Hmmmmmm!

Nope and thus the reason the courts grant the option to "affirm!" And let's be honest, if the courts truly believed that people always told the truth in court after swearing on the bible, the court would see no reason for opposing attorneys to question the witness. The judge would just ask for the facts and what the witness stated would stand on it's own. Swearing on the bible is a meaningless ritual brought into modern times as a result of ignorant traditions based on imposing fear by means of thought control. You know, for gullible people like you!

 

[moreluck]

Nope and thus the reason the courts grant the option to "affirm!" And let's be honest, if the courts truly believed that people always told the truth in court after swearing on the bible, the court would see no reason for opposing attorneys to question the witness. The judge would just ask for the facts and what the witness stated would stand on it's own. Swearing on the bible is a meaningless ritual brought into modern times as a result of ignorant traditions based on imposing fear by means of thought control. You know, for gullible people like you!

I was on jury duty in Oct. and they were all sworn in that way and there were no other choices offered. So I believe what I heard & saw.
Oh, and we found his ass guilty!!

 

[tourists24]

Nope and thus the reason the courts grant the option to "affirm!" And let's be honest, if the courts truly believed that people always told the truth in court after swearing on the bible, the court would see no reason for opposing attorneys to question the witness. The judge would just ask for the facts and what the witness stated would stand on it's own. Swearing on the bible is a meaningless ritual brought into modern times as a result of ignorant traditions based on imposing fear by means of thought control. You know, for gullible people like you!

Gullible...? cmon WK....

 

[bbsam]

bbsam,

Ask the next Martian you see -or rather the people that believe in a more intelligent being somewhere else in the Universe or Galaxy --or ask the "sun " worshipers is the moon the opposite ?

All beliefs all theories involving how life as we know came into being --shame some "open Liberal " minds are so closed.

Implies higher power ????? For you --Many believe as stated a "more Intelligent" power ---higher -lower who knows ? I know some very Intelligent people that I would not consider "higher" than me.

I consider myself rather intelligent, but have to strain to understand where you are coming from. My question was very simple. If a sun worshiper wanted to teach ID in schools, then yes, I would delve into the depth of how much is science and how much is theology.

So I do wonder, is lava deep in the earth evidence of Satan's realm? Is oil being pumped from the ground really the river Styx being drained by the living?

And of course I'm being ridiculous, but why would theology even want to move in this area without it's entire doctrine. It really seems to me that religion is acting like a jealous older brother with low self-esteem. No reason for it to. Let it be what it is.

 

[moreluck]

Maybe everyone could adopt the Canadian philosophy...
"We're here, there's beer, eh?"

 

[wkmac]

I consider myself rather intelligent, but have to strain to understand where you are coming from. My question was very simple. If a sun worshiper wanted to teach ID in schools, then yes, I would delve into the depth of how much is science and how much is theology.

So I do wonder, is lava deep in the earth evidence of Satan's realm? Is oil being pumped from the ground really the river Styx being drained by the living?

And of course I'm being ridiculous, but why would theology even want to move in this area without it's entire doctrine. It really seems to me that religion is acting like a jealous older brother with low self-esteem. No reason for it to. Let it be what it is.

Good points. As I've thought about evolution and ID, obviously I think evolution has a place in teaching but then so does ID or better yet scrap the term ID and return back to the core ideal and it's proper name that being creationism. The problem with both evolution and creationism being forced to compete in the same realm is that their basis of being are different. Science will say it's basis is that of fact and the search for truth and it's not without error but then over time it seeks to change to adjust as it finds new truths revealed by new evidence. Science in it's imperfect ways almost seeks to challenge itself as it marches through time.

Religious foundation however is premised on another noble foundation and that is faith. In itself it teaches that ideal and although it can have it's apocalyptic moments which can be seen in a negative, religion can also be capable of a greater message of hope and the best of what man can be. The way I see it, to take science and force it into the realm of pure faith harms science to a point to make it worthless but then to force religion into the world of proving absolutes strips it of it's best quality.

The discipline of philosophy was long ago stripped out of public education and a greater part of our humanity was stripped out with it. Science might be capable of answering questions of which knowledge might be vastly more harmful than we realize (our understanding of the power of the atom comes to mind)but it's the discipline of philosophy, the questions asked in religious faith in it's separate status that makes it the most effective IMO. I'd argue to return philosophic teaching to primary and secondary public schooling and in that proper setting, those ideals based on faith could and in fact should get a fair hearing by all and I think we'd all be the better for it.

 

[island1fox]

Wkmac,

You do realize that with all the discussion and the back and forth --in the end we agree.

 

[tourists24]

Hasn’t Evolution Been Proven True? - Answers in Genesis

 

[804brown]

FOCUS | Why Americans Are Stupid: Part II

 

[wkmac]

6000 year old creation story.