Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

1…532533535537538…822

Comments

  • #16022
    zod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,023 ✭✭✭zod


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    And teaching wrong science is wrong as well.

    By that you would have to prove a univeral truth for everything before you could teach anything.

    Surely teaching what is deemed to be the most realistic chance of the truth based on evidence to date would be more appropriate.


  • #16023
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    In fairness to Brian, in that post he only asks to have creation taught in class. He is now asking where did he say to teach it in a science class.


  • #16024
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,548 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Here's a neatarticle on spontaneous generation and how it was then proven that spontaneous generation couldn't hppen.
    We had a scientific theory that was tested and debated for close to 200 years. It was then put to rest.

    http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.php

    Then the theory of evolution came about that actually needs spontaneous generation (living from non-living) to happen somewhere along the time-line.

    So which science to believe?
    The theory in 1668, the theory in 1859 or the one in 2009?

    How many times does this need to be explained to you?
    I've lost count of how many times people have tried to explain to you, and I mean you in particular, how science and evolution works. I took the time a year or two ago to try to explain to you, in that thread, in a simple non-complex way how evolution works. Halfway through which you dismissed it as being too silly without any reason whatsoever.


  • #16025
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    You have a good memory - a quick google threw this one up







    from
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50580495&postcount=321

    Again Steve, where does it say 'Science Class"?????


  • #16026
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    robindch wrote: »
    I believe you said it at some point during the (closed) creationism thread. If memory serves, you also mentioned that in general, you felt that kids should be taught that the creation myths prevalent in their culture were true (ie, eskimo kids would be taught that eskimo creation myths were true, and so on).

    Don't ask me to find that post, but you did say that somewhere.
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    You have a good memory - a quick google threw this one up
    BrianCalgary wrote:
    where did I ever say that creationism should be taught in science class????

    BrianCalgary wrote:
    What is the objection to teaching Creationism in class? I have yet to hear a good reason for not teaching it

    from
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50580495&postcount=321[/quote]
    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    In fairness to Brian, in that post he only asks to have creation taught in class. He is now asking where did he say to teach it in a science class.

    Oh absolutely, the only thing that can be gained from the above is that Brian Calagry sees no good reason why Creationism shouldn't be thought in schools.


  • Advertisement
  • #16027
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    5uspect wrote: »
    How many times does this need to be explained to you?
    I've lost count of how many times people have tried to explain to you, and I mean you in particular, how science and evolution works. I took the time a year or two ago to try to explain to you, in that thread, in a simple non-complex way how evolution works. Halfway through which you dismissed it as being too silly without any reason whatsoever.

    And how may times does it have to be explained to you that, the philosophy behind the atheistic world view somewhere along the way has living matter arising from non-living matter?

    Yet science teaches that it can't be done, as per the above article. The point being that at one point in time science said that living matter arose form non-living, experimenst where conducted over thenext two hundred years that showed that this isn't really the case. Now, however the atheist worldld viw would have us accept that itindeed did happen.


  • #16028
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Again Steve, where does it say 'Science Class"?????

    In fairness Brian I cannot imagine scenario where a school would be teaching creationism and then afterwards science or vice versa. It'd be pretty confusing no?


  • #16029
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    zod wrote: »
    By that you would have to prove a univeral truth for everything before you could teach anything.

    Surely teaching what is deemed to be the most realistic chance of the truth based on evidence to date would be more appropriate.

    I agree that, teaching what is deemed to be the most realistic chance of the truth based on evidence to date would be more appropriate, be it in any discipline.

    I also think it is very important that we should teach various world views and ideas in order to foster understanding not only ourselves but others.

    So to get to my original bonnet-bee, I don't know any Christians that woudl say, 'don't teach evolutionary theory and scientific theories on origins' yet atheists who would say, 'do not teach Christian origins in the classroom.'


  • #16030
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    2Scoops wrote: »
    I learned about creationism, ID, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and a number of minor cults in school, in religion class. I didn't learn about creation OR evolution in science class! :pac:

    You are fortunate. :)


  • #16031
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    And how may times does it have to be explained to you that, the philosophy behind the atheistic world view somewhere along the way has living matter arising from non-living matter?

    Yet science teaches that it can't be done, as per the above article. The point being that at one point in time science said that living matter arose form non-living, experimenst where conducted over thenext two hundred years that showed that this isn't really the case. Now, however the atheist worldld viw would have us accept that itindeed did happen.

    That article doesn't - or at least shouldn't - say that it's impossible. The experiment which put spontaneous generation to "death" didn't prove that it was impossible, it only proved that the experiment wasn't adequate to prove it impossible. I also think you're mixing two things up: the experiments in question (which the article deals with) puts to death the notion of mice and maggots etc. spontaneously forming, it doesn't deal with the spontaneous formation of simpler forms (abiogenesis). Anyway, to quote you Brian:
    BrianCalgary wrote:
    Science is always changing based on new information and new discoveries.

    That means that in the future we may discover how the first instance of primative life was "created".

    But, I sense that this is a futile argument.


  • Advertisement
  • #16032
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    In fairness Brian I cannot imagine scenario where a school would be teaching creationism and then afterwards science or vice versa. It'd be pretty confusing no?

    I found English lit class to be very confusing.

    Socialism being taught in Social class then capitalism in business class.

    I had one teacher who thought communism was quite a good idea and another who extolled the virues of the capitalist.

    One history teacher who thought the US republic style of government was the bees knees, wheras another thought the House of Lords and our subsequent Canadian Senate was the best system of government.

    We get mixed messages in our schools regardless, I think its great when that happens, makes one think.


  • #16033
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »


    That means that in the future we may discover how the first instance of primative life was "created".

    But, I sense that this is a futile argument.

    It's not a futile argument with me.


  • #16034
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    It's not a futile argument with me.

    Well, actually, I believe that it is. I (and others) have made numerous points so far in this (short) thread, and you haven't acknowledged - nevermind refuted - them, while we have refuted your's. To have an argument an idea must be discussed, this isn't happening: you're just ignoring various points - being ignorant on purpose - and that's not an argument/debate. So, yes, it is futile.


  • #16035
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    I found English lit class to be very confusing.

    Socialism being taught in Social class then capitalism in business class.

    I had one teacher who thought communism was quite a good idea and another who extolled the virues of the capitalist.

    One history teacher who thought the US republic style of government was the bees knees, wheras another thought the House of Lords and our subsequent Canadian Senate was the best system of government.

    We get mixed messages in our schools regardless, I think its great when that happens, makes one think.


    Ok but one teacher who says the earth is 5000 years and another who says it's 4 billion years based on tangible evidence. That's not dffering theories like capitalism and communism that's religion against science, that's frightening and wrong.
    Didn't you once famously declare that science disproves evolution?


  • #16036
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,548 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    And how may times does it have to be explained to you that, the philosophy behind the atheistic world view somewhere along the way has living matter arising from non-living matter?

    Yet science teaches that it can't be done, as per the above article. The point being that at one point in time science said that living matter arose form non-living, experimenst where conducted over thenext two hundred years that showed that this isn't really the case. Now, however the atheist worldld viw would have us accept that itindeed did happen.

    Atheist world-view? So you equate science to Atheism? Now I see, science is the devil!

    Evolution requires that self replicating matter self replicates and sometimes makes a mistake in copying itself. It doesn't have to be alive. The question of when we characterise something as being alive or not is somewhat more subjective.

    Is a virus alive?
    Is a plant alive?
    Is your DNA alive?
    Is your hair alive?
    Is a cell scraped from your gum alive?
    These are all subject to evolution.

    Even computer code represented by inanimate bits and bytes in a computer's memory are subject to evolution.

    As pointed out your argument makes no sense. You say that The Atheistic World-view Science is always changing and then say that it also says that something can't be done. :confused:

    Do you require a moment in the history of the earth where God breaths life into a clump of chemicals?


  • #16037
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    I cannot imagine scenario where a school would be teaching creationism and then afterwards science or vice versa. It'd be pretty confusing no?
    From informal surveys that have been carried out in the USA by professional science organizations such as the NCSE, it seems that a high proportion of school teachers don't discuss evolution in class either because they're too scared, or because they're creationists themselves.

    The DI and other organizations send large quantities of marketing material to religious outlets so that they can give it to kids, so that the kids can arrive into biology class and attempt to embarrass the teacher by springing research-level questions on them. Jonathon Well's infamously misleading "Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution" is a good example of this, but there are others. The NCSE has published documents in response to this, but many teachers aren't aware that they exist. It's also been reported regularly that parents harangue biology teachers in PTA meetings about teaching evolution.

    Given the pressure that's on teachers to start with, it's hardly surprising that many choose not to invite further hassle and simply don't discuss the topic.

    Something similar is happening in the UK, and to a far lesser extent here in Ireland where creationist marketing thankfully hasn't really taken off in the South yet despite a few visits by Ken Ham and his mates.


  • #16038
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    Well, actually, I believe that it is. I (and others) have made numerous points so far in this (short) thread, and you haven't acknowledged - nevermind refuted - them, while we have refuted your's. To have an argument an idea must be discussed, this isn't happening: you're just ignoring various points - being ignorant on purpose - and that's not an argument/debate. So, yes, it is futile.

    We are not having the same argument. I am arguing that evolution and scientific origins are to be taught in our schools. As well as other origin beliefs from around the world.
    I am trying very hard not to argue whether or not evolution is true (and got sucked into it a little)

    I also argue that Christians are not against evolution and origins taught is schools, yet atheists are against Christian views on origins taught.


  • #16039
    zod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,023 ✭✭✭zod


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    I also think it is very important that we should teach various world views and ideas in order to foster understanding not only ourselves but others.

    Well teach what is deemed to be probably the truth, accompany with other competing theories.

    Then maybe in some general class reference faith based beliefs .. you couldn't describe these as being alternate though.

    I mean the flying spagetti monster is is not an alternate theory no matter how many people believe in it faithfully.


  • #16040
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    5uspect wrote: »
    Atheist world-view? So you equate science to Atheism? Now I see, science is the devil!

    I never said that. Those are your words not mine. And here agin you are drawing a conclusion that does not exist and are trying to equate me with a certain point of view that is incorrect.


  • #16041
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    robindch wrote: »
    From informal surveys that have been carried out in the USA by professional science organizations such as the NCSE, it seems that a high proportion of school teachers don't discuss evolution in class either because they're too scared, or because they're creationists themselves.

    The DI and other organizations send large quantities of marketing material to religious outlets so that they can give it to kids, so that the kids can arrive into biology class and attempt to embarrass the teacher by springing research-level questions on them. Jonathon Well's infamously misleading "Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution" is a good example of this, but there are others. The NCSE has published documents in response to this, but many teachers aren't aware that they exist. It's also been reported regularly that parents harangue biology teachers in PTA meetings about teaching evolution.

    Given the pressure that's on teachers to start with, it's hardly surprising that many choose not to invite further hassle and simply don't discuss the topic.

    Something similar is happening in the UK, and to a far lesser extent here in Ireland where creationist marketing thankfully hasn't really taken off in the South yet despite a few visits by Ken Ham and his mates.

    So lets take those questions out of the context of a program that you cite. Would you have any objections to a kid asking a teacher those types of questions?

    Most look reasonable questions to me.

    My Grade 12 Physics teacher told us that giant spiders as portrayed in horror fils could not exist, I asked him why? He explained, I then told him my next thought on the subject, which led toanother question and an answer. He was teacher that knew his stuff and could answer a 16 year olds questions.

    If teh science teacher was faced with the questions shown in your post, any teacher worth their salt in that particluar discipline would and should be able to answer the question.


  • Advertisement
  • #16042
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    zod wrote: »
    Well teach what is deemed to be probably the truth, accompany with other competing theories.

    Then maybe in some general class reference faith based beliefs .. you couldn't describe these as being alternate though.

    I mean the flying spagetti monster is is not an alternate theory no matter how many people believe in it faithfully.

    You are not teaching the Christian origins as a theory, you are teachingit as a statment of belief by millions of people.

    And teach the Flying Spaghetti monster as another


  • #16043
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,548 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    I never said that. Those are your words not mine. And here agin you are drawing a conclusion that does not exist and are trying to equate me with a certain point of view that is incorrect.

    So then evolution and not science?


  • #16044
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    5uspect wrote: »
    So then evolution and not science?

    What's your full question?


  • #16045
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    So lets take those questions out of the context of a program that you cite. Would you have any objections to a kid asking a teacher those types of questions?
    When they have been planted on an unsuspecting kid by a religious organization in order to undermine the credibility of an unprepared teacher, then, yes, I have serious objections.

    If Mr Wells was actually interested in increasing knowledge and stimulating questioning, then he would include a reference to the NSCE response document.

    That Wells does not include a reference speaks volumes about his real intentions in publishing this list (which, I must note in passing, Wells attempted to copyright and sell licenses to republish; the NCSE document, in contrast is free).

    Incidentally, some of the questions are specifically intended to mislead. Wells' list is disgracefully and openly disingenuous, as I'm sure he knows very well.


  • #16046
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    robindch wrote: »
    From informal surveys that have been carried out in the USA by professional science organizations such as the NCSE, it seems that a high proportion of school teachers don't discuss evolution in class either because they're too scared, or because they're creationists themselves.

    The DI and other organizations send large quantities of marketing material to religious outlets so that they can give it to kids, so that the kids can arrive into biology class and attempt to embarrass the teacher by springing research-level questions on them. Jonathon Well's infamously misleading "Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution" is a good example of this, but there are others. The NCSE has published documents in response to this, but many teachers aren't aware that they exist. It's also been reported regularly that parents harangue biology teachers in PTA meetings about teaching evolution.

    Given the pressure that's on teachers to start with, it's hardly surprising that many choose not to invite further hassle and simply don't discuss the topic.

    Something similar is happening in the UK, and to a far lesser extent here in Ireland where creationist marketing thankfully hasn't really taken off in the South yet despite a few visits by Ken Ham and his mates.

    Don't normally use expressions but :eek: is all I got...


  • #16047
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    robindch wrote: »
    When they have been planted on an unsuspecting kid by a religious organization in order to undermine the credibility of an unprepared teacher, then, yes, I have serious objections..
    I knew that. :)
    robindch wrote: »
    If Mr Wells was actually interested in increasing knowledge and stimulating questioning, then he would include a reference to the NSCE response document. .
    Agreed
    robindch wrote: »
    That Wells does not include a reference speaks volumes about his real intentions in publishing this list (which, I must note in passing, Wells attempted to copyright and sell licenses to republish; the NCSE document, in contrast is free)..
    Money, the root of all evil.
    robindch wrote: »
    Incidentally, some of the questions are specifically intended to mislead. Wells' list is disgracefully and openly disingenuous, as I'm sure he knows very well.

    Do you though have objection to a kid asking the questions? If the child had asked sincerely wanting to know?


  • #16048
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,548 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    What's your full question?

    Well seeing how you ignored the rest of my post.

    You said that the Atheistic world view requires that life come from non-life.
    And how may times does it have to be explained to you that, the philosophy behind the atheistic world view somewhere along the way has living matter arising from non-living matter?

    Yet science teaches that it can't be done, as per the above article. The point being that at one point in time science said that living matter arose form non-living, experimenst where conducted over thenext two hundred years that showed that this isn't really the case. Now, however the atheist worldld viw would have us accept that itindeed did happen.

    Evolution is a Science. Abiogenesis is a Science. You use the argument of spontaneous generation of fully formed organisms to refute the Scientific Theory of Evolution which describes the changes in organisms to adapt to their environments.

    So are you saying that Evolution isn't Scientific because fully formed organisms can't occur?

    If you look out your window you'll see fully formed organisms.
    Evolution is happening to them right now. That bird swooping through the air may be eaten by another fully formed organism and its hatchings may die.
    If may be too fast or cautious to be caught and it fast or cautious offspring may evade death next season. etc etc.

    As I said previously evolution requires replicators. The change in these replicators into complex machinessuch as cells which we deem to be alive is an open and active area in Science. That doesn't mean its an unknown, it's just a difficult problem.


  • #16049
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    I found English lit class to be very confusing.

    Socialism being taught in Social class then capitalism in business class.

    I had one teacher who thought communism was quite a good idea and another who extolled the virues of the capitalist.

    One history teacher who thought the US republic style of government was the bees knees, wheras another thought the House of Lords and our subsequent Canadian Senate was the best system of government.

    We get mixed messages in our schools regardless, I think its great when that happens, makes one think.

    I think this is a rather poignant point. Let me explain why with a little true life story.

    I had a substitute teacher from the USA in my primary school when I was in 5th class. She one day gave us an opportunity to debate creationism vs evolution. Explaining that there was a scientific organisation giving anyone $1mn dollars who could either prove or disprove the theory of evolution in the USA. (I'm not exactly sure whether it was to prove or disprove, perhaps someone can enlighten me on this one).

    Of course, most people in the class decided that God creating the world was more reasonable than the view that she put across of evolution. Of course like in your situation with history BrianCalgary there seemed to be a bias involved with how she was teaching. This woman also refused to read Harry Potter in class due to the fact it contained witchcraft. Fair enough she was entitled to her views.

    However, the "debate" we were meant to have I found as I got older and as I recollected this memory was not to be about whether God created the world and life or not, but rather how God created the world and how God created life. Both sides of the spectrum, the atheist who contends that religion and science cannot coincide, and the YEC's who rule out the possibility that God may have been behind evolution, both are dishonest about the other options that are avaliable on the table in terms of interpretation and discussion on the creation, cosmology, and early lifeforms that existed on this earth. It is not proven at all that God created the world without any of the current biology concerning evolution being true, nor is it proven at all that the lifeforms that existed on this earth were created without God not by any means. However, both these dishonest worldviews still exist, and still try to exclude other peoples understandings from the picture if they are clung to strongly enough.

    Anyhow, continuing on into my secondary school days. The picture seemed to get more honest. As we got into analysing the Genesis creation accounts of Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2 for both Junior Cert and Leaving Cert Religion. We were taught that Christians had three different camps on the creation.

    1. God created the world in 7 days, and the earth is only 6,000 years old. (YEC)
    2. God created the world, it is only how that is up for discussion (indifference)
    3. God created the world, the biology and the science we have behind us explains the how and not the why. (OEC, Day Age).

    I currently hang between 2, and 3. Nobody can be 100% sure on anything. I leave some doubt open, but I feel that the third option is reasonable. I personally don't feel like getting into a personal vendetta against those who are in group 1 either due to my belief that it is through faith in Jesus Christ that we are to be saved, not due to belief that we happen to be right on the creation vs evolution issue. Anyhow, I found that this 1, 2, 3 mechanism (there probably are more views too in Christianity that vary along these lines) was the most honest way of teaching the Christian views of creation in a reasonable manner. I find that too often on the polarised ends of this debate people are dishonest.


  • #16050
    Hagar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,786 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    I can't understand Christians who think that the Theory of Evolution is un-Christian. Who says evolution wasn't God's plan? He moves in mysterious ways His wonders to perform. Who are we to set limits on His imagination or ingenuity in creation by degrees? How many of us pop a cake in the oven for forty mins and await the results? Are we not made in His image? Would He not do something similar?


  • Advertisement
  • #16051
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Do you though have objection to a kid asking the questions? If the child had asked sincerely wanting to know?
    Of course not, if the kid's asking for the sake of knowledge and is prepared to change their opinion.

    If the kid's been planted to discredit the teacher, then the people doing the planting should be ashamed of themselves (but I rather suspect they wouldn't be).


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement