Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 26, 2010 17:19:29 GMT -5
Frankly I don't think it should be allowed to be taught to kids even in private school. It's intentionally indoctrinating minors into a proven lie. Why should we allow that? Freedom of religion. They choose to not get tax dollars, they choose to have a tuition, so why shouldnt they be allowed to teach what they believe? If we're talking college and up, sure. If we're talking children, it's indoctrinating them into a known lie. This isn't freedom of religion, this is a blatant lie. It's not like God's existence or heaven and hell where we can suppose all we want but not prove either way -- we know just as well as we know the moon orbits the earth that creationism is wrong. I believe it is abusive to intentionally indoctrinate children into believing falsehoods under the deceptive term religion. It's a blatant lie and it's utterly immoral to brainwash your children into believing it regardless of whether it's a public or private school. And while it's true that legally, at this time, parents can raise their children believing any lies they want -- they can even teach that the holocaust didn't happen -- I hope that eventually changes.
|
|
|
Post by SnallyGaster on May 26, 2010 19:36:05 GMT -5
Didn't you broskis learn about evolution in school? You learn everything you need to learn. I actually payed attention in that unit because I wasn;t sure if it was correct myself. After taking biology I have to say it is pretty reasonable and makes a lot of sense. A lot of proof too. There is no way to prove it to someone unless they take the course and pay attention.
|
|
Helmet
Star
Man Up By Womaning Down
Posts: 567
|
Post by Helmet on May 26, 2010 20:19:56 GMT -5
I think that both should be taught in a neutral standpoint. No teacher should lean over to one side or the other.
This gives the student the choice to pick which side they want to be on.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on May 26, 2010 20:30:20 GMT -5
@jmejia1187, if you are a biologist maybe you can anwser a question that has been bothering me for some time now. It is concerning the evolution of sex. So the way we reproduse, I'm sure you know is that we need a male and a female. We need a Y chromosome and an X chromosome (not sure if I spelled that right). So how did this exactly evolve? The first creature with that type of a reproductory mutation could only have one sex. I have considered an option that a creature can be both sexes at the same time, but that would be highly unlikely from the evolutionary point of view, mainly because we would have more examples of those kinds of creatures today, then just snails. You could still argue that this type of a reproductory system was inferior, so it died out, but it had to be around for a long time to evolve into 2 sexes scenario that he mainly have today. Did I lost you? I'm sorry if I did not made this statement clear. Anyways, if you could help me out here that would be great.
|
|
|
Post by jmejia1187 on May 26, 2010 20:38:01 GMT -5
@jmejia1187, if you are a biologist maybe you can anwser a question that has been bothering me for some time now. It is concerning the evolution of sex. So the way we reproduse, I'm sure you know is that we need a male and a female. We need a Y chromosome and an X chromosome (not sure if I spelled that right). So how did this exactly evolve? The first creature with that type of a reproductory mutation could only have one sex. I have considered an option that a creature can be both sexes at the same time, but that would be highly unlikely from the evolutionary point of view, mainly because we would have more examples of those kinds of creatures today, then just snails. You could still argue that this type of a reproductory system was inferior, so it died out, but it had to be around for a long time to evolve into 2 sexes scenario that he mainly have today. Did I lost you? I'm sorry if I did not made this statement clear. Anyways, if you could help me out here that would be great. Interesting. Bacteria have a form of sexual reproduction where they share DNA. It is not a reproduction that leads in offspring, but it does lead one bacterium to have the DNA of other bacterium. Also the premise that that hermaphroditic organisms are in low supply because it is evolutionary nonadvantageous is wrong. And the premise that sex is always dependent upon DNA is wrong also. I would point to Crocodiles that have sex dependent on temperatures durin development. However if you are really interested in learning about how hermaphroditic dimorphism lead to genders is actually right here: www.jstor.org/pss/4095283
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on May 26, 2010 20:44:52 GMT -5
I think that both should be taught in a neutral standpoint. No teacher should lean over to one side or the other. This gives the student the choice to pick which side they want to be on. This wouldn't be possible since religion is such an emotional thing. But if it were to happen, as I wrote earlier, the children would choose unanimously the theory of evolution.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on May 26, 2010 21:13:55 GMT -5
I think that both should be taught in a neutral standpoint. No teacher should lean over to one side or the other. This gives the student the choice to pick which side they want to be on. No. Because Creationism is subjective to the religious sect and is not based in fact. Evolution is a theory (which means that it is based in fact) and only the facts are taught. If we were to teach Christian Creationism, we might as well teach the Creation story of the Sioux people or the Egyptian Creation story in science classrooms. There is no difference.
|
|
|
Post by Joey on May 26, 2010 21:16:38 GMT -5
Freedom of religion. They choose to not get tax dollars, they choose to have a tuition, so why shouldnt they be allowed to teach what they believe? If we're talking college and up, sure. If we're talking children, it's indoctrinating them into a known lie. This isn't freedom of religion, this is a blatant lie. It's not like God's existence or heaven and hell where we can suppose all we want but not prove either way -- we know just as well as we know the moon orbits the earth that creationism is wrong. I believe it is abusive to intentionally indoctrinate children into believing falsehoods under the deceptive term religion. It's a blatant lie and it's utterly immoral to brainwash your children into believing it regardless of whether it's a public or private school. And while it's true that legally, at this time, parents can raise their children believing any lies they want -- they can even teach that the holocaust didn't happen -- I hope that eventually changes. I know. I go to a Catholic school, and some kids in my class are zombies. But our theology teacher teaches us to believe what we want, because thats the only way to think. He also says to always question everything, even religion, because by questioning, you learn. So I know most places it is brain washing creationism, here it isnt. And I hope that sometime soon the Church will change its mind, and see the fact infront of them. (And dont go saying that its wrong to change. Science claims to have an almost proven theroy, but then they found out the world was round)
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 26, 2010 22:00:55 GMT -5
I think that both should be taught in a neutral standpoint. No teacher should lean over to one side or the other. This gives the student the choice to pick which side they want to be on. Hmm, let's teach that lead can be turned into gold using alchemy along with chemistry. Or maybe we can teach that 1+1=3. Teachers should consider teach those from 'neutral standpoints' too. Of course, those will never be taught. Because those are lies. So is creationism. A neutral standpoint looks at the TRUTH of both sides, determines that one of the standpoints is clearly false, and then does not teach it. By saying we should teach creationism along side evolution, you are advocating teachers lying to the students.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on May 26, 2010 22:56:44 GMT -5
thanks for you help jmejia1187, the first paragraph is really what I was looking for! Joey, believing what you want?! that's not very logical....
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 27, 2010 0:41:47 GMT -5
You have a point there. When it comes down to verifiable facts, believing what you want doesn't really make sense; finding the truth does. Believing what you want does have its applications (such as whether you think xyz is awesome, or your stance on a moral issue with no clear-cut answers, and so forth), but it doesn't really belong in the realm of verifiable facts.
|
|
|
Post by Joey on May 27, 2010 12:05:41 GMT -5
thanks for you help jmejia1187, the first paragraph is really what I was looking for! Joey, believing what you want?! that's not very logical.... HOLY FRICKING CRAP, WERE TALKING THEOLOGY, NOT SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FOR CHRISTS SAKE! THE WORD THEOLOGY MEANS THE STUDY OF GOD! WHAT THE CRAP HAS TO DO WITH LOGIC? Sorry if I sound mean but come on. This isnt a class where you are supposed to use facts. Its called having faith. I understand that you choose not to believe in what I do. But what are you thinking? That a religion class is supposed to be brainwashing? I said that our religion teacher says believe what you want. Some things are more important in life than facts. You cant follow the facts to find your way alone. You have to believe in something. I dont care what you believe in, but you believe in something. If you believe that a God dosent exist, then believe it. The scientific facts can help you, but eventually you will need to believe. So dont go telling me what I should and shouldnt be able to do. If I want to believe what I want in THEOLOGY, you better fricking let me.
|
|
|
Post by Joey on May 27, 2010 12:06:22 GMT -5
You have a point there. When it comes down to verifiable facts, believing what you want doesn't really make sense; finding the truth does. Believing what you want does have its applications (such as whether you think xyz is awesome, or your stance on a moral issue with no clear-cut answers, and so forth), but it doesn't really belong in the realm of verifiable facts. See post above, it was theology, not science
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on May 27, 2010 13:24:52 GMT -5
pjpinc123, but even a believe has to be rationalized. I have my believes, but at the same time I try to back them up in science and logic, if not proving that my believe is the truth, then at least it gives confidence that it can be a possibility. If you believe in something and your stand point is correct, it should't be that hard to rationalize it, or at least give something that supports your standpoint. On the other hand, if you belive in something, but have complitly no way to support your position, then you can't be taken serious.
|
|
|
Post by Joey on May 27, 2010 13:56:02 GMT -5
pjpinc123, but even a believe has to be rationalized. I have my believes, but at the same time I try to back them up in science and logic, if not proving that my believe is the truth, then at least it gives confidence that it can be a possibility. If you believe in something and your stand point is correct, it should't be that hard to rationalize it, or at least give something that supports your standpoint. On the other hand, if you belive in something, but have complitly no way to support your position, then you can't be taken serious. So what you are saying is that Dan cant be taken seriously, because he believes in FSM and because he has no way to support it, he cant be taken seriously? That was the whole point of that week. To respect others beliefs. Show me once where I have said that an atheiest shouldnt believe what they believe? But now your telling me that its okay that I believe what I want, but its not important to the discussion, that I shouldnt be taken seriously? "Okay thanks for talking, go inside and let the big boys talk now" I dont care what a person believes. If you said you believed that a chicken getting raped started the big bang then so be it! I will tell you why I dont believe it, but I wont say you cant be taken seriously. And a belief dosent have to be rationalized. Its called FAITH! Its something that you cant have facts for, but you believe it anyway because you feel it is right. I apologize if I sound angry or mean. I don't want to come off that way. I just want to defend myself and my beliefes with my whole heart, and I am trying to do that in the most civilized way I can. If you feel like this is a personal attack, I am sorry.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 27, 2010 14:16:02 GMT -5
How many ways can I say this...?
THEOLOGY DOES NOT TRUMP SCIENCE. EVER. THEOLOGY DOES NOT EXCUSE FALSEHOODS AND LIES.
Theology can postulate all it wants on the supernatural, but if we know for a fact a thing happened in this world then no amount of theology claiming it didn't makes even the remotest amount of sense. A person who continues to believe in a thing we know beyond all doubt is false because religion says so, that person is either an idiot or being intentionally deceptive, and we should protect our children from that person attempting to deceive them.
Respecting beliefs... so if I were to think that Dallas was the capital of America, you would let me continue to believe that in respect of my beliefs? Even though I'm dead wrong? No, odds are I'd be corrected. Now let me correct you on something. I respect your RIGHT to have beliefs as you wish, but I don't have to respect those beliefs themselves, any more than I have to respect the beliefs of someone who feels they need to kill over stick figure drawings. But people refuse to be corrected when it's evolution, because it goes against their preciously-held myths about the creation of mankind. And yet, just as much as I would be wrong about Dallas being the capital of the US, creationists are demonstrably wrong about their creation myth being true.
The fact is, evolution is NOT theology. Evolution is science. Denying it to be true is just plain wrong. Creationism is a myth that necessarily denies evolution to be true. Since they both cannot be true, and we know evolution to be true, creationism is false. That also is NOT theology. It is a scientific conclusion, a logical conclusion, common sense.
Notice: Creationism being false is NOT THEOLOGY; it's science.
This isn't about theology. It's about "NAH NAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU NAH NAH" and pretending the truth isn't known so you can continue to believe a lie. How dare you tell me the truth about the evolution of man, that we were not created in our present form?! How dare you tell me what the capital of America is?! That goes against my 'faith'!
You say it's something you can't have facts for but that you believe because of a feeling -- emotion. Well that works -- barely* -- for gods and other supernatural myth, but it doesn't work at all here in the real world. We DO have facts about creationism and evolution. Those facts say you're wrong, and if you teach those facts to your -- or any -- children, then you are unfairly dogmatically indoctrinating them into a brainwashed world view that can only serve to harm them.
*From a truly scientific perspective, even the undisprovable hypothesis that god exists ought to be discarded due to the lack of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Joey on May 27, 2010 14:44:27 GMT -5
How many ways can I say this...? THEOLOGY DOES NOT TRUMP SCIENCE. EVER. THEOLOGY DOES NOT EXCUSE FALSEHOODS AND LIES. Theology can postulate all it wants on the supernatural, but if we know for a fact a thing happened in this world then no amount of theology claiming it didn't makes even the remotest amount of sense. A person who continues to believe in a thing we know beyond all doubt is false because religion says so, that person is either an idiot or being intentionally deceptive, and we should protect our children from that person attempting to deceive them. Respecting beliefs... so if I were to think that Dallas was the capital of America, you would let me continue to believe that in respect of my beliefs? Even though I'm dead wrong? No, odds are I'd be corrected. Now let me correct you on something. I respect your RIGHT to have beliefs as you wish, but I don't have to respect those beliefs themselves, any more than I have to respect the beliefs of someone who feels they need to kill over stick figure drawings. But people refuse to be corrected when it's evolution, because it goes against their preciously-held myths about the creation of mankind. And yet, just as much as I would be wrong about Dallas being the capital of the US, creationists are demonstrably wrong about their creation myth being true. The fact is, evolution is NOT theology. Evolution is science. Denying it to be true is just plain wrong. Creationism is a myth that necessarily denies evolution to be true. Since they both cannot be true, and we know evolution to be true, creationism is false. That also is NOT theology. It is a scientific conclusion, a logical conclusion, common sense. Notice: Creationism being false is NOT THEOLOGY; it's science. This isn't about theology. It's about "NAH NAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU NAH NAH" and pretending the truth isn't known so you can continue to believe a lie. How dare you tell me the truth about the evolution of man, that we were not created in our present form?! How dare you tell me what the capital of America is?! That goes against my 'faith'! You say it's something you can't have facts for but that you believe because of a feeling -- emotion. Well that works -- barely* -- for gods and other supernatural myth, but it doesn't work at all here in the real world. We DO have facts about creationism and evolution. Those facts say you're wrong, and if you teach those facts to your -- or any -- children, then you are unfairly dogmatically indoctrinating them into a brainwashed world view that can only serve to harm them. *From a truly scientific perspective, even the undisprovable hypothesis that god exists ought to be discarded due to the lack of evidence. Okay...let's calm down. Now back up. I am NOT. I repeat NOT a creationist. I have grown up my whole life thinking that it was one of a couple things in my faith which are 100% wrong, along with views on homosexuality, and views on who gets into the afterlife. I believe that science is right, we did evolve. But we had to evolve from something, right? And that something(single cell organism if that's what you believe) was created somehow. Whether it be from a god(my beliefs) or from a lucky arrangement of matter(atheiest belief). I have not once said that I believe in creationism, and I will NEVER pass that on as the truth to someone. I would say what I believe, what atheists believe, and whatever other beliefs exist. I would let that person choose what they want to believe, because it's not me, and I wasn't made to choose for them. And you like science, right? Tell me, which is more logical? The barley .1% chance that this is all here by luck? The perfect distance from the sun, the perfect atmosphere, the perfect way our bodies work, the perfect way the moon keeps the ocean in check, the perfect way the earth is mostly made of the one substance we need to live? Or the other chance, that there was no chance. That this was done on purpose, by someone. And until science can tell God didn't do it, then I am going to keep believing.
|
|
|
Post by RandiKthxxx on May 27, 2010 14:44:40 GMT -5
How is believing in creationism harmful?
|
|
|
Post by Joey on May 27, 2010 14:48:49 GMT -5
How is believing in creationism harmful? because it's wrong to lie, even though every parent does it about Santa clause, but it's okay to let a child believe in something fake, as long as it dosent go against people that apparently are smarter's beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by RandiKthxxx on May 27, 2010 14:52:32 GMT -5
I don't think I've heard about many deaths/injuries/mental instability due to the discovery that Santa's not real. Just pretty bummed until you get more SHIRT from your parents the next year.
|
|