Billion + believe in Satan. Should all schools be mandated to teach Creationism?

[Gnostic Bishop]

I dont have a problem with equality. But to say Im wrong being I am God(you say)-- and YOU are God-is a little contradictory. You're disagreeing with yourself. But whats new.
When you let go of that merry-go-round of illogic
you're on,
I bet it is going to hurt like hell.



✔-✌'s
You managed to hit me and GB with that comment. Intentional or unintentional.

As for me,
I'm not trying to be a better than anyone else,
just trying to be a better me than I have been.

I am not saying I am the traditional miracle working God who may have never existed. I am saying that the only God you can ever know is the good we find within ourselves. It's the God of the Conscience, or the God of right over wrong. That is quite different from me or someone thinking they are the traditional creator God, or thinking that they are more than anyone else.

Jesus would define this concept as one just seeing that they have joined God’s divine council by embracing his own Christ mind.

Romans 8:29 For whom he didforeknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

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

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

So in other words, you're suggesting that the United States should just revoke the 1st amendment?

That's basically the sum of what I'm reading.

I don't know what planet you're on, but the United Sates has been the Supreme World Power of planet Earth for nearly 2 centuries. And from the looks of it, we will continue to be the Supreme World Power for centuries to come.

We literally have a monopoly on the advancement of human sciences.

We are the authorities when it comes to space exploration.

Our military is unrivaled.

Need I say more?

http://www.copleston.suffolk.sch.uk/religious-studies

Your constitution is garbage compared to many and has been breached.

Need I say more?

Regards
DL

 

[GodandLove]

Patriotism trolling only works for really sheltered people living in insular parts of the world.
You should go back to being banned, godandstuff, it was more fun.

The ironic thing is, I'm not even patriotic nor am I trolling. I just state facts.

Nice to see you again, spacetrash.

 

[Xorkoth]

The US's supremacy is over, in no way do we have the monopoly on scientific advancements anymore. True, we have the biggest military, but at what cost? And we're way down the list of the most educated now as well.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I do think Creationism deserves a mention at the beginning of high school biology class in the USA, because it's a part of the historical and cultural landscape of the US, and it's never a bad idea to inform students that there is a large section of their population with an alternate opinion to what they're about to be taught -- this is simply building an informed and worldly citizen.

I do not think Creationism deserves any more than a cursory overview or mention-in-passing in American public schools, though. The teacher can probably say, "If you'd like more information on Creationism, please wiki it, or ask your clergyperson. This topic is outside the bounds of our education system, as we separate church and state in this country. Scientists have not supported this idea, and not nearly all religious communities in America support it either. Now, moving on ..."

 

[Roger&Me]

I do think Creationism deserves a mention at the beginning of high school biology class in the USA, because it's a part of the historical and cultural landscape of the US, and it's never a bad idea to inform students that there is a large section of their population with an alternate opinion to what they're about to be taught -- this is simply building an informed and worldly citizen.

I do not think Creationism deserves any more than a cursory overview or mention-in-passing in American public schools, though. The teacher can probably say, "If you'd like more information on Creationism, please wiki it, or ask your clergyperson. This topic is outside the bounds of our education system, as we separate church and state in this country. Scientists have not supported this idea, and not nearly all religious communities in America support it either. Now, moving on ..."

i agree with you but at the same time, i think it's important to be candid and honest with students and tell them that creationism (in its popular conception as an ideology that is mutually exclusive with the theory of evolution) is quite simply wrong and not factually accurate, and totally inconsistent with everything we know about nature, and essentially a political tool rather than good science. beating around the bush about that is a very bad thing in my opinion, students should be left with no doubt in their mind that creationism is a bogus idea.

 

[methamaniac]

^
Just a real quick brief explanation of how exatcly the first life formed if you please. How non-life was able to violate law of biogenesis and constructe a highly intelligent code.
Stick to the "facts". "Dont beat around the bush."
This should be interesting.

 

[GodandLove]

 

[methamaniac]

lulz

 

[Roger&Me]

i'm not going to get dragged into some type of shit troll argument with you, especially considering the burden of proof is on you to show that this "creationism" woo woo has any validity whatsoever, considering that evolution has an astounding body of peer-reviewed evidence supporting it.

furthermore, the miller-urey experiment proves that all the building blocks of life can be formed from inorganic precursors under conditions approximating those present on the early earth. once those are present, amino acid chains can form and proteins can conglomerate, and with enough time will give rise to life.

i doubt you even science, bro.

 

[GodandLove]

^
Stick to the "facts". "Dont beat around the bush."
This should be interesting.

Roger's "Kinda of" rejoinder:

i'm not going to get dragged into some type of shit troll argument with you, especially considering the burden of proof is on you to show that this "creationism" woo woo has any validity whatsoever, considering that evolution has an astounding body of peer-reviewed evidence supporting it.
.

 

[methamaniac]

i'm not going to get dragged into some type of shit troll argument with you, especially considering the burden of proof is on you to show that this "creationism" woo woo has any validity whatsoever, considering that evolution has an astounding body of peer-reviewed evidence supporting it.

furthermore, the miller-urey experiment proves that all the building blocks of life can be formed from inorganic precursors under conditions approximating those present on the early earth. once those are present, amino acid chains can form and proteins can conglomerate, and with enough time will give rise to life.

i doubt you even science, bro.

I'M not dragging you anywhere, you're dragging yourself.
But you dont seem to be getting very far as you appear to be dead on the floor.
Hard pulling yourself up by your bootstraps I'd imagine.
About as easy doing that it is to factually prove life can form from non life.
With all do respect , Im not the one that needs the "facts".
IM not the one who's making a superman claim that life creates itself, and with a sraight face saying I have "facts" to prove it. A superman claim like that is going to require a bit more "proof".
Get back in the lab and try cooking up life.
I'm just trying to save you some time.
You can stick DNA/RNA in a petri dish with all the nutrients you want--In a billion years it aint doing nothing. And Im giving you the formation of first
strand as a head start.
You see, you need proteins to form DNA/RNA but you need RNA/DNA to form proteins needed to make the RNA/DNA in first place. Now if you want to sniff the magic fairy dust
and pretend this evidence we can observe doesnt exist, you're more than free to do so. But dont substitute imagination for fact.
Here's an observation so you can practice learning real science. Intelligence comes from intelligence.
I have a funny feeling you will ignore this observation as well.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

i agree with you but at the same time, i think it's important to be candid and honest with students and tell them that creationism (in its popular conception as an ideology that is mutually exclusive with the theory of evolution) is quite simply wrong and not factually accurate, and totally inconsistent with everything we know about nature, and essentially a political tool rather than good science. beating around the bush about that is a very bad thing in my opinion, students should be left with no doubt in their mind that creationism is a bogus idea.

I think for a public school, this is saying too much. It's already giving classroom time to an opinion on a religious doctrine (even if to give the opinion that it's wrong), and in so doing opens the door to more religious discussion by inviting a fair retort by people who say it's right. After all, science doesn't deem ideas wrong or right, it (more parsimoniously) finds data supportive of them, or does not. This is why I think it's fairer to all to simply say, "We only teach what scientific study has found consistent data to support, and that idea does not fall into that category, so this is not the place to discuss it." This manner of dealing with it passes no judgement on people who believe or disbelieve it -- it only states that this (public school, impartial to religious beliefs) is not the place to discuss it.

This way of dealing with Creationism also sidesteps the multitude of ways in which American religious communities, with widely varied metaphysical beliefs, reconcile the robustly supported ideas of evolution with their beliefs. I think you'll find the "popular conception" of which you speak is hardly a monolithic united front, but rather, a stereotype. The reality is that religious ideas about our origins are dynamic and diverse, and run the gamut in terms of how well they attempt (or succeed) at integrating scientific findings about our origins. Should we address and give floor time to all of them? Some of them? Which ones? Why? Again, not the time or the place. This is public school, and we just teach, and hold you responsible for, the data points that have presented themselves. How you connect the dots is your own business on your own time.

 

[Abject]

^
Just a real quick brief explanation of how exatcly the first life formed if you please.

An explaination as to how exatcly god was formed if u please
If god can come from nothing, or has always been here, you cannot use that argument.

 

[methamaniac]

^
Nice try,
I mean fail...
I never claimed to be able to factually prove God did I?
Only that both ideas of how life formed are equally religious in nature.
And they are.
(But technically creationist have upperhand because we can OBSERVE fact codes only come from intelligence)

 

[swilow]

I never claimed to be able to factually prove God did I?

I think this statement is interesting. You continually use half-baked science regurgitated from Denis Noble (incidentally, he is a Darwinist) as proof to back up your claims of creation, but you are admitting you can in no way factually prove this. That's excellent to hear, because you have been belittling anyone else who has been saying this to you. Thanks, I'm glad to have witnessed your concession

Of course, it would be unfair for me to expect you to demonstrate the existence of a timeless/spaceless deity through observation in our timely, entropic universe. Such a thing appears to be impossible- and also completely irrelevant.

(But technically creationist have upperhand because we can OBSERVE fact codes only come from intelligence)

If it is not a fact, that "codes come from intelligence", your statement is meaningless- and it is NOT a fact.

There is something ridiculous about trying to prove the nature of god through science. Mentioning idea's like the complexity of nature's coding and structure as evidence of god flies out the window when Christians claim a miracle, a sudden suspension of the previously praised laws of nature. There is no reason to think that the god who raises people from the dead, who has access to higher spatial dimensions, who exists outside of time, would use something as indirect and "analog" as DNA/RNA to enact physical progression/change, when he show's evidence of being unaffected by physical law in multiple other instances.

God works in mysterious ways? Like hell he does

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I do think Creationism deserves a mention at the beginning of high school biology class in the USA, because it's a part of the historical and cultural landscape of the US, and it's never a bad idea to inform students that there is a large section of their population with an alternate opinion to what they're about to be taught -- this is simply building an informed and worldly citizen.

I do not think Creationism deserves any more than a cursory overview or mention-in-passing in American public schools, though. The teacher can probably say, "If you'd like more information on Creationism, please wiki it, or ask your clergyperson. This topic is outside the bounds of our education system, as we separate church and state in this country. Scientists have not supported this idea, and not nearly all religious communities in America support it either. Now, moving on ..."

Comparative Religion is supported at the higher levels of education but by then, we have already lost young minds to belief in the supernatural.

Do you think we have a duty to those children at all?

Not to get into it but separation of church and the U.S. state is a farce. See Bush talking to God before going into Iran and the media grilling all political candidates on their religious views before any election.

Regards
DL

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Comparative Religion is supported at the higher levels of education but by then, we have already lost young minds to belief in the supernatural.

Do you think we have a duty to those children at all?

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about comparative religion.

Not to get into it but separation of church and the U.S. state is a farce. See Bush talking to God before going into Iran and the media grilling all political candidates on their religious views before any election.

Hmm... my understanding of SoC&S is the principle that it behooves a government and the institutions it owns to show no favoritism or encouragement of any religious position, and by so doing allow each citizen the freedom to believe or disbelieve anything they wish (freedom of thought). It just makes practical sense that any strong, stable government that wants to perpetuate itself would abide by this principle. Any favoritism afforded any ideological camp by a government threatens to disaffect those who believe otherwise, and this is the beginning of factionalism and political instability.

 

[Xorkoth]

It does make sense doesn't it? However I agree that it doesn't truly exist as it should in the US, not right now it doesn't, and it probably never has. It's not in the constitution or anything either, it's just an idea. I completely agree that a healthy government should separate church and state though.

 

[methamaniac]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The constitution doesnt say church and state HAVE to be seperate.
Only that congress should make no law because they do not have the authority.

17 "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
(Matthew 12)