Hello:
If we teach Creationism in science class, when those kids graduate, will they know how to MAKE a rocket ship, or PRAY for one?
excon
|
Hello:
If we teach Creationism in science class, when those kids graduate, will they know how to MAKE a rocket ship, or PRAY for one?
excon
Science is not the opposite of God. Science is simply understanding the world that we live in that is bound by physical laws. Science can't wrap it's fingers around explaining God because God is OUTSIDE of that which is created.
If I can have my say here... I do believe evolution should be taught... but only as theory, not fact. However, I do not expect the view point of creationism to be taught in school either. Not everybody is a Christian and that type of thing is what should be taught at home.
And to sign off on this... anybody who prays for a rocket ship instead of working at one, doesn't understand God, scripture, or the fundamentals of prayer.
I'm with hauntinghelper on this. Often science is proving what the Bible said thousands of years ago. How do you think Rockefeller became a millionaire?
I went to Catholic School where I was taught that God created the Universe . I also was taught science at least as well as the public schools teach it . As I have mentioned more than once on these boards ,there is no inherent conflict between science and religion. Evolution is a flawed hypothesis and ID doesn't fill in the scientific gaps .
I think it should be mentioned in science class that there are people who believe in Creationism (etc.) and then describe what it is. The more students know about what diverse thinking is out there in the world, the better educated and informed they will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by hauntinghelper
(I grew up in a closed, very conservative, situation and was totally rattled and blown away to find out in high school, and especially in college, that my viewpoint wasn't the only one out there.)
Hello helper,Thanks for your response...Quote:
I do believe evolution should be taught... but only as theory, not fact
I'd only say, that IF the manufacture of the vaccines we regularly inject ourselves with, was based on THEORY and not FACT, I'd NEVER let then near me with their hocus pocus needles.
Excon
But that contradicts the liberal idea of conformity of ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
It's the liberal idea of knowing as much as possible about a certain subject -- pros, cons, and in between (and not the conservative idea of closing your mind to anything your tribe doesn't believe and agree with). That's why we have public libraries, to do in-depth research on a topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again, tom:Which party is PURIFYING itself because SOME don't "conform"? Here's a hint. It AIN'T the liberals.Quote:
but that contradicts the liberal idea of conformity of ideas.
Boy, oh boy. I really think you BELIEVE that tripe you posted..
Excon
,Quote:
Which party is PURIFYING itself because SOME don't "conform"?
Umm ,how many of the 2006 blue dog coalition is left in the Dems ? How many pro-life, pro-gun moderates Dems are left ? They bullied Sen. Max Baucus into retirement and are going after Sen. Mark Pryor. By the time they are finished the Dem party will be nothing but a Northeast and Pacific coast party . Even there ;they purged Joe Lieberman because he was not liberal enough . Not too long ago the Dems welcomed Arlen Specter into their ranks only to primary him out of a job. Blanche Lincoln was forced into a primary run off by a lefty . Weakened sufficiently by her party ,she lost the general election.
Now about that charge about the Repubics... Speaker Bonehead and the other beltway Repubics have been doing a pretty effective job keeping the conservatives in line unfortunately .
Vaccines are only theory, look how every year they say they can only guess what strain of flu to make their conncotion for.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, N0:
I take it then, that you would NEVER put that voo doo theory stuff into your body.Quote:
Vaccines are only theory,
Would I be correct or not?
Excon
Definitely I never do any vaccines
In the '40s and '50s, I suffered from and could have died because of having every disease known to childhood (except whooping cough) because of no vaccines. My vaccinated kids didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Hello again, Carol:
That's only your theory.Quote:
My vaccinated kids didn't.
Excon
Dear excon:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
They had none of the diseases I had. Not even theoretically.
Respectfully,
WG
There is proof that doctors had whooping cough and many of the diseases they vaccinate for under control before drug companies came out with vaccines for them at the brink of a decrease in these diseases, thus making it look like the vaccines were the cure.
In fact the past few years it has been proven that the places that have had a break out of whooping cough were people that were actually vaccinated for whooping cough.
Hello again, N0:
Not polio? Not Diphtheria? If you got bit by a dog, you wouldn't get a rabies shot? If you stepped on a rusty nail, you wouldn't get a tetanus shot?Quote:
Definitely I never do any vaccines
I don't know if you have kids, but do you leave them unprotected too.
Excon
The answer to your original question is both. They will build what they know and pray for it to work properly while everyone is kept safe doing so.
It depends, but I am not going to take any preventative shots.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Why choose one or the other when you can have the benefit of both?
Did you have any as a child? The polio vaccine?Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
The few they gave in the 50's and 60's when I was little. Then it was probably less than a dozen. NOW they give an average of 49 vaccines before age 6 and many are vaccines that babies and children are not ready for.
I am 58, I am healthier than most and do not take any medications, have no real health problems. Most people I know, even kids have diabetes, fatty liver, obese, need an inhaler, take 3 to 20 meds, etc...
But that's not because of the vaccines.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
The kids I know who were exempted from vaccines (by their parents) are way healthier than the kids that got all the vaccines.
You need a different perspective. Religion tells you the why, Science researches the how. These are not in conflict since religion provides very little detail and science tries to fill in that detail. Einstein said; I just want to know the thoughts of God everything else is just the detail.
The problem we have is absolutism, that man wants to say that the view that they have formed is absolute truth rather than their perspective on truth. Evolution is a theory which is yet to be proved but when you examine the detail of what exists here you have to see more than dumb multiplication of cells or pond scum becoming a human being, If pond scum could become a human being why do we still have pond scum?
Precisely Paaclete!
Where did the Grand Canyon come from? God made it just like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
And many have died from measles and other diseases they should have gotten inoculated against. And just because those kids are healthy doesn't mean it was because they didn't get the vaccines. My kids did get them (not 46!) and have always been healthy, alarmingly healthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
I don't think anyone suggested that there haven't been physical changes on the Earth since creation arising from erosion, volcanic activity and so forth, what you are debating is when did it all start and at what point did Genesis 1.1-2 become Genesis 1:3,etc. What is debated is what is the process of creation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
As to the Grand Canyon a massive release of water at the end of the ice age could have carved the canyon just as easily as a small river could have over millions of years. I don't know which view requires the greater faith
It's the parents choice.
Unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
What we must strive for in education is a balanced view, therefore both views should be taught. If they are incompatiable then they are taught as different subjects, but the debate which arises is as important as the teaching of absolutes.
Hello clete:
I agree. All viewpoints need to be taught... But, in THIS case, one ISN'T a viewpoint.. It's RELIGION... It's a GREAT story, but it's RELIGION.. It SHOULD be taught, where RELIGION is taught, which in church.Quote:
What we must strive for in education is a balanced view, therefore both views should be taught.
Excon
I think it should be at least mentioned as an "opposing viewpoint."Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
As long as its not on the test, mention away, but if someone wants to mention another religion is that okay too?
A native American story of creation or two?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Creation/Migration/Origin Stories
Hello again, Carol:Tal is right.. Which religions opposing viewpoint of creation should be mentioned? All of them? Why should ANY religion be mentioned in a science class?Quote:
I think it should be at least mentioned as an "opposing viewpoint."
Excon
Tell me yours, I will tell you mine. What? You don't believe in mine?? Screw you too!! End of conversation, start of the war of the gods.
This is a contensious issue but the theory of evolution doesn't stand the test of fact and should not be taught as fact but as an explanation of some observations.
Religion is essentially interested in the recent past and the relationship between human beings and their creator. Science seeks to explain certain observed occurrences. The contention appears to be in the reference to in the beginning and there are many references to this in all cultures. Science has difficulty proving God because they cannot observe him.
Now Tal has just become irritated and I can understand this point of view, this is why religion has it's own board here.
What is irrational is the attempt to exclude religion and its point of view from any discussion in education of origins. An examination of Scriptures indicates a depth of knowledge that must have come from somewhere yet it arose in a society that didn't have science as we understand it. The viewpoint is therefore valid and I for one reject that "evolution" is the only explanation of origins. I will allow adaptation because this is observable but it doesn't explain origin. We have created many breeds of dog in a short time but by breeding dogs we have not created a cat or a bear
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:12 AM. |