God vs. Science: The Inclusion of Creationism in School Textbooks?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Oh yeah I also proved that Buddhism was a religion as well...

The only person you've proven anything to is yourself.

Congrats, you've proven to yourself what you already felt was proven (falsely), though you failed in convincing others (baseless biased geosites do tend to fail, though). Nicely done.

And now, after being spanked in multiple arguments in this thread, you resort to dimwitted sarcasm and attempt to lower everyones credibility down to the level of your credibility.

Oh, you've proven something else too, that you don't know the definition of the word "proof". Proof is unarguable, proof is final, since people have been able to go against and retort your "proof" with validity, then it obviously isn't proof.

Just because you say "I proved this" doesn't make it so. Obviously, others diagree with you, and since, by default, it's your job to show evidence of this undeniable proof since you're making a positive claim, please do so.

And why are you avoiding the evolution thread? Afraid to see all your paltry 'evidence' completely destroyed? Because basically anything in support of creationism that has even been thought of has been posted and thoroughly refuted in there.

However, YOUR only argument against evolution is transitionary fossils, and you have been proven wrong there.

(edited for misspelling)

Okay, I'm going to step here because there is an obvious mud-slinging figthing going on here and some off topic comments. Let's for a moment stop and go back to the original topic: "God vs. Science: The Inclusion of Creationism in School Textbooks?" Everyone's POV is fine as long as the thread doesn't get derailed. Okie dokie? 🙂

just scan through this thread..you'll get your "proof"...

Lana... I love wishy-washy 😄 great word 😄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So you believe a man in a red hat who wears a dress over scholars who've studied the language for many years?!! And you make fun of my rationale..lol...

woops, didn't saw your post WD

so, ... whob, wanna take this to the evolution thread or will you accept you have no evidence at all?

Originally posted by WindDancer
Okay, I'm going to step here because there is an obvious mud-slinging figthing going on here and some off topic comments. Let's for a moment stop and go back to the original topic: "God vs. Science: The Inclusion of Creationism in School Textbooks?" Everyone's POV is fine as long as the thread doesn't get derailed. Okie dokie? 🙂

Not a problem WindDancer..this is getting a bit silly...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
just scan through this thread..you'll get your "proof"...

No, we'll get your "proof", which isn't sound at all and isn't proof to anyone else. As I've said before, your "proof" is biased webpages and your opinion, and can be retorted. By definition, it's not proof.

Originally posted by yerssot
woops, didn't saw your post WD

so, ... whob, wanna take this to the evolution thread or will you accept you have no evidence at all?

Why take it to the evolution thread when the points already been made here..we can continue to go back and forth..but it really doesn't matter..everyone is entitled to believe what they would like to believe in..however.. they should base their beliefs on all of the arguments that are presented before them..

if that's your choice, so be it... but don't hesitate to pay it a visit 🙂

Originally posted by whobdamandog
That's not true Mr. Poe..someone's being a bit misleading again. Never stated that they know more about Buddhist theology than the Dali Lhama..however..I do believe that the "lexicographers" would have a better idea as to how the word should be defined based on its "common use."

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Buddhism is a RELIGION...

Please contact the Dalai Lama and explain to him that he is wrong..lol...

Congratulations on revealing your hypocrisy for all to see.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The Macro Evolutionary theory is based on tenuous assumptions that have not been proven by science...That was my point all along. It is no more/less of a science than Creationism.

Scientific theories cannot be proven correct, they can only be disproven. If Macro Evolutionary Theory is as flawed as you believe it to be, it would have been long since disproven. 🙄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So even if a word is commonly understood/defined to be a "duck", and it walks like a "duck", and it talks like a "duck", then by all means we should refer to it as something else other than a duck?!!!

The term “gay” is now standard in its use to refer to “a person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex,” yet the actual meaning of the word is “to be cheerful, lighthearted, or merry.”

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Seriously..I can't believe your actually challenging the actual definition of a word listed in the Dictionary...but since you are so keen on siting Webster's website...I thought it would only be appropriate to post their definitions of the following words...

*Waits patiently for Adam Poe to now contradict himself once again, by stating the above mentioned reference from the website he provided can not be deemed credible...lol...

Definitions in English language dictionaries are not authoritarian. It is absurd that you continue to assert that they are despite the evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So who/what pray tell should we go by when we're trying to get the definition/meaning of a "commonly used" word such as Buddhism? The Dali Lama?!!!.....or should we define a word by whatever conjecture comes from the convuluted mind of Adam Poe..lol…

Individuals should use a dictionary for reference purposes, keeping in mind that its definitions are not authoritarian… something you seem incapable of doing.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
And those "essential characteristics" to define a word being..

a) The Dali Lama's opinion...
b) Whatever definition Adam Poe decides to make up to support his argument

Allow me to provide you with an ostentive definition of the term “essential characteristics” since you seem to be ignorant of its meaning.

The “essential characteristics” of a triangle are:

[list][*]It is a geometric figure.

[*]It has three sides.

[*]The sum of its interior angles equal 180 degrees.[/list]

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Thank You..caught you in the lying game..now go back to page 14 of this thread and you will clearly see that BOTH definitions are posted on the proceeding page..not just the one that you highlighted..

But wait there's more.....regardless of whether or not I took the definitions from the top or the bottom of the page that you sited..get ready for this..duh duh duh duh...

THEY'RE BOTH THE SAME DEFINITIONS...lol...

Come on now buddy you know that, and now its in plain view for all to see....the Dali Lama doesn't like it when you lie..

The definition you posted on page 14 is the same one I highlighted in my subsequent post:

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Buddhism

n 1: a RELIGION represented by the many groups (especially in Asia) that profess various forms of the Buddhist doctrine and that venerate Buddha [syn: Buddhism] 2: the teaching of Buddha that life is permeated with suffering caused by desire, that suffering ceases when desire ceases, and that enlightenment obtained through right conduct and wisdom and meditation releases one from desire and suffering and rebirth

This is the definition that appears at the bottom of the page.

Moreover, neither definition you supplied is the primary one! You selectively ignored the primary definition of “Buddhism” that did not define it as a religion in favor of a peripheral one that did. That makes you a liar by exclusion. Nice try. 🙄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
By using the "essential characteristics" as defined from the mind of Adam Poe..and through the magic of cut and paste.....allow me to demonstrate...

you took this definition from Dictionary.com...

and decided to add the words/phrase a deity, an idol, or a sacred object; worship.

and through the magic of cut and paste..you came up with

lol..sigh what will he make up next?!!

My English language dictionary defines “venerate” differently than your does? Imagine that. You do not think that it may have something to do with the fact that:

[list][*]Dictionaries define words by usage.

[*]These definitions are not authoritarian.[/list]

Because of this, definitions will vary by usage, particularly from dictionary to dictionary. 🙄

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Congratulations on revealing your hypocrisy for all to see.

Hypocrisy..how so? Stating that Buddhism is a religion and that those who compile dictionaries have a better grasp of defining the "word" is not hypocrital....however you have proven that once again you need to brush up a bit on the meaning of the words you use..lol

Scientific theories cannot be proven correct, they can only be disproven. If Macro Evolutionary Theory is as flawed as you believe it to be, it would have been long since disproven. 🙄

Good gotcha at your own little word - game. So what makes the theory of Macro - Evolution any more scientifically valid than creationism.. Answer: Nothing..neither has been DISPROVEN by science..so essentially..it all comes down to FAITH my friend.

The term “gay” is now standard in its use to refer to “a person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex,” yet the actual meaning of the word is “to be cheerful, lighthearted, or merry.”

Quit beating around the bush...this has little to do with the subject. You've already been given 2 sources that refer to Buddhism as a religion my friend..against one - OPINION you have made that was based on your own standards of defining the word..oh yeah and did I forget to mention the OPINION of the Dhali Lama?

Definitions in English language dictionaries are not authoritarian.

But the opinions of yourself and the Dhali Lhama are?!!!...lol... 😆 😆 I'll take one from the mind of Adam Poe again by saying...

It is absurd that you continue to assert that they are despite the evidence to the contrary.

Individuals should use a dictionary for reference purposes, keeping in mind that its definitions are not authoritarian… something you seem incapable of doing.

Refer to response above...

Allow me to provide you with an ostentive definition of the term “essential characteristics” since you seem to be ignorant of its meaning.

The “essential characteristics” of a triangle are:

[list][*]It is a geometric figure.

[*]It has three sides.

[*]The sum of its interior angles equal 180 degrees.[/list]

and the "essential characteristics" That make Buddhism a religion are...

A cause --- Suffering
principle --- Suffering causes desire
activity --- Right moral conduct

Very simple n'est ce pas? And guess what..my "opinion" is also supported by two accredited sources..while yours is supported by your ego and the Dali Lama..lol..who's being more logical now?

The definition you posted on page 14 is the same one I highlighted in my subsequent post:

No its not..you only highlighted the top part of the definition..anyway its a moot point since as I stated before..duh duh duh duh duh...

THE SAME DEFINITIONS ARE LISTED AT THE TOP AND THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE..lol..

This is the definition that appears at the bottom of the page.

Refer to above...

Moreover, neither definition you supplied is the primary one! You selectively ignored the primary definition of “Buddhism” that did not define it as a religion in favor of a peripheral one that did. That makes you a liar by exclusion. Nice try. 🙄

Refer to above..one of us is a liar..but it's definately not me..lol...

My English language dictionary defines “venerate” differently than your does? Imagine that. You do not think that it may have something to do with the fact that:

[list][*]Dictionaries define words by usage.

[*]These definitions are not authoritarian.[/list]

Because of this, definitions will vary by usage, particularly from dictionary to dictionary. 🙄

Yeah its funny that your definition is worded in the exact same way, with the exact same sentence structure as the one listed at Dictionary.com....sans the expression...
a deity, an idol, or a sacred object; worship

Seeing as to how you got it from another dictionary..I was thinking they'd have a little different wording....but let me guess..you got that one from the Dali Lama as well.. 😆 😆 😆

So what have we learned..

Quick Summary Boys and Girls..

1. Buddhism is a Religion.

2. Creationist theories have just as much "scientific" evidence supporting them as Darwinian ones..

3. Creationist theories could/should be taught in science class, without supporting any specific "theistic" religion..

So in closing Darwinists...as whirlyspat would say.."keep the faith"..😇

Fin.

1 Buddhism is NOT a Religion. Buddhism is a belief system.

2 That's an oxymoron

3. Creationism should be taught next to evolution....in denominational religious private schools that are not funded by the United States government, which subscribes to a policy of seperation of church and state..

And, if you plan to say "fin"...then let that really be the end of what you have to say... because you've exited gracefully six or seven times.

1. Capt, whob rather believes a definition he found that suits his pov than listen to people that are part of the philosophy of buddhism nor listen to the leader of the movement. There is nothing that can change his mind about that ... you could make fun comparisons between that way of acting and certain historical figures 😉

2. we all know, from all these silly pages of posting AND the evolution thread; where the talk of proof for one or the other should take place; that the evolutionists have backed their claims while the creationists didn't got further than a few shy posts of TheForce (member)

3. I have already pointed to the first amandment which states that no religion should be pushed ahead of any other etc. so I fully agree the ONLY place to do this is in a private school, but then only in the religion-class and not the science one

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
1 Buddhism is NOT a Religion. Buddhism is a belief system.

Oxymoron..a religion is a "belief system"...anyway..you have the right to your opinion..but it's not substantiated by any "stone cold facts."

2 That's an oxymoron

No more so than stating that Darwinism is a substantive "scientific theory"....

3. Creationism should be taught next to evolution....in denominational religious private schools that are not funded by the United States government, which subscribes to a policy of seperation of church and state..

Your a bit confused my friend. Believing that an "Intelligent Creator" exists isn't strictly a religious concept. That's a very poor and limited assumption of Creationist scientific movement. One doesn't have to quote scripture or reference any particular religion in order to see intricate detailed designs that make up the universe. By attempting to mandate that only their theistic principle be taught in public schools, Darwinian supporters show that they are just as close minded and religious as those they preach against..

Fin..(or is it?)

A religion is a belief system, but a belief system is not necessarily a religion.

Creationism demands some sort of belief in a higher being, and therefore cannot be taught in public schools, period. Evolution is not theistic as it does not have anything to do with a higher being of any sort.

Originally posted by Lana
A religion is a belief system, but a belief system is not necessarily a religion.

Any belief system that is exstensively followed and revered with zeal and devotion could be classified as a religion..Buddhism falls well within those guidelines..but don't believe me..go to any encyclopedia, dictionary, religious scholar etc...I've given multiple examples myself..but as I have said before you are entitled to your opinion..

Creationism demands some sort of belief in a higher being, and
therefore cannot be taught in public schools, period.

Doesn't demand a belief in a higher being..it merely teaches the concept of a one possibly existing...either way I don't see as to how the principle of a "higher being" would negate it from being taught in science class. Again..the concept of a "higher being" doesn't have to relate to any theistic religion..it could would be taught as a theistic principle..just like Darwinism...

Evolution is not theistic as it does not have anything to do with a higher being of any sort.

Of course it is..Science as a whole is a "theistic" concept..and FYI..realting to a higher being is not the sole way of defining a religion..This has been mentioned multiple times in other posts....but if you don't believe me do some research on the term..

both should be incoorperated into text books, and let the child decide for themselves, instead of having people TELL them which is right. The truth is NO ONE knows the exact history of humanity. Creationlism relies on Faith, Evolution relies on loose theories. Untill we find the missing link it is all up in the air. Let kids wander their own minds and imaginations instead of telling them somthing we dont know.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
both should be incoorperated into text books, and let the child decide for themselves, instead of having people TELL them which is right. The truth is NO ONE knows the exact history of humanity. Creationlism relies on Faith, Evolution relies on loose theories. Untill we find the missing link it is all up in the air. Let kids wander their own minds and imaginations instead of telling them somthing we dont know.

I agree one hundred percent. And as I stated before...if parent's choose not to have their child engage in either topic..they have the right to pull the child from the class..