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

Originally posted by whobdamandog
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..

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...

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..

Keep dodging the point. In fact, I can't think of anyone who says they are running away after their last supposed "relevant" comment...if they didn't feel they were going to get burnt for it. You fail to understand that a belief system IS NOT acceptance of any religion. I believe in certain things, but that doesn't make me religious. Maybe once you've taken the time to step outside of that pragmatic world view that has been instilled in you by some authority figure you'll be able to understand. But, as far as I can see, you've just wasted expensive bandwidth by sticking your head in teh proverbial sand. Your religious views are wonderful. I wish you the best of luck with them. However, step outside the limited world view you've been ALLOWED to hold true and understand. It's a big world out here...we'd love you to join us. And, beyond that, why should your world view interfere with mine?

The sad part of the situation is that you, and others like you, will be speaking in tounges, rolling in the aisle and waiting for Jesus to save you when the shit really hits the fan. I, for one, will be glad to see you burning with the rest of us when "judgment" comes calling.

Oh, and no further research need be done. I had twelve years of research to back my point of view.

Damn...
Just like EVERYONE else, Ignore everything thats accually difinitive and argue over stupid pointless details that go nowhere.

Macro-Evolution is a TERM! It's not a theroy, its a generalization. It a way of referencing the way a species changes over time through Micro-evolution. Its the way we say, the larger overall change due to the smaller changes building up.
For example: If you were to analyze knitting. you could look at knitting a sweater, as a series of small movements or two large needle things (I dunno what excatly their called, I don't knit) in such a way that yarn or other material becomes intertwined with itself.
Or
You could simply call it Knitting! Can you "prove" the existince of knitting? Well not in a general sence, but you could prove the individual needle movements and the individual technique.

Same deal with Evolution (Micro and Macro) You could look at all the DNA splicing and minute gamete mutaiton and adaptation within a population, or even species. OR you could look at the very General change over time and analize its affects. Both are valid, but one is simply a bigger picture of the first.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Keep dodging the point. In fact, I can't think of anyone who says they are running away after their last supposed "relevant" comment...if they didn't feel they were going to get burnt for it. You fail to understand that a belief system IS NOT acceptance of any religion.

Devoting onself to exstensively following theistic principles, whether they be Christian, Buddihst, Humanist, Aetheist, Hindiust, Darwinian,..or whatever..means your practicing a religion. I can't break it down in any simpler terms.

I believe in certain things, but that doesn't make me religious.

refer to above response...

Maybe once you've taken the time to step outside of that pragmatic world view that has been instilled in you by some authority figure you'll be able to understand.

I've never stated that my BELIEF MUST be accepted as truth..nor that my BELIEF should be the only one taught in science class. You on the other hand have stated these things, which makes your view on this topic more "pragmatic" than my own.

Everyone should have the right to believe what they wish, however, their should be no exclusion of teaching a particular concept just because yourself or others do not agree with it..

But, as far as I can see, you've just wasted expensive bandwidth by sticking your head in teh proverbial sand. Your religious views are wonderful. I wish you the best of luck with them.

I don't believe your religious views are wonderful, however, as I've stated multiple times..you have the right to believe in them and teach them to people as you so desire.

However, step outside the limited world view you've been ALLOWED to hold true and understand. It's a big world out here...we'd love you to join us. And, beyond that, why should your world view interfere with mine?

Take some of your own advice. I impose the same request and question upon yourself.

The sad part of the situation is that you, and others like you, will be speaking in tounges, rolling in the aisle and waiting for Jesus to save you when the shit really hits the fan. I, for one, will be glad to see you burning with the rest of us when "judgment" comes calling.

I guess this statement essentially means that you've run out of arguments to support why your "religion" should be taught with the exclusion of my own...

Oh, and no further research need be done. I had twelve years of research to back my point of view.

And you still have trouble realizing the simple concept of how a Religion is defined?

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Macro-Evolution is a TERM! It's not a theroy, its a generalization. It a way of referencing the way a species changes over time through Micro-evolution. Its the way we say, the larger overall change due to the smaller changes building up.

Macro-Evolution is a term that's supported by "theistic principles"..therefore..it becomes a theory...

Same deal with Evolution (Micro and Macro) You could look at all the DNA splicing and minute gamete mutaiton and adaptation within a population, or even species. OR you could look at the very General change over time and analize its affects. Both are valid, but one is simply a bigger picture of the first.

Macro - Evolution and Adaptation, are two entirely different concepts. They should not be used synonymously..and their is no proof or validity in stating that one supports the other..

lets keep the discussion of evolution vs creationism, as asked twice by now, in the correct thread and not here

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Devoting onself to exstensively following theistic principles, whether they be Christian, Buddihst, Humanist, Aetheist, Hindiust, Darwinian,..or whatever..means your practicing a religion. I can't break it down in any simpler terms.

I've never stated that my BELIEF MUST be accepted as truth..nor that my BELIEF should be the only one taught in science class. You on the other hand have stated these things, which makes your view on this topic more "pragmatic" than my own.

Everyone should have the right to believe what they wish, however, their should be no exclusion of teaching a particular concept just because yourself or others do not agree with it..

I don't believe your religious views are wonderful, however, as I've stated multiple times..you have the right to believe in them and teach them to people as you so desire.

Take some of your own advice. I impose the same request and question upon yourself.

I guess this statement essentially means that you've run out of arguments to support why your "religion" should be taught with the exclusion of my own...

And you still have trouble realizing the simple concept of how a Religion is defined?

No one has any misunderstanding of what a "religion" is, except for you. Just because the government includes Buddism on it's questionaires about religion isn't defining it as a religion. You can't truely be sooo far off base that you would belive that just because someone has a belief system that that system has to be a religion. I believe in the theory of evolution, but that doesn't mean that I worship Darwin as a god or go to the church of Darwin. Its silly. It's like saying that a psychiatrist is religious because he believes he knows why people think the way they do.

Originally posted by yerssot
lets keep the discussion of evolution vs creationism, as asked twice by now, in the correct thread and not here

It already has been..the point is that by yours and others logic..Darwinian theories could be labeled as a "religion"..and should be excluded from scientific textbooks...or as I've humbly put it in many of my posts.. both theories should be allowed to be taught in classrooms..and parents can choose to opt their children out of class if they do not wish them to participate in either lesson.

I wish all the people that believe in stupid religeous fairy tales such as the bible should be killed.

Originally posted by Cosmic_Beings
I wish all the people that believe in stupid religeous fairy tales such as the bible should be killed.

Very well balanced..intelligent written opinion..well done..

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Very well balanced..intelligent written opinion..well done..

THANKS! 🙂

Originally posted by whirlysplat
When Jurassic park came out it was banned in Israel for portraying a view contrary to Creationism. this is the opposite end of tolerance 😄

All views should be taught so that they can be compared discussed and argued. Theories no matter what the evidence is are only theories. Evolution thanks to modern genetics has come a long way since Darwin. As has religious thought where many see cthe creation story as a metaphor. They are not mutually exclusive.

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 suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms,” Stephen J. Gould.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
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

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...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
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.

Where is the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that supports Creationism, particularly evidence of the existence of a Creator that is logically necessary for Creationism to be a viable theory?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
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?

You questioned how a word could be commonly used one way while having an entirely different meaning, and I provided you with such an example. 🙄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
But the opinions of yourself and the Dhali Lhama are?!!!...lol...

No, according to lexicographers who draft English language dictionaries:

Merriam Webster Online

How does a word get into a Merriam-Webster Dictionary?

This is one of the questions Merriam-Webster editors are most often asked.

The answer is simple: usage.

Tracking word usage

To decide which words to include in the dictionary and to determine what they mean, Merriam-Webster editors study the language as it's used. They carefully monitor which words people use most often and how they use them.

…Authority without authoritarianism

Change and variation are as natural in language as they are in other areas of human life and Merriam-Webster reference works must reflect that fact. By relying on citational evidence, we hope to keep our publications grounded in the details of current usage so they can calmly and dispassionately offer information about modern English. That way, our references can speak with authority without being authoritarian.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
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?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Since you are having difficulty recognizing the difference between the meanings of “cause,” “principle,” and “activity,” allow me to define them:

[b]cause n. The interests of a person or group.

prin·ci·ple n. A rule or standard.

ac·tiv·i·ty n. A specified pursuit.

Now, let us substitute the respective definitions of “cause,” “principle,” and “activity,” in the definition of “religion”:

“The interests of a person or group, a rule or standard, or a specified pursuit, pursued with zeal or devotion.”

Buddhism still does not qualify.[/B]

Originally posted by whobdamandog
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..

Refer to above...

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

The link is available for all to see: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Buddhism

Again, you selectively ignored the primary definition of “Buddhism” that appears on the page, because it does not define Buddhism as a religion. This is the logic fallacy called Fallacy by Exclusion. What do you call one who does not tell the whole truth? You call him a liar.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
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..

You expect definitions to vary by dictionary? If definitions are authoritarian, should they not be the same from dictionary-to-dictionary? Congratulations on defeating your own argument. 😆

Originally posted by whobdamandog
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.

[list=1][*]You have failed to prove that Buddhism is a religion.

[*]You have failed to provide any scientific evidence for Creationism.

[*]Creationism is dependent upon a belief in the existence of a Creator and a literal interpretation of the book of “Genesis.” It cannot be taught without a theological component.[/list]

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together.

Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "Does not," much like whobdamandog has done throughout this thread when his so-called arguments are defeated. 🙄

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
“I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms,” Stephen J. Gould.

Where is the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that supports Creationism, particularly evidence of the existence of a Creator that is logically necessary for Creationism to be a viable theory?

You questioned how a word could be commonly used one way while having an entirely different meaning, and I provided you with such an example. 🙄

No, according to lexicographers who draft English language dictionaries:

The link is available for all to see: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Buddhism

Again, you selectively ignored the primary definition of “Buddhism” that appears on the page, because it does not define Buddhism as a religion. This is the logic fallacy called Fallacy by Exclusion. What do you call one who does not tell the whole truth? You call him a liar.

You expect definitions to vary by dictionary? If definitions are authoritarian, should they not be the same from dictionary-to-dictionary? Congratulations on defeating your own argument. 😆

[list=1][*]You have failed to prove that Buddhism is a religion.

[*]You have failed to provide [b]any scientific evidence for Creationism.

[*]Creationism is dependent upon a belief in the existence of a Creator and a literal interpretation of the book of “Genesis.” It cannot be taught without a theological component.[/list]

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together.

Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "Does not," much like whobdamandog has done throughout this thread when his so-called arguments are defeated. 🙄 [/B]

In short: God is fake and stupid

yea, i don't think people so be so single minded.... they should be open to both and be educated of both that way they have knowledge if they were to get into an argument.... great stuff to know any way.....

And... NO.

We shouldn't educate people in both the unfounded hypothesis called Creationism and the scientific theory called Evolution,
The former is a fairy tale, it's supporters have been proven to lie, there is no proof, no evidence no nothing.

Should we start teaching kids about Roman Gods and the Ancient Roman Creation legend as well? The old Egyptian one? The...

If it hasn't already be done... Check out the Evolution-thread!

yes, it's been hinted at on multiple occasions

and as I said: they should teach the creation of the world by the 12 foot long eclair too, damnit 😠

great to see you again TO 🙂

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
“I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms,” Stephen J. Gould.

Yeah..actually that would be more of an "earth science" topic..lol

Where is the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that supports Creationism, particularly evidence of the existence of a Creator that is logically necessary for Creationism to be a viable theory?

Where are the missing links? Cutting and pasting "opinions" that you've received from the internet doesn't strike me as being valid proof..lol..perhaps consulting the Dali Lama on the topic might help you out a bit..

You questioned how a word could be commonly used one way while having an entirely different meaning, and I provided you with such an example. 🙄

And you have provided no other definitions to support your concept of what "Buddhism" is, other than the ones coming from the mind of Adam Poe. That's of course if we forget to mention that your opinion is supported by a deified little man...who wears a robe and a funny little hat...

No, according to lexicographers who draft English language dictionaries:

Who don't know nearly as much about what constitutes a "belief system" as a religion as Adam Poe..or the Dali Lama...🙄

The link is available for all to see: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Buddhism

Seriously I don't know why you keep on bringing up this point..you've already been proven wrong about it..and its fairly obvious that your lying at this point..but you have given much more credo to my argument now..seeing as how you continue to reference a website you initially stated as not being "the authority" on Buddhism. What your doing is being "hypocritical"..look it up..But please don't ask the Dali Lama about the definition of this one..lol...

Again, you selectively ignored the primary definition of “Buddhism” that appears on the page, because it does not define Buddhism as a religion. This is the logic fallacy called Fallacy by Exclusion. What do you call one who does not tell the whole truth? You call him a liar.

Okay your a liar then..you clearly have excluded the fact that both the definitions on the top of the page and the bottom of the page are guess what..duh duh..duh..duh..

EXACTLY THE SAME..LOL

Seriously buddy..this is looking pretty bad..you might as well hang up the towell on this argument..

You expect definitions to vary by dictionary? If definitions are authoritarian, should they not be the same from dictionary-to-dictionary? Congratulations on defeating your own argument. 😆

No the only definitions that are authoritarian are the ones that come from Mr. Poe and Dali Lama..🙄

[list=1][*]You have failed to prove that Buddhism is a religion.

[*]You have failed to provide any scientific evidence for Creationism.

[*]Creationism is dependent upon a belief in the existence of a Creator and a literal interpretation of the book of “Genesis.” It cannot be taught without a theological component.[/list]

And you have failed to prove anything other than that your beliefs hinge on loose interpretations of opinions formed by yourself and that of your religious mentor...lol...

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together.

Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "Does not," much like whobdamandog has done throughout this thread when his so-called arguments are defeated. 🙄 [/B]

Creationism supports the logical order and intricate designs demonstrated by science and in nature. Macro - Evolutionary theory supports randomness and disorder..something that is not demonstrated in nature..you have the right to your opinion..however..opinion is all that your "religion" is based on...

"Cutting and pasting "opinions" that you've received from the internet doesn't strike me as being valid proof.."

Careful, it isn't wise to condemn someone for doing the exact same thing you have been doing.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
And you have failed to prove anything other than that your beliefs hinge on loose interpretations of opinions formed by yourself and that of your religious mentor...lol...

Originally posted by BackFire
"Cutting and pasting "opinions" that you've received from the internet doesn't strike me as being valid proof.."

Careful, it isn't wise to condemn someone for doing the exact same thing you have been doing.

Yes..but its wise to exclude their opinions from science class..even though they are both based on loosley proven theistic principles.. 🙄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Creationism supports the logical order and intricate designs demonstrated by science and in nature. Macro - Evolutionary theory supports randomness and disorder..something that is not demonstrated in nature..you have the right to your opinion..however..opinion is all that your "religion" is based on...

This is a huge misconception held by so many creationsist. There is no random nature to evolution. A cow doesn't just suddenly develop fingers from hooves. Evolution is based on interaction with pliable organisms and their environment. A human isn't going to suddenly develop a random tuft of feathers to attract it's mate...when it isn't needed.