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

Justed wanted to add a couple nails to the Buddhism argument..

taken from the bottom of His Holiness's website at..

http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white7.html

This site is maintained and updated by The Office of Tibet, the official agency of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in London. This Web page may be linked to any other Web sites. Contents may not be altered.
Last updated: 2-Feb-96

def: Holiness

Belonging to, derived from, or associated with a divine power; sacred.
Regarded with or worthy of worship or veneration; revered: a holy book. (guess Adam Poe was wrong..lol..)
Living according to a strict or highly moral religious or spiritual system; saintly: a holy person.
Specified or set apart for a religious purpose: a holy place.
Solemnly undertaken; sacrosanct: a holy pledge.
Regarded as deserving special respect or reverence: The pursuit of peace is our holiest quest.
Informal. Used as an intensive: raised holy hell over the mischief their children did.

def: Dalai Lama

The traditional governmental ruler and highest priest of the dominant sect of Buddhism in Tibet and Mongolia, understood by Tibetans to be the living incarnation of the bodhisattva of compassion.

def: Priest

In many Christian churches, a member of the second grade of clergy ranking below a bishop but above a deacon and having authority to administer the sacraments.
A person having the authority to perform and administer religious rites.

Nuff said.....

Here's a nice site for you,
Addresses all your beef's with Evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/index.shtml
And yes I trust them for 2 reasons.
1) .edu means Government approved educational site.
2) Berkeley.

Incase you don't feel like clicking it here are some highlights

Misconception: “Evolution is ‘just’ a theory.”

Response: Scientific theories are explanations that are based on lines of evidence, enable valid predictions, and have been tested in many ways. In contrast, there is also a popular definition of theory—a “guess” or “hunch.” These conflicting definitions often cause unnecessary confusion about evolution.

Misconception: “Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.”

Response: The fact that some transitional fossils are not preserved does not disprove evolution. Evolutionary biologists do not expect that all transitional forms will be found and realize that many species leave no fossils at all. Lots of organisms don’t fossilize well and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not that common. So, science actually predicts that for many evolutionary changes there will be gaps in the record.

Also, as predicted, scientists have found many fossils that show the presence of new, complex structures. For example, there are fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their theropod dinosaur ancestors, and between whales and their terrestrial mammal ancestors.

Misconception: “Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable.”

Response: Evolution is observable and testable. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences.

Misconception: “Teachers should teach ‘both sides’ and let students decide for themselves. ”

Response: Given the wide variety of religious views about creation, there are not simply “two sides” to be compared. In science class, students should have opportunities to discuss the merits of arguments within the scope of science. For example, scientists debate whether birds are descended from dinosaurs or their ancestors branched off the evolutionary tree before dinosaurs evolved. In contrast, a debate pitting a scientific concept against a religious belief has no place in a science class and misleadingly suggests that a “choice” between the two must be made. The “fairness” argument has been used a great deal by creationist activists attempting to insinuate their religious beliefs into science curricula.

Misconception: “Evolution is itself ‘religious,’ so requiring teachers to teach evolution violates the First Amendment.”

Response: Evolution is science. The study of evolution relies on evidence and inference from the natural world. Thus it is not a religion. Supreme Court and other Federal court decisions clearly differentiate science from religion and do not permit the advocacy of religious doctrine in science (or other public school) classes. Other decisions specifically uphold a school district’s right to require the teaching of evolution.

Good enough for ya?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIEflawed.shtml

This comic made me think of Whob 😂

Originally posted by whobdamandog
lol..If your so confident in your "definition" post a link to it where all can view it..(somehow..I don't think you will)

The Pope, Buddha, and Dalai Lama are just men to me....they have no authority over me..

The Oxford English Dictionary is a book. As in, the authority on the English language.

So no, I don't think I will post a link.

Did you have a point in posting this? Seriously no one was debating Christianity as a religion..lol..you lost me their buddy....

Good for you...unfortunately..you and others still haven't posted anything supporting Buddhism not to qualifying as a Religion...😆 😆 😆

Um, usually if I'm posting that, it is in relation to the subject of the debate. I didn't mention Christianity - I gave you the definition of a relgion. Buddhism didn't fit.

Before you say anything, I ignored the posts about our lack of evidence because that's clearly nonsense, and the bit about RS because you agreed with me.

Originally posted by BackFire
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIEflawed.shtml

This comic made me think of Whob 😂

Originally posted by BackFire
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIEflawed.shtml

This comic made me think of Whob 😂

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Mr. Poe...you still have given no evidence supporting your claim...you can quote the funny little man with a red robe and hat all you want...and create all the illogical anologies you desire..however it still fails to discredit what has been labeled as a religion by dictionaries, encyclopedias, history books, the United States goverment, The British Government, The Tibetan Government, Indian Government and a multitude of other sources...

But again I respect your right to believe whatever you like, and as I have stated before, We all should be free to teach and interpret things however we want to, regardless of how foolish those interpretations might be.

“Dalai Lama” is not an individual, it is a position or a role, like Pope or U.S. Supreme Court Judge. Being an authority on Buddhism, Catholicism, or interpreting the Constitution of the United States is a function of these respective roles.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Again you do need a bit of brushing up on your word usage..

A statement can be false, however, being false doesn't necessarily deem it to be illogical..

for example..I could say....

Adam Poe is a fool.

One could interpret that as a false statement, however, it doesn't necessarily have to be deemed illogical, because the the likelyhood of Adam Poe being a fool can be attributed to some type of logical argument. However if I stated....

Adam Poe is a wise fool.

This statement could be interpreted as being a false statement, as well as an illogical one. In other words, it would be an "illogical fallacy." The statement is illogical because the term wisdom can not be applied to the term fool, due to a fool representing a person lacking sound judgement, and the term "wise" describing a person having an abundance of it.

This following statement..in my opinion is both logical and valid,

Adam Poe is an intelligent fool.

Seeing as how intelligence can represent book knowledge and IQ, however, it doesn't always represent one's ability to formulate good judgements, and make sound decisions..vous comprenez?(French for do you understand)

Some examples of intelligent fools: an Idiot Savant, George Bush, and as mentioned in the example above..Adam Poe..

A “statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference” is illogical, that is why it is a fallacy. 😆

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Again, I don't feel as if I should have to re-post any information that is clearly available for all to obtain. Scanning through the thread is not very difficult, and would definately help yourself and others review just how poorly they've represented their arguments during this debate. However, if you don't feel like scanning through the thread, just go to the same place where you received all your other information, except this time..in the little search dialogue box..type in "Creationism" instead of "Evolution"...

Clearly, you have no evidence, or you would be willing to re-post it.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Or because the individual whose character is in question...has no true moral character, which in turn challenges the credibility of the argument he/she has presented....

The character of an individual has no bearing on the truth or falsity of his argument; “Even a liar tells the truth sometimes.”

Challenging the character of another is a tactic of one who cannot defeat an argument or who has run out of them himself.

Every time you question the credibility of another poster instead of the credibility of his argument, you only undermine your own.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Except you neglected to include the entire definition, Specifically definition 2, which you have continuously referred to as the "primary definition" throughout this thread. You also have on many occasions neglected to mention that I included the link to the definition in question in the original post.

And you still wonder why your character is being challenged? Seriously bud..lying does not equate to good debating skills, and is definately a character flaw. Ask the Dalai Lama..I'm sure he'll agree...

Refer to the above response..seriously hang it up bud...if you continue to to blatantly lie in the fashion that you are now..you'll never be able to achieve Nirvana...

Do not evade the question:

If dictionary definitions are authoritarian, why did you selectively ignore the primary definition of Buddhism, i.e. the first definition that appears at the top of the page and is also numbered one, that does not define it as a religion in favor of a tertiary definition that does?

Surely, if dictionary definitions are authoritarian, the primary definition would be correct, yet you chose to omit it because it contradicts your argument.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So to simplify things..once again you have nothing substantive to support your argument as to why Buddhism is not a religion.....

How many times must this be explained to you? A negation cannot be proven. Therefore, the burden of proof is always on the individual making a positive claim to substantiate it. 🙄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I never stated the Pope was the authority on Catholicism..to be honest with you..I really don't even believe him to be an authority on Christianity. However, the Pope is intelligent enough to realize what he practices is a religion, something the collective minds of Adam Poe and Dalai Lama have not figured out yet...

Is it your position then, that the Pope is not an authority on Catholicism?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
“Dalai Lama” is not an individual, it is a position or a role, like Pope or U.S. Supreme Court Judge.

http://www.tibet.com/NewsRoom/londonphoto1.htm

http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white7.html

Tell that to the the Tibetan Government...🙄

A “statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference” is illogical, that is why it is a fallacy.

Mr. Poe..have you been getting your definitions from the Dalai Lama again?..🙄

here's the correct definitions of illogical..

Illogical

def:
Contradicting or disregarding the principles of logic.
Without logic; senseless.

syn disordered

Adam Poe is an intelligent fool...

One can argue this statement as being false(a fallacy), but that doesn't make it illogical. Even if it were deemed false...one could still make an orderly(syn of logical) argument to support it.

Example of logical supporting argument to above statement:

Adam Poe has an extensive vocabulary, however, he does not know the meanings of the words that he uses, therefore he foolishly uses them incorrectly in sentences.

*sigh*..Don't you get tired of being wrong...😆

Clearly, you have no evidence, or you would be willing to re-post it.

logic fallacy of exclusion....🙄

The evidence is there..you're just to lazy to go back and read it..lol...

The character of an individual has no bearing on the truth or falsity of his argument; “Even a liar tells the truth sometimes.”

Challenging the character of another is a tactic of one who cannot defeat an argument or who has run out of them himself.

Every time you question the credibility of another poster instead of the credibility of his argument, you only undermine your own.

logic fallacy of exclusion...🙄

Do not evade the question:

If dictionary definitions are authoritarian, why did you selectively ignore the primary definition of Buddhism, i.e. the first definition that appears at the top of the page and is also numbered one, that does not define it as a religion in favor of a tertiary definition that does?

Surely, if dictionary definitions are authoritarian, the primary definition would be correct, yet you chose to omit it because it contradicts your argument.

Logic fallacy of slothful induction....😆

Clearly you have ignored the "authority" of the Tibetan Government, US Government, and several dictionaries lexicographers which classify Buddhism as a RELIGION...😆

How many times must this be explained to you? A negation cannot be proven. Therefore, the burden of proof is always on the individual making a positive claim to substantiate it.

Okay..okay..I understand...now.

Adam Poe isn't an intelligent fool, however, he is a complete fool.

Darwinism isn't a scientific theory, however, it is a religion.

Creationism isn't just a religion, it is also a scientific theory.

Ha..ha..can't prove me wrong now..🙄

Is it your position then, that the Pope is not an authority on Catholicism?

"Authority" can only be administered to those who one has authority over. The Pope is a Catholic, therefore he can only be an "authority" to those who follow/practice the Catholic faith. I do not practice Catholicism nor do I practice Buddhism, so neither the Pope nor the Dalai Lama represent "authorities" to ME regarding either religion.

But as I stated in previous posts, the Pope is at least intelligent enough to know that he is practicing a religion. Unlike a certain funny little man in a red robe and hat...and his pupil from the land of Eternia...😆

Originally posted by Trickster
[B]The Oxford English Dictionary is a book.

Great deductive logic there buddy...🙄

As in, the authority on the English language.

Adam Poe doesn't seem to agree with you...😆😆

So no, I don't think I will post a link.

Okay..but how are we to know your telling the truth..lol...

What would Adam Poe do in a situation like this..oh I know...

...logic fallacy of exclusion..😆😆 😆

Um, usually if I'm posting that, it is in relation to the subject of the debate. I didn't mention Christianity - I gave you the definition of a relgion. Buddhism didn't fit.

You gave me 7 definitions..and then you stated...

Possiby 6 could be applied to Buddhism.

I think that statement says it all..lol...you know..I think you did a better job debating when I wasn't responding to your posts.....

Before you say anything, I ignored the posts about our lack of evidence because that's clearly nonsense.

logic fallacy of exclusion...😆😆😆

Word of advice..sometimes the best thing said..is nothing...

Originally posted by BackFire
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIEflawed.shtml

This comic made me think of Whob 😂

Aww..thinking of me after you leave the thread..how sweet..😍

Yeah..I definately like the way the comic portrays the Evolutionist, much like you all, he is unable to provide evidence to support his scientific theories...😆

What I like is how you ignored all the content, and focus on the comic, the humorous aspect.

Are you surprised? I'm not.....

no, just pointing it out...

Just out of curiosity, how does evolution meet the definition of science?

Originally posted by Majora's Mask
Just out of curiosity, how does evolution meet the definition of science?

An Evolutionist's response:

Well you see..we talk about real things like genes and mutations(just like comic books, and fiction novels)....so that makes it scientific, even though there is no scientific/historical evidence supporting speciation...🙄

*note This same type of rationale could be made for Creationism, because it supports "natural sciences". I'm not trying to be rude..but that's really the rationale behind most evolutionists..

.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Refer to the links above..please don't tell me the Tibetan and US Governments aren't authoratative/credible sources...Buddhism debate over...

Never stated that Darwin created Eugenetics..Again..please [b]read...Origin of the Species...

Refer to the National Geographic link above..Humans have been around for 1000's of years...and as I've stated before..evolution has not been recorded anywhere in the historical record...

Again I've never stated to be a 7 day adventist..I believe the 7 days are metaphoric..representing 1000's of years...if you do some studying about Christian theology...you'll understand...

So in other wards..you have nothing historical to support your claim......guess what...Creationism does!!!

Debate over..you haven't proven anything..other than your inability to debate...

Re-read the thread..please..it's not that hard..and requires very little effort.. [/B]

I'm sorry, but no, they aren't. Since when is a government in the position to dictate when something is a religion and when it's a religion?
If you want an answer, ask the Dalai Lama, and only him. HE is the authority since he's the leader of this movement. He'll assure you that he is not leading a religion at all... but then again, you'll just laugh at him and say you don't believe him 😆

Thank you but I did read his book, I can send it to you if you want. He never wrote anything racist. "Survival of the fittest" got used by Francis Galton and used it for racist thinking.
so you know what the talk is about: the whole evolution-racist theory is called eugenetics and was created by the already mentioned Francis Galton, Darwin's nephew/cousin. Do you have any other remarks about the book?

Since when should a historian write about evolution? Evolution is for biologists, historians write about the history of humans and nothing else.
Archaelogists these days work closely together with biologists, mostly in the field of genes. The facts are that a gene passes by the woman to the child and they can backtrace it to the "first mother" they humouresly nicknamed "Eve". As any archaeologist will tell you, they have found that for Europe, "Eve" had a daughter they named "Yasmine". That's how far they can go back already; and BEFORE you use this as creationist arguement (why would you, you don't have any proof), if you know evolution you know that we ultimately have to have one pair to start of the humans, only here they evolved from something else and didn't got created by a god.

Well, if you do study your own religion you will know that many creationist say the world is 6000 years old. If you however claim those 7 days are metaphorical, who are you to be an authority on saying which parts of the bible are to be taken literal?

what are you talking about? there is a difference between history and biology. History does NOT write about evolution, biology does and they have created the evolution theory based on facts. Check the link tpt gave you, it'll tell you that evolution is based on facts whereas you still have to give any at all.
Well, as you saw by now, I don't like debates much where someone just blabantly disregards the questions people ask him: Where is your proof? I dislike it when people dodge the point and question, when they go to insults to hide their poor arguements, so yes, you are right: debate over if you don't have proof 😆

read the thread "evolutionism" please ... it's not that hard ... and requires very little effort..

Originally posted by whobdamandog
http://www.tibet.com/NewsRoom/londonphoto1.htm

http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white7.html

Tell that to the the Tibetan Government...

Once again, your argument commits the logic fallacy of Appeal to Authority. 🙄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Mr. Poe..have you been getting your definitions from the Dalai Lama again?..

here's the correct definitions of illogical..

If you had paid closer attention, you would know that the definition I provided was for “fallacy,” not “illogical.”

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Adam Poe is an intelligent fool...

One can argue this statement as being false(a fallacy), but that doesn't make it illogical. Even if it were deemed false...one could still make an orderly(syn of logical) argument to support it.

Example of logical supporting argument to above statement:

Adam Poe has an extensive vocabulary, however, he does not know the meanings of the words that he uses, therefore he foolishly uses them incorrectly in sentences.

*sigh*..Don't you get tired of being wrong...

A statement or argument is considered a fallacy when it is “based on a false or invalid inference.” In other words, when the argument is false or illogical. “Illogical fallacy”? 😆

Originally posted by whobdamandog
logic fallacy of exclusion....

The evidence is there..you're just to lazy to go back and read it..lol...

^ This is not the correct use of the Fallacy of Exclusion. 😆

Furthermore, “One with nothing to hide, hides nothing.” Where is this evidence? No one else seems to be able to find it.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
logic fallacy of exclusion...

^ Again, this is not the correct use of the Fallacy of Exclusion. 😆

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Logic fallacy of slothful induction....

Clearly you have ignored the "authority" of the Tibetan Government, US Government, and several dictionaries lexicographers which classify Buddhism as a RELIGION...

I would be guilty of committing the logic fallacy of Slothful Induction IF your argument was not invalid; However, your argument commits the logic fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Okay..okay..I understand...now.

Adam Poe isn't an intelligent fool, however, he is a complete fool.

Darwinism isn't a scientific theory, however, it is a religion.

Creationism isn't just a religion, it is also a scientific theory.

Ha..ha..can't prove me wrong now..

Darwinism is not a religion, nor is Darwinism the basis of modern Evolutionary theory; Creationism is theology disguised as science, and nothing else; If you have accomplished anything through your continued participation in this thread, it is proving yourself to be the fool, “It is better to be silent and thought a fool then to speak and remove all doubt.”

Originally posted by whobdamandog
"Authority" can only be administered to those who one has authority over. The Pope is a Catholic, therefore he can only be an "authority" to those who follow/practice the Catholic faith. I do not practice Catholicism nor do I practice Buddhism, so neither the Pope nor the Dalai Lama represent "authorities" to ME regarding either religion.

But as I stated in previous posts, the Pope is at least intelligent enough to know that he is practicing a religion. Unlike a certain funny little man in a red robe and hat...and his pupil from the land of Eternia...

According to you, the Pope is only an authority on Catholicism to Catholics and therefore, is not qualified to speak with authority in regards to Catholicism outside of a Catholic audience. Pardon me while I laugh at your absurdity. 😆 😆 😆

Creationism is a house built on the sand foundation of the existence of a Creator; if one cannot prove that the Creator exists, the rest of the house will not stand.

I am curious whobdamandog, where is the evidence for the existence of a Creator which is logically necessary for Creationism to be a viable theory?

I haven't been able to read all 26 pages of this thread, but I feel I have a few things that could add to this discussion...

The theory of evolution does not need to contradict religion, be it Christian or otherwise. Literalist adherents to a philosophy may disagree, but most have no problem reconciling the two. However, recent (Scientific!) studies have confirmed that proposing intelligent design as a viable option is not scientifically preposterous.

We have been able to calculate the approximate mass of the entire universe, and in doing so realized how unlikely it would be for us to even exist. During the big bang, if the mass of the universe had been 'off' one direction or another by 0.000...6% (60 zeros before the 6) we would have either had too much mass, and the universe would have collapsed back in on itself, or we wouldn't have had enough mass for the energy to slow down enough to form into planets and stars and such. A cosmic calculation that is so finely tuned for producing not just life, but matter at all, suggests some higher intervention...which doesn't necesarily endorse any one religion, but certainly isn't at odds with many religions.

Attempts have also been made to determine the probability of life forming as it exists on Earth. Any studies done in this field all suggest that the universe hasn't been around for long enough to reasonably assume that even simple single-celled organisms and strains of amino acids should have been able to form...let alone complex organisms and creatures as complicated as human beings. Such complexification of life over a relatively short amount of time (even though billions of years seems long to us) blatently suggests some sort of intelligent design.

If need be, I can produce more specific examples of where I am getting this data from. But that is mostly just to let you know that I'm not making these things up and have researched this before speaking on it. I'm not a Christian, but neither do I fully ignore the possibilities within Christianity simply because science, on the surface, seems to contradict religious beliefs. Intelligent design can be taught in an unbiased fashion...we simply, too often, wish to ascribe a set of beliefs to the discussion that have nothing to do with the original intent of the instruction.

...just my 3 cents.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Once again, your argument commits the logic fallacy of Appeal to Authority. 🙄

So I guess this means that I have no true Authority to base any of my arguments on...other than the wisdom of the Dalai Lama and his pupil...the protector of Eternia...Adam Poe 🙁 🙄

If you had paid closer attention, you would know that the definition I provided was for “fallacy,” not “illogical.”

Yes..Mr Poe..I understood, however, the assumption that you made was grossly incorrect. A false statement does not automatically equate to being an illogical one...

A statement or argument is considered a fallacy when it is “based on a false or invalid inference.” In other words, when the argument is false or illogical. “Illogical fallacy”?

fallacy of equivocation...your using the same term to represent more than one meaning..🙄

Mr. Poe your making this to easy...😆 😆

Furthermore, “One with nothing to hide, hides nothing.” Where is this evidence? No one else seems to be able to find it.

I have nothing to hide..I've given as much proof as you..the rest relies on what FAITH we choose...clearly you choose a different FAITH than myself..

I would be guilty of committing the logic fallacy of Slothful Induction IF your argument was not invalid; However, your argument commits the logic fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Yes..only Adam Poe arguments are valid..due to the Dalai Lama's unquestionable authority...🙄

Darwinism is not a religion, nor is Darwinism the basis of modern Evolutionary theory; Creationism is theology disguised as science, and nothing else; If you have accomplished anything through your continued participation in this thread, it is proving yourself to be the fool, “It is better to be silent and thought a fool then to speak and remove all doubt.”

"Don't speak in the ears of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words."

If there's anything I've done that has been foolish, it has been attempting to argue with yourself..😆 😆

According to you, the Pope is only an authority on Catholicism to Catholics and therefore, is not qualified to speak with authority in regards to Catholicism outside of a Catholic audience.

And According to you..the Dalai Lama knows more about what should be classified as a religion than all the Governments, Scholars, lexicographers, and more than those who created his Holiness's own government website......absurdity..naw..common sense is more like it..something you my friend..are greatly lacking in...😆