Creation Thread

[Aptyp]

by that standard we should scramble the rest of of the amendments and laws as well

Those leaving dead horse on a side walk and blow jobs being sodomy laws are annoying me.

[2Big4a3Series]

You are aware of the First Amendment aren't you?

Exactly. The amendment was made 4 years after the constitution was written

If you think about all of the things that our founding fathers established in this government, many things are based on God and the bible moreso than just plain simple morality. God is in our patriotic songs, God is on our money, and God is even openly worshipped in our military. They even mention God in the court room at 2 critical times. Once when a witness is about to testify, and secondly when a convicted criminal is sentenced to death.

Even some of our laws are directly out of the bible so I believe that church and state were originally intended to go hand-in-hand even though it may not be practical for today's society.

Absolutely not. God =/= church. There was never any intention whatsoever for church and state to go hand in hand. You are aware of the First Amendment aren't you?

[2Big4a3Series]

If you think about all of the things that our founding fathers established in this government, many things are based on God and the bible moreso than just plain simple morality. God is in our patriotic songs, God is on our money, and God is even openly worshipped in our military. They even mention God in the court room at 2 critical times. Once when a witness is about to testify, and secondly when a convicted criminal is sentenced to death.

Even some of our laws are directly out of the bible so I believe that church and state were originally intended to go hand-in-hand even though it may not be practical for today's society.

[Scotaku]

TwoJ's, I would (IMHO) change "pseudo science" to a term more along the lines of "theory" because, as in Science, it just has not been proven. IF we were to take this to a fully fledged science based concept entwined conversation.

And by putting yourself in the other's shoes you'd be totally okay with "science" being changed to "lack of faith," right? Calling the line something else doesn't change the line. /devil's advocate ;)

Personally, I revere science, the scientific method, and curiosity as a motivation for greater knowledge and understanding. I also happen to believe this quality was a gift from God. My faith is reinforced every time the tiniest new discovery is made. There is no scientific fact that will shake my faith. There is no scripture that can deny me the wonder, the enjoyment of discovery. I've got cancer. If there is an experience in life that could destroy my faith or express my disappointment in science, this is it.

[eric (^__^)]

Maybe... you're not actually reading this post. Maybe it's reading YOU

[jflip2002]

So, in fact, neither really matter, because they are based off things that have not been proven. THAT is called Faith.

NOTHING in science is proven as a fact. You can view something 1,000,000 times, or "prove" something that many times. All it takes is one time of a conclusion to be otherwise, to discredit all your "proof" and theories. So maybe both do matter....

[Farbin Kaiber]

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24345772-5016574,00.html

[Schnitzer318is]

This has been a good read... all 8 pages. There have been points I agree and disagree with. Mostly of the mutual respect and "agree to disagree" variety.

There is no way to prove creationism. It should be taught in catholic schools (in a religion/theology class) if parents want their kids to learn it. However, in that same catholic school, in science class... lol the teacher better do more than just bring up evolution. That is if they want their child to have a half decent education. I went to a catholic school until 6th grade, and was raised catholic. That school helped me in many ways (advanced curriculum), but I am now an atheist by most definitions. BTW I was taught evolution there.

I also highly agree with karbin's "people should be able to look at other's views" statement. That is a blatant mark of intelligence. To see outside yourself from someone else's perspective. You can still have your own beliefs, but you can also be tolerant and accepting of the beliefs of others. No one is going to prove anyone right or wrong CONCLUSIVELY.

My personal opinion is that we are all hear by accident due to the perfect coincidences of our planet, due to various universal and planetary happenings, being able to support carbon based lifeforms. Then evolution happened. As to the origination of the matter that created our world... we may never know. We cannot look that far into the past because there is no record left for us to look at. Perhaps one day we'll be able to travel through space and find some sort of data to give us more clues, but I don't see that happening before we reach an evolutionary dead end or the world undergoes some sort of catastrophe. Does that belief sadden me? Or make me feel like I have no "soul?" No, I live my life trying to be a good, contributing member of society/humanity and expecting others to do the same. Again this is just my .02.

[TwoJ's]

Well, not really. You are now getting in to a realm of epistemology. With that justification, what can we really know? What is knowledge? What is proof?

The simple fact is that we really cannot prove anything outside of strict mathematics. In science, we accept things as true when they have been tested repeatedly without failure. A rational person shouldn't deny this as true, even though we can't prove it.

If there were a way to prove theories like that, we would. We simply cannot prove anything (outside of math of course). We only test vigorously and accept them as true because that is the rational thing to do.

[Farbin Kaiber]

The problem is that the science we are talking about is 100% theory itself. All of this talk about how the universe came about is based upon quantum mechanics which was founded solely on Einstein's general theory of relativity.

By definition, a theory must be able to be tested. Einstein's theory of relativity has been tested thousands of times over, and it has never been found to not work.

Also by definition, a creationist theory cannot be tested. So, we can't responsibly call it a theory. That; by definition, makes it pseudo science.

So, in fact, neither really matter, because they are based off things that have not been proven. THAT is called Faith.

[TwoJ's]

The problem is that the science we are talking about is 100% theory itself. All of this talk about how the universe came about is based upon quantum mechanics which was founded solely on Einstein's general theory of relativity.

By definition, a theory must be able to be tested. Einstein's theory of relativity has been tested thousands of times over, and it has never been found to not work.

Also by definition, a creationist theory cannot be tested. So, we can't responsibly call it a theory. That; by definition, makes it pseudo science.

[Farbin Kaiber]

TwoJ's, I would (IMHO) change "pseudo science" to a term more along the lines of "theory" because, as in Science, it just has not been proven. IF we were to take this to a fully fledged science based concept entwined conversation.

[TwoJ's]

I always hate pointing out to the absolute diehards, in both camps, that there is a possibility that scientific study and evolutionary progress just might have been part of an intelligent design. It may have all been made to grow the way it does. One belief patently rejecting the other is only a symptom. The arrogant thought that one and one alone is absolutely right is the real problem.

I completely agree with what you say. They are definitely not mutually exclusive. BUT, there is an issue that one is science and one is pseudo science.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Furthermore, I hate the fact that there are die hards who will not step into the other guys shoes, and, at least look at the angles with open eyes.