Uhm, they aren't. In all textbooks it says the THEORY of evolution. Anyways, most kids know about creationism, and so it's not necessary, in my opinion.
Plus evolution goes with science anyways, I think it's been proven, and plus the processes evolution outlines are part of what we learn anyways. We aren't in Catholic school (well there are those who are, but I'm speaking strictly public school) so I don't see a need to re-learn creationism.
And by proven I don't mean it a scientific law, just that it's widely accepted.
Most kids also have heard about evolution. So what's the point of teaching it again then?
Heard about, but not in depth learning. I learned about evolution in depth in seventh grade, but I knew about creationism since I was young. Most little kids already know about creationism because their parents just told them how everything was made and because it's a part of their religion (remember that a large amount of people in the world believe in God , so they were probably taught this when they first began learning about their religion) . It's not like they are going around asking about evolution.
Yes, however some kids have athiest parents or never hear about creationism. I'm just saying they could at least mention all three, no need to go in depth.
Why only teach Creationism in addition to Evolution? Way to cherry-pick, self-righteous fuck.
What else is there to teach? Creationism isn't just the christian belief. Pretty much all major religions have everything being created by a God. Scientology doesn't count cause its all a scam.
The same could be said about the catholic religion, but that doesn't stop people from believing it.
Not really for Scientology you have to pay money to get anywhere in that religion. For Christianity yes at one point the Catholic church did scam people for money but Martin Luther called for a reformation of the church and the church stopped eventually. Now the only money they ask for and not demand is an offering. Which really is there to keep the lights on and to trust in God to provide for you.
I know, all religions have skeletons in their closets, i just try to get my point across with the catholic religion because its corruption is widely known. I know scientology is a bunch of bull, but some people believe in it. If we have to satisfy one group of people because of their piss & moans, we'd have to teach everything taught in every church that exists. We'd be teaching our nation about evolution, creationism, pastafarianism, scientology, etc. We should stick to the one that has actual scientific facts to back it up instead of common beliefs.
For the same reason that they don't teach that some people believe that the moon landings never happened. You are supposed to learn facts in school, even if it is "offensive" to the misinformed conspiracy-theorists.
i don't know...the landing on the moon seems less like a fact every day.
Teach me about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, plz. Pastafarianism.
Teach that, because that's my religious belief, just like creationism is a belief.
Evolution is a belief, too.
It's a theory with an ample amount of supporting evidence.
So is creationism.
Do tell me, how was the Grand Canyon formed?
Erosion. Water rushing on it for hundreds, if not thousands of years.
What evidence is there of creationism, other than the Bible?
Wait, don't bring up my beliefs just yet, as they're irrelevant.
Are you aware the Colorado river enters the canyon at 3110 feet? Now, how high is the top of the canyon? It's well over 3000 feet, ill tell you that. Did the river flow uphill for millions of years?
Jeez, stop bringing up the freaking Grand Canyon! It has nothing to do with this topic.
Can't answer it?
The grand canyon has NOTHING to do with how people came to be.
You're just an ignorant fuck who won't accept any other ideas.
I love you
I love you too. =)
Woah, incapable of responding, so resorting to insults? MY!
You should have noticed it was a different person. I'm not going to state why the Grand Canyon is the way it is, since Katffro and many other people did a wonderful job already, but there is no way the "flood" could have caused the Grand Canyon, since that was supposed to be everywhere on earth, and it wouldn't have formed a canyon, whereas a river would have.
Also, to your comments up there about the bible being completely literal: that is a complete lie. There are parts that are meant to be factual (and I'm not denying that some of it is historical, but I have my own theory on that), but others parts that aren't. Do you stone adulterers and magicians? Did a snake really come up and offer Eve an apple (which was probably actually an orange, based off what kind of things can grow in that area of the world)? If you are fighting with a man, and his wife grabs your balls, are you really supposed to cut her hand off (yes, that's the in the bible). Many Christians...
...believe that the bible was not meant to be taken literally, which it's not completely meant that way. Actually, as a Christian, it'd be much better for your argument to say that not all of the bible was meant to be taken literally. There are laws that are in there that are to be interpreted to your liking, but it just makes you a crazy Christian if you follow it exactly.
...What the hell does that have to do with anything?
Water cycle. Water evaporated, condensed, rained, and became runoff. There are mountains from plate tectonics. Your argument is invalid. Next.
Wait, you said the Colorado river carved it out over millions of years, didn't you? But, if the river enters the canyon much lower than the actual canyon... Are you suggesting the river flowed uphill for a time.
watch parts 1, 2 and 3.
I said hundreds, if not thousands, not millions.
Also, did you not read my post? I don't know where you're getting whatever it is you're getting.
Oh, then it was rapid? Because evolution says millions of years...
Anyhow, I'm just wondering how it formed. Because honestly, rivers don't flow up very large hills. The cangon's top is much higher than where the river enters the canyon... So... Yeah, how do you explain that?
Evolution takes YEARS. Thousands...millions...
I was talking about the canyon. I will repeat myself: Water cycle. It rains. Rain pools and flows down the mountain.
This will likely never be related with the post I'm attempting to reply to unless I mention it; scratoncity, you're a fucking dumbass. "Do tell me, how was the Grand Canyon formed?" Dumbass. Are you four? I'm pretty sure I learned that in like second grade. I know other people have likely said this to you (I don't feel like reading 80,000 comments) but I had to say it myself. You, sir or madam, are quite possibly one of the stupidest, least intelligent people I have even encountered on the internet. Post #365011 springs to mind... Dumbass. I'm sorry I had to make your mommy read the word "dumbass" to you so many times (Because you're so dumb you won't pick up on that, I'm insinuating that you are illiterate and cannot read.)
I agree. BUT only if we teach the creation stories of all of the other religions of the world too. That includes, but is not limited to, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Shinto, Zoroastrianism, Scientology, and The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
You don't believe those creation stories are true?
You only want YOUR beliefs forced down the throats of school children?
You want to disregard all scientific findings which have lead up to the SCIENTIFIC theory of Evolution?
I'm sorry, did I miss something?
Not trying to sound like a conceited atheist but i thought they already proved evolution...
Wikipedia is definetly not a reliable source.
... even though it stated exactly why Evolution has been proven to be real... and has to cite sources....
First off, I can't even start to believe an article saying they've proven something scientific to be fact when the person uses horrible grammar half the time. Also, it says there are "a few pathetic holdouts" who choose to not believe evolution. I'm pretty sure there are millions of people who don't believe in evolution. Also, I wasn't saying that I don't believe in evolution however, it's still just a theory.
Evolution is a scientific theory. Its not really a "theory" at all. The only reason it has not been completely proven to be true is because we can not observe it happening. Evolution has a lot of evidence to back it up with the fossil record. But some people believe that god put the fossil record there to test our faith, believe what you want, but i don't think that we should bring creationism in to the science room, there isn't any scientific evidence to prove creationism, it'd be like teaching english with a math teacher... Get what i'm saying?
That's one of the most ignorant articles I've ever read. I mean "who invented gravity?" Really???
I think it's funny that you've made 66 posts.
. . . ? If that was suppose to be a "Devils Number" joke, it was a stretch.
Yeah, it was and no, I think it fits with what you said on your first comment.
if my number of posts was 666, then maybe, but....
They teach evolution like it's fact because it's not "just a theory". It's a SCIENTIFIC theory, which means it has extensive evidence and has yet to be disproven.
Creation and intelligent design are not related to science because there is no scientific evidence. They're related to religion. Believe what you want to believe, but teaching religion in a public school is illegal.
What evidence does evolution have exactly?
@846942 (Sassy_Llama): Fossil record. What evidence does creationism have exactly?
The fossil record doesn't exist.
Ok, your bible doesn't exist then.
Huh? Show me otherwise. Here's a link (that you won't read and you will say is not credible for reasons unknown): http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Tell me, do you know of the pre-Cambrian explosion?
Is that not a fossil? Is it not recorded?
What? Fossil record is like the tree that shows how animals came from other animals.
Which doesn't exist. I don't know what you're thinking of.
...The fossil record is A RECORD OF FOSSILS. Thus the name "Fossil Record." It is a collection of a bunch of different fossils, from a bunch of different animals, that shows that different species have common ancestors.
Right. The common ancestors part is the false part. Im not saying fossils don't exist.
Do you know what the pre-Cambrian explosion is?
Why is the common ancestor part false? You can clearly see how animals have been separated for large periods of time, and adapted to different climates and terrain. Through this process, new species are formed because the once linked species, can no longer interbreed because their adaptations are too different. This is evolution in a nut-shell. And elaborate on the Pre-cambrian explosion.
Have we observed any of that? No. And what "records" of this can we clearly see?
The Pre-Cambrian explosion is the sudden boom on the (false) fossil record where life springs up. Prior to it, all that was alive was the single-celled bacteria and little things like that. Then suddenly BAM all different sorts of life springs up. All new species, seemingly out of nowhere.
We can observe it because of the fossils archeologists have collected.
And that may be because there was no natural disaster that happened prior to the dinosaurs, and we probably find so many fossils of dinosaurs and what not because some huge cataclysmic natural disaster happened to them all, and were buried rapidly.
Uh, no. Are you aware that hardly any Fossils are more than 50% complete? And the scientists construct the fossils based on their own opinions?
You just made that up on the spot. However, you're very close to the truth. A worldwide flood would, in fact, explain that.
Also, one cataclysmic event wouldn't eliminate some 2 billion years of supposed evolution. Shouldn't there be fossils documenting even a small portion of those evolutions?
Not if there wasn't a "Flood" before the flood of which you speak. Scientists do NOT base what dinosaurs look like on their opinion. Did you just make that up on the spot? They base it on other animals, and the way the fossils are found. Why would they find a fossil one way, then re-construct it differently than it was found? They wouldn't. And plus if there was a world wide flood, and not a giant meteor or volcano or something, there would have been no chance for survival of anything but ocean life, and they probably would have been killed because of the sudden climate change and water temperature difference.
Uh, no. They do, at least for the ones that aren't full or nearly complete. Austrilopithecus (sp?), Homo Habilis, and Homo Erectus are all like 40% complete with one skeleton, and scientists constructed what they looked like based on the time period in which they believe them to have lived. No science. Just guesses.
Things could live if two of each kind were saved on a huge ark.
There are more than one fossil of early man. They discovered the first one in like the 70's and named it lucy. They have discovered several more sense then, from all different time periods.
See this from my point of view: You are telling me, that just because you read a story about a man building a giant ship, that could hold one of each kind of animal, and saving them from God's flood, you think it's true? You are putting forth less logical information than I am. I am aware that there is a lot of information that I do not know about fossils and what not, but at least i have evidence of my claims. All you have is a book that even priests tell you it is not meant to be taken literally. I'm not trying to criticize your religion or anything, you can believe what you want, i wont judge you, as you shouldn't me for my beliefs, but to make logical arguments with just the bible is just ignorant.
Second to last line, she called your arguments "logical"
You read that, and that's what you pull out? And you still say you have a case? Wow, I didn't think that level of ignorance was possible.
Win in my book.
Dang it i have exams tomorrow. Well one exam. And I must attend to my studies.
Alrighty, may I prove your proof wrong?
Why aren't there any recent fossils? Hmm? Please answer that. If you tell me it takes millions of years for them to form, go back to first grade science. Fossils need to form rapidly. They need to be rapidly buried with water, rapidly covered with stone or dirt. IT HAPPENS RAPIDLY. Sooo, why aren't there any fossils in the recent 1000 years? Creationism can explain it. The flood happened. It RAPIDLY buried animals and people and dinosaurs. RAPIDLY being the key word there. What's your answer?
There aren't any recent fossils because there hasn't been a catastrophic natural disaster that can burry animals rapidly recently.. And if "the flood" buried dinosaurs and people why are there no fossilized people from 65 million years ago? Because we weren't a species yet, thats why.
Well, first of all, how do you know that those fossils are really that old? Based on a system of carbon dating that has been proven wrong? For carbon dating to work it needs three key factors: 1. you need to know the amount of carbon it started with 2. you need to know the object hasn't been affected in a way that will affect the decay of carbon and 3. you need to know there were no outside forces
It's impossible to know all three things. Also, did you know scientists did a test on a piece of rock that they knew all the factors and the carbon dating test was off by 20 million years?
Hey have you noticed any 30 foot masses of meat and claw around in ohh, the past 1000 years? Hmm. Me either. Maybe thats because our atmosphere was different 65 million years ago. It was moist, and warm. This allowed for animals to reach crazy size because of the excess of plant life. We are able to see atmospheric changes in ice from our ice caps from the air pockets trapped in side of it. They don't just go by the fossil record and carbon dating. If they did that evolution would currently only be an idea, and not a widely accepted fact.
So are you saying you believe in global warming?
I believe in climate change. Which is what i've brought up, i have said nothing about global warming.
They can't legally teach creationism.
Separation of church and state.
As of my understanding, it can be taught as a small unit in a class, along with other theories as to show "We don't know, here's something else to consider" Sort of deal. A small unit or an elective class is't forcing the idea and is still considered acceptable.
I think that's what most schools should do. Don't teach any of it as fact, keep evolution in science class and make students take a metaphysics class (basic level that briefly covers religion as well as other topics) and the next semester take a logic course. It'd be similar to how most seniors have to take gov/econ
It can, but only in a class about religion not science class.
Who left this Scrantoncity catnip lying around on the homepage?
If you want to learn about religion, go to a religiously-based school.
Scrantoncity, you post random shit from unreliable sources, cannot defend your "argument," answer half the questions asked, and are in supreme denial of contrasting views. And for some fucking odd reason, you keep mentioning the fucking Grand Canyon like it means something.
creationism has no prood as compared to evolution having some proof
You're joking, right? Evolution doesn't have any proof at all.
It has a little bit of evidence, and tons of fraudulent "evidence"
so...basically you're saying there's absolutely no basis at all for evolution.
well give me your solid proof for creationism. (The Bible isn't proof, btw) and even the church has said that that story isnt meant to be taken literally. move with the times, man.
Yeah, I am. Fossil record doesn't exist, nor the geologic column.
Tell me, how did the Grand Canyon form?
Proof? Oh I never said there was proof of creationism. Any logical person is forced to acknowledge that it happened, but that isn't proof. It's statistically insurmountable, though.
The Catholic Church is actually incredibly wrong, and they place their opinions above God's. That story is meant to be taken literally, and literal, 24 hour days.
Prove that the creation as it happened in the Bible happened exactly as written.
There is no evidence.
The Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years by the river flowing through it slowly eroding away the sediment inside making it into a larger and larger trench.
Glad I wasn't the only person who knew this. Scrantoncity, you not only made yourself look like an ass on this account. But on pretty much every post you have made. Now, my 2 cents. Creationism should be offered in schools as an optional course. Not required, EVER.
Wait, what about elevations? Did you know the river enters the canyon at 3110 feet? That isn't the top of the canyon...
I'm assuming the river didn't start wearing away at it from the bottom. It probably started with flat ground, and then water ran through it and gradually eroded at that same spot and got deeper and deeper into the ground. And voila, we had a huge canyon that eroded from the top down. But what does the Grand Canyon have to do with any of this?
Tell me, is my religion being taught as facts in schools? Does my Holy Book contain lies like your Origin of Species? Are your tax dollars funding my religion? Oh, no? You have no place to talk, buddy.
Also, you're illogical if you think that the universe can create itself.
Are you familiar with probabilities?
It is not being taught as a fact, at least in my school it isn't. When I took biology the teacher specifically said that it was theory and we are free to believe differently. Evolution is a science. Creationism/Intelligent Design are religions. Religion should not be taught in school under the separation of church and state.
And yes, I am familiar with probability, and improbable is not impossible.
Just saying, religious institutions don't have to pay property tax, so they don't affect the teaching of evolution.
No, but my money pays for lies to be taught to kids in schools: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard...?msg_id=00AM9u
What about my religion, again?
Yeah, your right, thinking the universe created itself is illogical. But believing that a women was impregnated by the thing that made everything, who is also the person shes giving birth to, who will do things physically impossible, die, again defy solid fact by returning, ALL because someone or some people told you? There's no proof, or fact there at all. I could take a ton of babies, raise them away from civilization, teach them that a deer shat out our universe, and because they have nothing else to believe, they'll believe that. You'd say that's stupid, and I'd say that's exactly what you are, one of those ignorant children.
This comment is amazing.
thank you :)
Don't act like your religion is perfect man. One word. Crusades. You're just as flawed as everyone else. Stop wearing yourself as a hat.
Those were Catholics, not Prodestants. BIG diff.
and not one of those "facts" at that site is cited. They're all complete bullshit
If you want, I'll send you a copy of my textbook, annotated to show the lies. If that'll please you.
Yes, that will please me, do it.
Alright. What's you're address or PO box?
Oops, hehe. My bad. Possessive form.
Scranton! I'm shocked! Since when did you make grammatical mistakes that are so elementary.
)8 I apologize. My rapid fingers got the better of me and added an extraneous letter out of habit. Then, my blasted phone, with no regard to the meaning at all, changed it! Egad!
My most humble apologies.
It's ok. So you types "youre" on accident and it corrected it to "you're"? That's fine, I thought you just misused it, not that it was a typo.
Well yeah, I meant "your" but i mistyped it.
And I was kidding, I knew you weren't mad haha.
the grand canyon? what exactly does that have to do with evolution? by your theory, there's no explantion for how mountains formed either, but we know for a fact how they got there. God must've told this all to you himself, seeing as how you know exactly how all these stories are supposed to be interpreted.
Can you explain how it formed?
By my theory? Who said I was a creationist? All I've commented on was the invalidity of evolution; why are you trying to drag in null points to fortify your pitifully weak argument?
I AM a creationist, but that's pretty much irrelevant when discussing the "scientific fact" (Lols) of evolution.
Oh, no, it's common sense. When something repeats the same thing four times, It's obviously meant literally. Also because everything is meant literally, this is also.
im sorry, i shouldve learned by now not to argue with a christianic nut. they refuse to accept solid logic to 'carry on with tradition'. not all christians, just the ones like you, who will have nothing to do with any scientific evidence that proves anything they believe in wrong. so im done, good day to you.
Incapable of responding intelligently, so you attack my views? Pitiful.
I wasn't attacking your views, I was attacking you as a person. I know enough not to disrespect someones faith. You're very intolerant of other peoples opinions which, my friend, is pitiful.
Creationism in the Bible is just symbolism.
Just putting it out there.
And, using that same logic,they shouldn't teach gravity unless they're also willing to teach us about other theories-- like the ground being similar to melted cheese and us hanging onto it with invisible threads of said swiss.
exactly. gravity is just a THEORY, unproven and based off of LIES. i want to be taught the truth of the cheese. that's what my religion says.
Evolution is backed by science. Creationism is not.
Back up that statement, please.
Reread the rest of this thread. Pay special attention to how stupid you sound all the way through.
Also, if you want to learn about creationism, take Theology. Don't try to take time out of SCIENCE class to teach Creationism.
If you want that sort of education, go to parochial school.
Funnily enough, we were JUST talking about Scopes' Monkey Trial today in history class.
Personally, evolution seems like the most politically correct way to teach kids. And I think you can teach your kids about all three--as long as you don't tell them which one is "right" or "wrong".
Creationism is faith-based and has no fact to support it. (Bible is not fact)
Evolution has evidence. Just because they call it a theory doesn't make it any less true than a fact. Scientific theory simply means that there is enough evidence supporting it to proclaim it as fact and has yet to be disproved.
Gravity is a theory too.
Most things in science aren't complete fact, they're just theories that have been supported by A LOT of evidence, that's why they're taught in science and not in a religion class... You can argue that religion classes teach creationism as fact aswell, so maybe they should start teaching evolution. This is the most ridiculous post i've ever seen.
1. Evolution is scientific. Schools teach, and should continue to teach, science.
2. It's a theory, and taught as such.
3. We have much more reason to believe in evolution.
4. It's a nice day for a white wedding.
Oh my god scrantoncity get the nuts out of here. But seriously, what are they gonna teach us about creation? "a magic man in the clouds waved his hand and the universe appeared!" that would be a pretty short unit
The test would be pretty easy. Every answer would be 'god did it'
Technically they shouldn't teach ANYTHING like it's a fact, since we don't actually KNOW anything.
I'm glad you pointed that out. But, some things are more... Believeable than others, humans tend to go with physical proof rather than stories that are told. And Tbh, I mist say, science/creationism is kinda winning.
Again, thanks for pointing that out.
@(scrantoncity) hey, i believe in creationism too, [lets not bash] but i don't really think that arguing and shoving what you believe in down other people's throats and then degrading what they believe in by saying its wrong is going to help either side in this debate.
the original post said they shouldn't teach evolution as a fact, and though there have been some proofs, such as the ones stated above, it was also stated that they still present it as a "theory" in school.
They do give you the option of taking religion, if its by fairness then I think the school is doing what it has to, keeping "most" of its population happy, like everything there is no way to please "everyone".
I'd like to have a bit more of creationism in school too so it can get out, but i think that's the reason why religion class is here. To learn about everything fairly, if there's something more that you "want" to learn about, do what you do if its either evolution or creationism, research on your own time.
Well now, tell me, creationists, what do you find wrong/illogical/in-coherent about evolution? What is it that you can't wrap your head around on the topic? How else would you explain the different types of species (specifically dogs, cats, even frogs etc...)? These are all questions I would like to be answered :)
People who accept evolution without question do not truly understand it nor science in general.
How about you actually learn something?
Adaptation, for the most part. Most of those animals are still able to breed together.
Tell me, what makes you think evolution exists?
Adaptation is the entire concept behind evolution, you ignorant person. Something reproduces. Random mutation of a single gene causes something to be more survivable in it's climate. It survives, weaker dies off, species adapts. THAT'S EVOLUTION.
That made me laugh x'D
I have a question for you, Scrantoncity. If God flooded the Earth because man became wicked, and only Noah and a select number of people from the same region as him were on the ark, why are there so many different races?
@847035 (Anonymous): Also: if it was just Noah and his family repopulating..there would not have been a large enough gene pool to sustain a viable population. Inbreeding would be a problem.
Variation, or adaptation, or as deceitful scientists say "micro-evolution."
Really. Why would people need to adapt to become Spanish, or Native American? And how did they manage to spread out all over the globe?
What? Your religion (evolution) says that they adapted also... I don't see your problem.
Did you know that if you raise the oceans some 200 feet, pathways exist connecting most of the world?
Evolution isn't a religion. Religions are a code of ethics and morals structured around higher knowledge. Evolution has nothing to do with morals-- only science. There's really no problem other than the flaws that the Bible offers; the study of evolution fills those voids. Adaption to an environment through several generations is essentially the definition of evolution itself, actually, so you've pretty much conceded that evolution is true within this thread alone.
What science, exactly? I was under the impression that science involved observable, testable things. Tell me, how many instances of trans-species evolution have been documented? Exactly zero?
Here you go: http://resources.metapress.com/...p;size=largest
And here's the full document aside from just the abstract: http://www.springerlink.com/con...5w6431m838132/
Uhm. You've only answered one of my three questions.
Statistically improbability. Wait. Statisical insurmountability. That's what it is. Learn some probabilities.
Why not throw all the other religions in there too? Then you'd all complain about how it's too much to learn
oh yeah, and while we're at it why don't we start teaching about how Greeks believe life started. Then we can just let the kids decide. Who cares about all the evidence saying that evolution actually happened, lets go with a book that has been PROVEN to be mistranslated on several occasions. Awesome.
No, because SCIENCE isn't a religion. Science is something that all people need a basic understanding of and evolution is the only idea that is supported by SCIENCE and not religion. Creationism and intelligent design are all opinions about how it happened and have little to no scientific proof. Since religion varies from person to person, and EVERYONE has to get a basic idea of science, evolution is the only real option. It doesn't say god doesn't exist. It doesn't try to make students question their beliefs. It simply states the highly unlikely coincidence that all of these similarities between animals and their common ancestors can only be explained scientifically by evolution.
Causing_Controversy was a suitable name for someone posting this
Evolution has substantial evidence. Where is the evidence for creation?
When are people going to learn not to get into a argument with Scrantoncity? He will never admit defeat and will just create a 1000 comment debate.
Or ignore you when you present substantial evidence.
Yeah, that too.
I laughed when I noticed how he ignored this one; http://www.amirite.net/319285/847120
Creationism and all that religious stuff isnt science. Its a belief. Evolution is science. Thats why they teach evolution. Creationism isnt a scientific theory.Evolution is. If people wanted to learn about god and blah blah they would either A) read the bible B) go to a religion class or C) look it up.
When my science teacher taught it, she had a slip of paper saying "This is supposed to be taught, I'm not trying to force anything upon you, believe what you want." There are a lot of super devout Christians in my school, and they accepted it...
This is pretty funny to watch scranton actually LOSE an argument for once!!
I think intelligent design is a little too much for kids to grasp. Maybe high schoolers though, but I don't know under what science.. or any subject it could be taught, because evolution was under Biology/life science because it fit with the subject, so I can't see where creationism and intelligent design would fit, since creationism is completely the opposite of science, and intelligent design... i would have no idea because its not science.
I learned about creationism and different religions (including Scientology, lol) for about 3 weeks in History last year. Then, we were taught about evolution for an equal amount of time. But, I do go to a private school...
I think he means teaching them side-by-side with evolution in science class. History and classes similar to such are different.
Oh, well than that's different. I think as long as there's enough evidence to support it, evolution can be taught, but religion could possibly be taught in a different class such a History.
I was gonna post something along these lines. It takes a lot for something in science to even become a theory, and very few things are actual scientific law. For example the theory of relativity is just a theory, but it is generally accepted among physicists.
Creationism at best is just a hypothesis.
sorry accidentally posted twice
Schools shouldn't teach that 1+1=2 like it's fact. If they are teaching that 1+1=2 then they should also teach that 1+1=3 and that 1+1=4. That way it's fair. Amirite?
By this logic, shouldn't a Sunday School teach ALL religions? That would be the fair thing, right?
I pretty positive they haven't, it's still just a theory. However, I'm not saying I believe in creationism, I'm just saying that to be fair to everyone, they should teach all three.
this is rediculous. out of 123 comments so far:
0 people have changed their belief
a lot of people became pissed off at each other.
no madder what you believe happens after it, life is short. so why don't we all just... I don't know, get along? because having a religious debate on the comments section of an amirite is completely pointless. Nobody has EVER changed their belief because of a comment a stranger typed out for them.
Do people HAVE to have changed their belief for comments to be considered useful by your glorious fucking standard. Sometimes people just like to stand up for what they believe. I know it may seem hard to grasp but no one was really hurt from any of these arguments. Better that people voice their opinion a little too strongly than not voicing their opinion at all. The sentence "Nobody has EVER changed their belief because of a comment a stranger typed out for them." is not true. It may be extremely rare but I'd bet you a million dollars it happens. And maybe ONE comment won't do it but it can still be a part of a series of things that has happened to a person to ultimately make him change his mind. Sorry for the insane rant, but I've just seen so many people say something like this and they ALWAYS make it sound like speaking your mind about something is a fucking crime.
all I'm saying is that all this is kind of a waste of time. sure maybe SOMEONE has changed their mind sometime, but because 99/100 times that won't happen, and people standing up for what they believe in (which isn't a bad thing) usually just ends up with people bashing other peoples beliefs, then everybody gets pissed at each other.
Of course hostility should be avoided if possible, but that doesn't mean you should discourage discussion all together. (which it seems like you're doing)
I'd be more open to discussion of people like scrantoncity weren't here. I'm a christian myself and he is just making us look stupid.
Do you believe in evolution? Gay rights? Abortion?
I sort of believe in evolution. I don't believe it doesn't exist at all, but I don't believe it's the cause of everything. Gay rights should have been given a long time ago. it's almost as bad as racism. I still haven't really decided on abortion. but at the moment I'd say unless you were raped or something if you were stupid enough to make a baby without wanting one you should at least give birth to it.
why must you give we (Bible believing) Christians a bad name?
Okay first of all I believe in the bible. Secondly I believe in gay rights because god does give us free will, and if they choose to go against god then they can go ahead and do that. it's not the business of other people to tell them they can't do that. Third I am against abortion, unless it's not the persons fault they got pregnant. And about evolution, natural selection does happen. it just does. it doesn't mean god doesn't exist, that doesn't make any sense. I do not believe that any human evolved from a little bacteria or little single celled organism or anything. that's crazy. I'm not asking you to change your belief, I'm just asking, how exactly am I giving Christians a bad name?
1. God said not to kill, should we just let them go against God and do whatever they want?
So you're justifying murder? Really? Next you'll say it's ok to rape people if you're a 50 y/o virgin, or that it's ok to steal food if your family is hungry. You can never justify sin.
Whoa! Hold your horses and get your vocabulary in order. There is HUGE MAJOR difference between (the theory of) evolution and natural selection.
The reason I believe you give Christians a bad name is because: You dilute the meaning of Christianity by believing all these thing that go against the Bible.
You DID NOT just compare being gay to murdering, raping, or stealing. First of all, why should you care if other people are gay or not? Are they trying to make you believe in gay rights when they see you walking out of church? Are they seducing you every time you walk down the street? No? Then why do you care? If you believe they're "rejecting God" then just let them do it. They're not sacrificing your chance to get into heaven. I'm not saying that you should be best friends with them, but just let them be and continue to live their life.
Secondly, why don't you want every person, no matter how or who they are, to be happy? I'm sure you're a happy person, and you'd be pissed if someone tried to take that away from you, right? So why are you trying to do it to others?
Lastly, doesn't Christianity teach people to "love their neighbors as themselves"? Why don't you try to take a crack at that? Or is it just easier for you to reject someone who is different?
If I weren't on mobile, I'd favorite that comment. Tienes razón, señor.
I forgot, what does "razón" mean?
Tener razón means "to be right"
I completely agree with you. Even though I went to Christian Sunday School almost every week until I was about 10, I never learned about creationism.