-248

If schools are forced to teach Creationism as well as Evolution, then churches should be forced to teach Evolution as well as Creationism. Amirite?

31%Yeah You Are69%No Way
Share
1 157
The voters have decided that this post is wrong! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

Schools purposes are to teach. Churches purpose is to teach about their religion. Unless their religion includes the theory of evolution, that would be outside of their purpose. Both are not proven as fact yet so schools should not teach evolution as fact. Likewise, creation should not be part of a science class, as it is not science. It'd be a great part of a religion class though.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1171594

Good sir, there is no true hard evidence for evolution. Unless you are talking about microevolution, which is variation inside of species. Sure there are similarities between bone structures and DNA, but evolution has not been proved by science to produce human beings. If we are treating creation and evolution as EQUAL theories, then we give the theories EQUAL representation in the classroom.

Anonymous +1Reply
@Good sir, there is no true hard evidence for evolution. Unless you are talking about microevolution, which is...

Seriously, several thousand years of scientific experimentation and observation all point to the fact that people evolved from earlier organisms. If you don't believe thousands of years of science, how do you believe anything at all? What other theories do you suggest they teach?

@1171594

If evolution was an absolute proven fact, it would not be called a theory. But definition, theories are not proven:

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

@Sqwancho If evolution was an absolute proven fact, it would not be called a theory. But definition, theories are not...

Not really. Gravity is a theory and the is plenty of proof to suggest that gravity exists. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ev...heory_and_fact is a very enlightening article on the subject of the theory/fact of evolution.

@fEMMAnist Not really. Gravity is a theory and the is plenty of proof to suggest that gravity exists. Here:...

@1193675 (fEMMAnist):
"When scientists say "evolution is a fact", they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.
Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists"
In the first regard: It is fact in the means that you can observe specialization and adaptation in a species, but mentions nothing of jumping species. Of course adaptation is a fact, it is observable in our own lives.
The second use of fact is being productive, not proven. They also mention that it is universally accepted by scientists:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/
I know there are qualms with the movie but it's still an ex. of not accepting

Thing is, evolution is backed up by loads of data. While I believe it to be fact and am glad schools teach it, I don't think churchs should have to teach evolution. It's what they believe and no one if forced to go. With public schools, however, kids don't have a choice. School is a function of the government and should therefore stay far from religion.

@shelbyam118 Thing is, evolution is backed up by loads of data. While I believe it to be fact and am glad schools teach it, I...

What if evolution is contrary to their religion? That's technically interference with religion.

Anonymous -3Reply
@What if evolution is contrary to their religion? That's technically interference with religion.

It's not interfering with anything. If parents have a problem with it, they can send their kids to a private school.

@shelbyam118 It's not interfering with anything. If parents have a problem with it, they can send their kids to a private school.

No. A large portion of the country is too poor to afford private school comfortably. Public schools need to be good or we are doing ourselves a disservice.

@fEMMAnist No. A large portion of the country is too poor to afford private school comfortably. Public schools need to be...

Homeschooling, then. Evolution has evidence behind it, unlike Creationism. Freedom from religion and freedom of religion are protected by the First Amendment, and therefore religious theories have no place in a government institution.

@shelbyam118 Homeschooling, then. Evolution has evidence behind it, unlike Creationism. Freedom from religion and freedom of...

Very little evidence, unless you mean microevolution, which is hardly the disputed point.

Anonymous -2Reply
@Very little evidence, unless you mean microevolution, which is hardly the disputed point.

Very little evidence? Seriously? I'd hardly call the massive warehouses full of fossils and a few hundred years of data and observation very little evidence.

@fEMMAnist Very little evidence? Seriously? I'd hardly call the massive warehouses full of fossils and a few hundred years of...

That's less proof of evolution and more proof of other species existing plus a bit of guesswork. Let's face it, science IS partly guesswork.

Anonymous -1Reply
@That's less proof of evolution and more proof of other species existing plus a bit of guesswork. Let's face it...

Guesswork in science? The only conclusion I can make of that is trial and error. Science is based on evidence and facts and what is definite. Creationism is spirituality and FAITH, which I respect.

I say we stick to what's DEFINITE in the textbooks.

Mooses avatar Moose No Way +1Reply
@NiceBoulder Not every single bit of science is cold, hard truth.

No, but then again, is anything? It's a common ground that the public can agree on, as opposed to religion and spirituality.

Mooses avatar Moose No Way +1Reply
@Moose No, but then again, is anything? It's a common ground that the public can agree on, as opposed to religion and...

What I'm saying (I think, that comment was made awhile ago) is that people should stop treating science like the absolute truth, because while some of it may be, some of it may not be.

Separation of Church and State...

amifunnys avatar amifunny Yeah You Are +15Reply
@amifunny Separation of Church and State...

Private schools do not have to follow the norms of government policies on education, that is why they are private. If you don't understand that, don't try to argue against them.

Anonymous -1Reply
@Private schools do not have to follow the norms of government policies on education, that is why they are private...

I understand that perfectly. But the post did not specify whether or not this school was private or public.

amifunnys avatar amifunny Yeah You Are +2Reply

My school does not teach creationism.
And even if it did, why the hell would a church have to teach evolution?

Pugs avatar Pug No Way +10Reply

Well, no. Schools should not teach creationism (separation of church and state). But churches can do whatever they want because they aren't controlled by the government.

We are in huge trouble if the government has the authority to dictate what a church teaches.

Ashdens avatar Ashden No Way +8Reply
yddraigarians avatar yddraigarian Yeah You Are +11Reply
@Ashden We are in huge trouble if the government has the authority to dictate what a church teaches.

That's the point - if the church is allowed to interfere with the government, then the government is allowed to interfere with the church. If religion can hijack education, then education can hijack religion.

Or, alternatively, keep church and state separate.

This is ridiculous. Schools are a government-run system, while churches are not. If you want a government telling you what churches have to teach, then you basically have a government established religion, which violates the Constitution.

@IAmJacksWastedLife This is ridiculous. Schools are a government-run system, while churches are not. If you want a government telling...

Private schools DO NOT have to follow government rules on education, for pete's sake. That is why they are private!

Anonymous 0Reply
@Private schools DO NOT have to follow government rules on education, for pete's sake. That is why they are private!

Well I didn't say anything about private schools now, did I? All I'm saying is it's a bad day for America when you have the government telling churches what they must teach or cannot teach.

This user has deactivated their account.
This user has deactivated their account.
@1171601

Why does this have thumbs down, precisely?

@1171598

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to be a Christian who believes in evolution lol.

@heythereilikeurhair It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to be a Christian who believes in evolution lol.

What the hell are you talking about? Most Christian denominations accept scientific fact. This is 2011, not 1311.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1171748

I can't tell if you're talking to me or not...lol. I'd honestly, love to hear how being a Christian who believes in evolution makes sense. No sarcasm intended, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

@heythereilikeurhair I can't tell if you're talking to me or not...lol. I'd honestly, love to hear how being a Christian who believes in...

I'm Christian, and I believe God created life, and that we, humans, evolved from those original organisms.

@jNycoleu I'm Christian, and I believe God created life, and that we, humans, evolved from those original organisms.

You can't start of a sentence that says you believe in evolution by saying "I'm Christian" unless your name is 'Christian'. Seriously dude, where do you get your information? Do you just read "In the beginning God created" and then say 'Screw it! Thats enough for me!' Haha, you've got to keep reading bro.

@heythereilikeurhair You can't start of a sentence that says you believe in evolution by saying "I'm Christian" unless your name is...

I actually have read the bible. Moses says that God created the world in seven days, right? I believe that the 'days' aren't actually days, but seven periods of time. The people of the time period didn't understand the concept of hundreds, or even millions of years, so Moses used a term that they would understand. During the first period of time God created light and darkness; (stars, black holes, nebulas, etc.) The second period of time God created land, etc, etc. God created all of this, and from what I read in the bible he's a pretty smart guy. Who's to say he didn't create life and then 'nudge' it along, thus creating evolution? Why must science and religion be separate? I believe you can't have one without the other.

@1171748

It's possible, it's just a christian who does this is blatantly ignoring the part in the bible of the VERY FIRST book where it says god created all the animals on earth

@1171748

in a way, it doesn't, unless the Christian is ignoring a certain part of the bible. There's no need to be so rude and condescending about it.

@1171598

Not to be rude or anything, but what entitles you to say that it's okay, Mr. Bear? How do you know that, that's okay? From my understanding of the Bible I don't think that's okay, however I do not go around telling people it's not okay. Actually I do... but that's okay, because I'm bad ass and I'm kinda expected to be hypocritical.

All of science is a theory, not just evolution. Except for a few scientific facts and laws,most of what schools teach is unproven, just supported by experiments. So when people say 'we shouldn't teach evolution because it's just a theory' your saying that we shouldn't even have science as a school subject.

If everyone was forced to go to Church, then maybe. But only people interested in the topic go to Church, if you change that, then they won't wanna go.

@heythereilikeurhair i'm reading from the bottom up and this is the first sensible comment i've read.

Ha, I thought I was the only one. Since the top is usually one huge argument, I usually start from the bottom too, so I can get differing opinions! Is that your reasoning as well?

Wow, just wow. This makes no sense at all. The purpose of learning in church is to learn about what your religion BELIEVES in. If my church suddenly started teaching Evolution, it would contradict everything I've been taught in there.

I've gone to Catholic school my whole life...and I've been taught evolution not only in science but in theology as well. My class was taught creationism as what it most basically is: a symbolic attempt for a society to understand how they came to be. My teacher (a holier-than-thou guy if I've ever seen one) says that the creation story is not fact.

There are many other things wrong with my theology class, but I have no issue with our creationism/evolution.

Because a school is the same as a Church? This comparison makes no sense at all. Public schools usually do not teach about Creationism and private schools do because typically they are Catholic.

Anonymous +4Reply
@Because a school is the same as a Church? This comparison makes no sense at all. Public schools usually do not...

Private schools are typically Catholic? What? There are all sorts of private schools and I'll bet most of them are secular.

@fEMMAnist Private schools are typically Catholic? What? There are all sorts of private schools and I'll bet most of them are...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_school Yes, some are secular. Most of them? No. A private school does not have to follow the rules the government lays out for education, therefore they do not have the right to teach Creationism if they wish. It is not forcing the religion on anyone else, if you don't want to be taught Creationism, don't go to that school

Anonymous +1Reply

Yes, because that makes soo much sense.

Anonymous +4Reply

Sense...non is made.

Chipss avatar Chips No Way +4Reply

The point of a church is for religion.
My personal view is that religion should not be taught in schools, unless it is a catholic school, for example, as there may be persons of different religions at the school. I believe teaching religion is borderline preaching. I do not wish to be accused of being racist, as I, myself, am religious, however I believe science belongs in schools, faith belongs in churches.

Anonymous +4Reply
@The point of a church is for religion. My personal view is that religion should not be taught in schools, unless it...

I for the most part agree with what you say. I do believe that there should be perhaps a world religions course or something similar in public schools, but as an elective, not a requirement. I think it's beneficial to understand a faith before making a rash judgement about it (ie all Catholics are against gays, Muslims are all terrorists, etc.)

@FantineLovett418 I for the most part agree with what you say. I do believe that there should be perhaps a world religions course or...

There are comparative religion classes at many public schools. I took a comparative religion class at my public school and I really loved it.

@fEMMAnist There are comparative religion classes at many public schools. I took a comparative religion class at my public...

And that's what I feel should be taught at public schools! And maybe they could offer some single-religion classes, but for more than one religion. If they could put in, let's say, a class for Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, along with something like what you took, what would be the problem with religion in public schools?

@FantineLovett418 And that's what I feel should be taught at public schools! And maybe they could offer some single-religion classes...

I think there is a difference between teaching people about religion and teaching a particular religion. However, I don't really see much of a difference between a region class and a philosophy class. There sort of the same concept.

@fEMMAnist I think there is a difference between teaching people about religion and teaching a particular religion. However, I...

There is a difference, I agree, but learning both about religion and more in-depth on a particular religion isn't wrong. I mean, I'm Catholic, but given the option I'd definitely take a course on, let's say, Judaism. I'm just saying that if there are a few options available, as well as the available to decline them, there's nothing wrong with religious classes in public schools. School prepares us for the world, right? There's religion in the world, whether you believe it or not, so you should be able to learn it should you choose.

I voted YYA not becuase I literally think this, but because it points out how ridiculous the idea is when you imagine the reverse.

yddraigarians avatar yddraigarian Yeah You Are +3Reply

What OP is saying is just stupid.

I go to a Catholic school and in science class we do actually learn evolution. In religion class, though, one minute my teacher says God made everything the way the Bible says and the next she talks about how God "guided" evolution. Basically, they let us make the choice on what we each personally believe while telling us what the Catholic church endorses.

Anonymous +2Reply

At schools the evolution they are supposed to teach is that "populations change over time due to natural selection" or something like that. What that has to do with creationism, I don't really know.

Anonymous +2Reply

Most of the comments on here are pointless. the church does not bash evolution Post Vatican II and believe both ideas can still be true. "The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it"-- Pope Benedict XVI, 2008

People of every religion go to school, as children and teenagers are required to attend until grade 12 (the age/grade differs depending on what country you live in) People are not required go to a place of worship. They go specifically for the purpose of worship. Schools should teach both theories, but not as scientific fact as people's beliefs obviously differ.

Anonymous +1Reply
@People of every religion go to school, as children and teenagers are required to attend until grade 12 (the...

Both theories? There are billions and billions of theories about how life began. They need to teach the theory that fits the overwhelming amount of evidence.

that's. the. dumbest thing i've heard all day. lmfao.

School is for facts and theories while church is about faith. The only reason a school should teach creationism is in history when they talk about the history of religion. That's teaching not preaching. Everyone deserves the right to have the knowledge, make choices, and be respected.

Anonymous 0Reply

Evolution and Intelligent Design both need to be given a place in the classroom. Intelligent Design is not religion, it's a science. Watch "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

This user has deactivated their account.
@1171534

But the problem with evolution is that science has no way of explaining the origin of life. Although Darwin's book was titled, "The Origin of Life," his theory doesn't actually start until after the first living organism exists, invoking the need of a higher power.

@pantherfanatic But the problem with evolution is that science has no way of explaining the origin of life. Although Darwin's book...

Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of a higher power. You are acting like there can't be both God and evolution.

@fEMMAnist Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of a higher power. You are acting like there can't be both God and evolution.

I'm not saying this. But as of right now, schools teach theories of how life began, all of which have little credibility. However, the idea of Intelligent Design is completely ignored.

@pantherfanatic I'm not saying this. But as of right now, schools teach theories of how life began, all of which have little...

Little credibility? Just a question but which theory of Intelligent design would you suggest teaching?

@fEMMAnist Little credibility? Just a question but which theory of Intelligent design would you suggest teaching?

Yes. The probabilities of current theories working out by chance is extremely low.
I just think schools should inform students of the probabilities, and propose that a higher intelligence is believed by some to be a better way of explaining things. It doesn't have to be religious at all.

@pantherfanatic Yes. The probabilities of current theories working out by chance is extremely low. I just think schools should...

The modern scientific theory is more probable than any other theory out there. That is exactly why modern scientists decided to adopt it as their theory. I think we should just teach kids the facts and let them draw their own conclusions.

@fEMMAnist The modern scientific theory is more probable than any other theory out there. That is exactly why modern...

Like I said above, the approximate probability of amino acids lining up to form a functioning protein by chance is 1 in 10164. There have only been about 1016 seconds since the Big Bang. And that's just one protein. It takes roughly 250-400 proteins to form a minimally complex single celled organism. But that is the "major theory." Why can't we simply present the alternative?

@pantherfanatic Like I said above, the approximate probability of amino acids lining up to form a functioning protein by chance is...

Where did you get those numbers from? Besides, for all we know there could have been millions of universes created before this one that didn't contain life so the chances of one of them containing life isn't too small. What is this "alternative" of which you speak that is more probable?

@pantherfanatic Like I said above, the approximate probability of amino acids lining up to form a functioning protein by chance is...

"the approximate probability of amino acids lining up to form a functioning protein by chance is 1 in 10164.

Where does that number come from?

@vitaminb "the approximate probability of amino acids lining up to form a functioning protein by chance is 1 in 10164...

To get the amino acids sequenced properly, the chances are 1 in 1074. Then you have to multiply that by 1 in 1045 to form peptide bonds. Then you have to get the right kinda of optical isomers. Those odds are 1 in 1045. Multiply those together and you get 1 in 10164.
To put that in perspective:
1080 elementary particles in the universe
10139 total events since the beginning of the universe.

@pantherfanatic To get the amino acids sequenced properly, the chances are 1 in 1074. Then you have to multiply that by 1 in 1045...

The probability of me being alive today is probably just as unbelievably small. Seriously, if my great great great ect. ect. grandfather was eaten by a lion ten thousand years ago I wouldn't be here. If you think about the billions of things that could have happened my existence is pretty unbelievable. Just be cause something is highly improbable doesn't mean it's impossible.

@fEMMAnist The probability of me being alive today is probably just as unbelievably small. Seriously, if my great great great...

You're missing the point. This would be like somebody playing poker, and he's winning every hand. With every hand he's dealt, he gets a royal flush. The other players complain and say he's cheating, and the odds of that happening by chance are too small. He says to them, "What do you mean? The chances of you getting the hands you got are equally as small as the chances of me getting a royal flush every time!"
The difference is that his hand performs a specific function.

@pantherfanatic You're missing the point. This would be like somebody playing poker, and he's winning every hand. With every hand...

So what if the universe is improbable? The existence of a universe that includes an intelligent designer is probably just as probable, if not more so. The universe is here so obviously it had to have been created somehow.

@fEMMAnist So what if the universe is improbable? The existence of a universe that includes an intelligent designer is...

I assume you meant to say just as improbable? But that's not the case. Things lining up by chance is the best materialistic hypothesis available. The most probable answer is intelligent design.

@pantherfanatic I assume you meant to say just as improbable? But that's not the case. Things lining up by chance is the best...

How would you ever know the probability of their being an intelligent designer? Since you can't know that, you can't really say that the existence of an intelligent designer is more probable than the normal scientific theory of creation. I do believe that there is a God but I know there is no way you can prove that God exists with mathematical probability models. A belief in God is based in faith, not data.

@fEMMAnist How would you ever know the probability of their being an intelligent designer? Since you can't know that, you...

But the only theory we know of today has incredibly small probabilities. So the most probably theory is God.

I don't believe in God because of data and science, but I also do not have blind faith.

@pantherfanatic But the only theory we know of today has incredibly small probabilities. So the most probably theory is God. I...

I can't see how a random magical person in the sky willing random things into existence is more scientifically credible than the theories that have been proposed by generations of advanced physicists and supported by meticulous calculation and intricate mathematical models.
I don't really know how you decided that the theory of God is more probable because I can't think of any way you could determine the probability of God.

@fEMMAnist I can't see how a random magical person in the sky willing random things into existence is more scientifically...

Because every other theory is inconceivably improbable. So if you consider theism as a theory, than it is by far the best one, because we can't account for how life would come about without a higher power.

@pantherfanatic Because every other theory is inconceivably improbable. So if you consider theism as a theory, than it is by far...

(pantherfanatic):I get that the possibility of there being a universe is mind-blowingly small. I agree with you on that. What I don't agree with is the idea that the existence of a higher power is any more probable. There is no denying that the concept of divinity is absurd. I'm not bashing religion, I take great pride in my faith but you can't claim that the existence of floating magical man in the sky is all that mathematically feasible. We can account for life without a higher power and we have but, like you said we know it's improbable. There is a major difference between improbable and impossible.

@pantherfanatic To get the amino acids sequenced properly, the chances are 1 in 1074. Then you have to multiply that by 1 in 1045...

"To get the amino acids sequenced properly, the chances are 1 in 1074. Then you have to multiply that by 1 in 1045 to form peptide bonds"

And where do those numbers come from?

Probability isn't always the best, as there are factors that can't be taken into consideration.

For example, if you go and ask your parents for a million dollars, the statistical probability of them saying yes would be 50%, as there are only two options. But logic would say there is no way that could ever happen.
So it could be that the formed that way because that is what makes sense and it is not random chance.

@vitaminb "To get the amino acids sequenced properly, the chances are 1 in 1074. Then you have to multiply that by 1 in...

I didn't wanna type it all out, but you essentially have a 1 in 2 chance of forming a peptide bond, which is essential. But you have to multiply that by the 150 necessary amino acids to form a protein.
The 1 in 1074 comes from Doug Axe (Ph.D., Cal Tech, formerly at Cambridge University), who found the probability of forming a functional sequence among all the possible combinations of amino acids.

You're absolutely correct. It's not the best way. But try as they might, scientists have yet to come up with a better explanation. They have tried to use your idea that there is a form of attraction or reason for the amino acids to line up correctly. Dean Kenyon authored the book "Biochemical Predestination," in which he argued exactly that. However, it has been found that this is false. Dean Kenyon himself has now denounced his theory as false.

@pantherfanatic I didn't wanna type it all out, but you essentially have a 1 in 2 chance of forming a peptide bond, which is...

Hey, it worked, my bad on that

Anyway,

There is a lot of stuff science has yet to explain, and I feel that this is one of them.

I'm not totally sold that it was random chance, if this is the way it works, that is probably why it formed that way. Kenyon may have denounced this theory on lack of evidence, but lack of evidence does not mean it isn't present, rather we can't explain it right now.

Take both God and macroevolution for example (I don't mean to start a debate here, just an example)
There is no hard evidence for the existence of either, but they are still both believable concepts, even with the lack of hard evidence

@pantherfanatic Just curious, are you an atheist?

No, I'm somewhere between believer and agnostic

I doubt the existence of God sometimes, but really deep down I do believe.

I also believe the Bible to be a spiritual book and not a history book.
For creationism, I don't believe God created everything the way it is now, I believe God created some sort of life and evolution took over from there.

@vitaminb No, I'm somewhere between believer and agnostic I doubt the existence of God sometimes, but really deep down I do...

Yeah, I'm no Young-Earth Creationist by any stretch, but I'm undecided on evolution. But I know that there is a God.

@vitaminb How do you know/Why do you think there is a God?

Aside from the personal relationship I have with Him (which is hard to prove or share with people), I think there are plenty of good arguments. I think the origin of life is impossible to explain away without a higher intelligence (as explained earlier), the origin of the Universe invokes the need for a creator, and the argument of objective morals.
1. If objective morals exist, God exists.
2. Objective morals exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

@pantherfanatic Aside from the personal relationship I have with Him (which is hard to prove or share with people), I think there...

Not really impossible to explain, really. I'm still not really sold on total random chance. There is one way to make life, so it probably melded together that way because it works that way.

Where do you get the first step? Can there be no good and bad without God?

@vitaminb Not really impossible to explain, really. I'm still not really sold on total random chance. There is one way to...

Well you say, "There is one way to make life, so it probably melded together that way because it works that way," but there is absolutely no proof of that. Regardless of how many times scientists have tried. The "one way" is through a deity, namely God.

Well if there is no God, than there is no way to establish moral absolutes. Everything is subjective. There has to be a higher power to distinguish right from wrong. Otherwise, it's all in the eye of the individual. From that viewpoint, one cannot say another person is detestable for molesting a child, or beating their wife.

@pantherfanatic Well you say, "There is one way to make life, so it probably melded together that way because it works that way,"...

There is no steadfast proof of God either. It could just as easily be said that some fairy in the sky created life, rather than it working it out on it's own. There is no proof either way, so neither can be discouraged by use of the other one.

Society. Society would dictate what is right and wrong. Even if there is no God, killing would still be a crime, as would rape, as they harm other people.

@vitaminb There is no steadfast proof of God either. It could just as easily be said that some fairy in the sky created...

To the contrary, there is quite a bit of historical proof that Jesus lived, performed miracles, and was crucified. We also know that 3 days later, his tomb was empty. (I'm not using the Bible as my source here.)

Societies choose awful things all the time, no? Sharia law requires a woman to have 4 male witnesses to claim rape. Society also allowed slavery, because they viewed blacks as sub-human.

@pantherfanatic To the contrary, there is quite a bit of historical proof that Jesus lived, performed miracles, and was crucified...

What is your evidence then, if not the Bible?

When slavery was still in place, it was ok. Now, we look back and see the atrocities by today's standards. Society is different everywhere, what is deem good here might be deemed horrible in the Middle East, it is all relative to the people in the respective areas.

@vitaminb What is your evidence then, if not the Bible? When slavery was still in place, it was ok. Now, we look back and...

For one example, there are Jewish rabbinical writings, including Rabbi Eliezer and writers of the Talmud, that talk about Jesus and his miracles. To the disdain of atheists, they do not deny that the miracles happened. Instead, they attempt to explain them as acts of evil.

I would argue that child molestation is wrong, regardless of the time period or culture.

@pantherfanatic For one example, there are Jewish rabbinical writings, including Rabbi Eliezer and writers of the Talmud, that talk...

Here's just something that's always confused me. Many Christians say that murder is bad and that God is all powerful.
If God cannot make murder good, God is not all powerful.
If God is all powerful, he can make murder good.
Knowing this we can deduce:
If God is all powerful, he must have decided that murder is bad.
He could have just as easily decided that murder is good.
Murder isn't inherently bad; it is only bad because God made it so.
God could at any time decide that murder is good.
I probably did a really bad job of explaining my logic but I really freaks me out that God randomly decided what was good and what was evil.

@fEMMAnist Here's just something that's always confused me. Many Christians say that murder is bad and that God is all...

You are focusing on His omnipotence, but forgetting his omniscience. He didn't "randomly" decide what was good and what was evil. He, being perfect and benevolent, knew exactly what should be considered evil and good.

@pantherfanatic You are focusing on His omnipotence, but forgetting his omniscience. He didn't "randomly" decide what was good and...

You don't get it. That's my fault for not explaining it well. If God must follow these moral rules than he isn't all powerful. If he didn't decide what is good and evil who or what did?

@pantherfanatic But the problem with evolution is that science has no way of explaining the origin of life. Although Darwin's book...

The problem is evolution DOESN'T actively seek to offer an explanation as to how exactly life was created on Earth. My AP Bio textbook offered the theory that amino acids joined together and eventually created proteins, which I'm sure you know are the building blocks of life.

SemiColins avatar SemiColin Yeah You Are +4Reply
@SemiColin The problem is evolution DOESN'T actively seek to offer an explanation as to how exactly life was created on Earth...

But the probability of that theory is essentially zero. The approximate probability of amino acids lining up to form a functioning protein by chance is 1 in 10164. There have only been about 1016 seconds since the Big Bang. And that's just one protein. It takes roughly 250-400 proteins to form a minimally complex single celled organism.

@pantherfanatic But the probability of that theory is essentially zero. The approximate probability of amino acids lining up to...

I wasn't saying that theory was correct, I was merely offering one of the solutions presented to me by my textbook. You largely ignored where I said evolution did not seek to explain HOW life had started, just the mechanisms that make life how it is today.

SemiColins avatar SemiColin Yeah You Are +3Reply
@SemiColin I wasn't saying that theory was correct, I was merely offering one of the solutions presented to me by my textbook...

Yes, but that's where Intelligent Design is a very good theory, and should be offered as a possibility.

@SemiColin I don't see how saying "God did it" is offering a good theory.

First of all, Intelligent Design does not specify the intelligence.
Secondly, because all of science invokes the need for a higher power to be at work. Cosmology is an even bigger example of this. Thus, why should we limit our minds to materialistic world views, when there is quite a case to be made for some higher intelligence?

@1171534

"On the Origin of Species"

My bad.

@pantherfanatic Evolution and Intelligent Design both need to be given a place in the classroom. Intelligent Design is not...

... Ummm, isn't it against the law for public schools (in the U.S) to teach Creationism (Edwards v. Aguillard) and Intelligent Design (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) because it violates the First Amendment rights to freedom from religion?

@Superwormie Ummm, isn't it against the law for public schools (in the U.S) to teach Creationism (Edwards v. Aguillard) and...

Yes. Which is what I disagree with.

Actually, it depends on how you define "Creationism." I do not think young-earth creationism should be taught in schools, but I do think that Intelligent Design should be offered as a theory.

@pantherfanatic Yes. Which is what I disagree with. Actually, it depends on how you define "Creationism." I do not think...

You sound like somebody who has actually bothered to do independent research without relying on everything you've been told. I like that, it's quite refreshing in a discussion on evolution and Intelligent Design. Granted, everything we "learn" is basically told to us by somebody, but that's why I make such an effort to validate my sources. Anyways, it's nice to see somebody with a coherent arguement :)

@pantherfanatic Yes. Which is what I disagree with. Actually, it depends on how you define "Creationism." I do not think...

Isn't Intelligent Design the same thing as Creationism, though? I thought that was proven in the court case mentioned above.

@Superwormie Isn't Intelligent Design the same thing as Creationism, though? I thought that was proven in the court case...

Yeah, I think the government considers them one and the same. But I don't think that should be the case. Intelligent Design lines up with science, it just points out the improbability of unguided life on Earth.

I've read many, many books and articles by people with more Ph.D's then seems reasonable and I've studied evolution as well. I'm more than content with my religion and subsequent beliefs and I very much dislike evolution. However, when I say that, I am not referring to "micro" evolution, because that does happen. I have my reasons (based upon scientific fact) for not believing in the Big Bang or a carrot eventually evolving to an animal. More to the point, though, this parallel makes absolutely no sense. I'll refrain from reiterating the points made in above comments, but if I'm more than content to let you make your merry way to Hell, then please do me the honor of leaving my religion the hell alone. Cheers :)

Churches aren't public and they aren't a part of the "state" aka government, so they are free to teach what they want. And I learn about religions in my Social Studies classes not science.

tea_s avatar tea_ No Way -3Reply

1. successful troll is successful
2. separation of church and state
3. i lol at all of you christfags
4. facts...fucking facts...this is why America sucks...too many religionfags

zfrancavillas avatar zfrancavilla Yeah You Are -3Reply

A lot of schools aren't allowed to teach about creationism but have to teach about evolution, which I think is stupid.

@LAKERSoverHEAT They'd have to include other religious theories also, which would be a complete waste of time.

You don't seem to understand, creationism isn't about proving the existence of any one God, but just the theory of intelligent design. If you decided to teach this theory in schools, then teaching about a specific god would be unconstitutional. However, there's is nothing wrong with analyzing the evidence for intellegent design.

Anonymous +3Reply
@You don't seem to understand, creationism isn't about proving the existence of any one God, but just the theory of...

I see. I got confused because creationism is a church theory, but Intelligent design is the same thing, but with the exclusion of religion. I still don't see its significance seeing how the theory is based around coincidence.

@LAKERSoverHEAT They'd have to include other religious theories also, which would be a complete waste of time.

So since there are so many theories, they shouldn't have to pick just one and only one to teach is my point.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1171727

that's officially the second dumbest thing i've heard all day haha

@heythereilikeurhair that's officially the second dumbest thing i've heard all day haha

I'm pretty sure this is even worse than the post by about 50 times. At least that had an elementary understanding of the separation of church and state...

@1171727

So a bunch of guys staring at the stars decided that there was enough proof to say religion is false?

@1171727

Please elaborate on how scientists could have disproved the existence of God (whichever god it may be).

Anonymous +2Reply
@1171727

@1171727 (SeveredBanana): Umm... no they haven't. Nobody even knows what God is or what he would look like so you can't really prove he doesn't exist.

I don't care that schools teach evolution. I care that they teach it as fact when it isn't. Christian schools should teach the facts about evolution though. Because some people have no idea what they are talking about when they defend creationism.

lookitups avatar lookitup No Way -11Reply
@lookitup I don't care that schools teach evolution. I care that they teach it as fact when it isn't. Christian schools...

Evolution is a fact, sorry to burst your bubble. You can't teach science without teaching evolution. It's like teaching medicine without teaching germ theory.

@fEMMAnist Evolution is a fact, sorry to burst your bubble. You can't teach science without teaching evolution. It's like...

yes evolution is fact. The theory of evolution is...oh what's the word... Oh yeah, a theory.

@lookitup yes evolution is fact. The theory of evolution is...oh what's the word... Oh yeah, a theory.

Yes. Evolution is a theory, just like gravity. Evolution is also a fact. I can see where your confusion comes from. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ev...heory_and_fact is a very enlightening article I recommend you read.

@fEMMAnist Yes. Evolution is a theory, just like gravity. Evolution is also a fact. I can see where your confusion comes from...

I'm not confused. I know it is both fact and theory. I don't agree with the theory part.

This comment was deleted by its author.
@1165067

They don't teach you it as a fact, if they did then you wouldn't need faith.

@1165067

well it is not provable, but I believe it to be fact. As do (I'm assuming) all Christians.

lookitups avatar lookitup No Way -18Reply
This comment was deleted by its author.
@1171539

um... Ok calm down... The bible ie. our sacred texts, teaches that God created the heavens and the earth and the birds in the sky and the fish in the sea and all living things. Now, where is that evolution?

@lookitup um... Ok calm down... The bible ie. our sacred texts, teaches that God created the heavens and the earth and the...

I am christian. The Bible teaches that God created the heavens, earth, and living things. But I am open to the fact that God may have used/guided evolution to make them. The Bible describes the what not the how of creation. That is a way in which evolution could coexist with creationism.

BP032s avatar BP032 No Way +9Reply
@BP032 I am christian. The Bible teaches that God created the heavens, earth, and living things. But I am open to the fact...

I agree but most Christians I know would completely disagree because they don't know the science of evolution. But basically I'm saying that the theory of evolution may or may not be right. If it is right then it was God who guided it but I honestly don't think it is.

@1171539

"So all the good posters left, because the site has been getting worse. As much as I didn't want to admit it, it's true. And their reasons are true as well. It used to be original, intelligent, and not overrun by faggots." -polarthebear
Hypocrite much? You suck.

Anonymous 0Reply
@1171539

You could've thrown in another "bitch" or "shit stain" in there.

SemiColins avatar SemiColin Yeah You Are 0Reply
Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.