Christian Schools Bring Suit Against UC

[Cheese]

Originally posted by peter12@Aug 31 2005, 03:48 PM

Do you have problems with ya head?

I have said at least twice that I believe in evolution but that I also believe in God. I have also said that I reject the standard "World appears in 7 days... literally!" stuff.

So no... I'm not a closet evolutionist. I fully admit I can accept 90% of the theory in accordance with my own religious beliefs.

What I have some problem with is the way you and Frank are arrogantly mocking Christians in this thread while so confidently believing in your own brand of how the world got started.

sheesh Peter....isnt that the way it always is?
This is a religous debate...I have tried to put some serious comments into my reasonings...yet when it comes to the creationist side its mocking their theories?
Yes of course I mock it...I AM an advid "Humanist" or Atheist.
These are our principles:

1. That we can live full, meaningful lives, without religious doctrines, by relying on our capacities for rational thought, honesty, responsibility, fairness, justice, cooperation, and each other.

2. That we use democratic principles, reason, and scientific inquiry to find realistic solutions to problems.

3. That we foster good ethics, virtues and critical thinking in our children to help them grow to be decent and proactive members of society.

4. That we look after the Earth for future generations by supporting scientific breakthroughs in medicine and technology and by not inflicting needless suffering on other species.

5. That separation of religion and state is upheld in all levels of government to ensure equality and fairness for all.


The BIG problem is item #5....Religous zealots tend to want to get their noses in everywhere...including our schools. I dont have a problem with that as long as its taught in Mythology class!

[Frank the Tank]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz+Aug 31 2005, 02:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bring_Back_Shantz @ Aug 31 2005, 02:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Dumb is pretty harsh. I'd say you are very passionate about your set of beliefs, as am I.

I think he was refering to when I said his "Prove air exists" analogy was the dumbest analogy I've ever seen.

I stand by that statement, but That doesn't mean I think 89 is dumb.
Although if he actually things
Prove God exists and Prove air exists are comparable tasks then I may have to rethink a few things. [/b][/quote]
Oh I know what you meant, I just thought his response meant he took it the wrong way.

I need to go play LEGO STAR WARS on my PS2 cause this thread is making my head hurt.

[peter12]

No problems with any of those except #1.

1. That we can live full, meaningful lives, without religious doctrines, by relying on our capacities for rational thought, honesty, responsibility, fairness, justice, cooperation, and each other.

When have humans shown that we can accomplish these things with our own "rational" thought. Just wondering... as I am not seeing too much of any of those around the world these days.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FireFly@Aug 31 2005, 12:44 PM

Christians have evolved in their beliefs over 2 millenia, why are they not allowed to today? As we learn more, we also evolve in our beliefs, Cow. That's the reason there is an Old and New Testament. That's an evolution as well. Why is that one acceptable, and not any others?

To what purpose? Why would religion evolve even from day 1, let alone 2000 years later? How could it? Do you believe in something or don't you?

The last Pope was constantly trying to hold that evolution back.

Why?

A focussing of power? The threat of a loss of power? Just crotchety?

Would Christianity still be supreme if the Pope continued to insist the world was flat? Or is an evolution of thought necessary to stay on top?

What good is the Bible as a literal document? Or the Koran?

The Book of Revelations, which you cited earlier, has gone through many interpretations as well.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...tion/white.html

Is it true or just fairy tales? Wouldn't you know by now?

Cowperson

[89revival]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz+Aug 31 2005, 07:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bring_Back_Shantz @ Aug 31 2005, 07:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Dumb is pretty harsh. I'd say you are very passionate about your set of beliefs, as am I.

I think he was refering to when I said his "Prove air exists" analogy was the dumbest analogy I've ever seen.

I stand by that statement, but That doesn't mean I think 89 is dumb.
Although if he actually things
Prove God exists and Prove air exists are comparable tasks then I may have to rethink a few things. [/b][/quote]
Perhaps my choice of wording was incorrect in what i was trying to get across......i meant that you "trust" and "believe" that air is there even though it is invisible to the eye.

I can't see God but I trust and believe that he exists, similar to how we perceive the air we breathe when we walk outside.

[troutman]

Originally posted by Draug@Aug 31 2005, 03:06 PM
Actually, I would argue that they are both theories from a scientific point of view.

Wrong. Creationism is not a theory, as it can not be tested.

A blog on the topic:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/?p=67

There is no room for debate with young-earth creationists like those at the Discovery Institute (who, despite their bluster, have made it very clear that’s who they really are). Their ideas are absolute, and there is no shade of grey. If you are a Christian, and not a fundamentalist literal-Bible Christian, then you should be aware that these creationists are not on your side. To them, you are just as wrong as Muslims, Jews, and atheists. They may paint scientists as evil atheists who want to steer your children from The One True Way, but remember that this is their “True Way”, and probably not yours. They have no problems distorting the truth, egregiously and often if it so suits them.

Young Earth creationists have let slip the dogmas of war. In the ensuing battles they will use a host of weapons, including misrepresenting facts, mining of quotes, belaboring outdated theories, and dancing around to avoid answering direct questions. Mark my words: their history is clear.


http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/qframe.htm:

People sometimes try to score debating points by saying, "Evolution is only a theory." That is correct, but it's important to understand what that means. It is also only a theory that the world goes round the Sun -- it's just a theory for which there is an immense amount of evidence.
There are many scientific theories that are in doubt. Even within evolution, there is some room for controversy. But that we are cousins of apes and jackals and starfish, let's say, that is a fact in the ordinary sense of the word.-- Richard Dawkins, "Nick Pollard interviews Richard Dawkins" (Damars: 1999) ††

[Savvy27]

Originally posted by peter12@Aug 31 2005, 07:58 PM
Whoa. Pretty sure you are going to have to provide a link to some academic journals to prove that little tidbit.

Look it up yourself... I really don't care if you want to believe the bible word for word. I do find it strange that you would assume that nobody would alter anything in the most powerful book ever written if given the chance. In fact I was actually trying to help you out by saying that intelligent christians use a contextual interpretation of the bible.

Here's another "tidbit" which I think you could use to explain why God has been so scarce. The universe is still growing, so it could be entirely possible that He has simply been busy finishing off the project .

As for religion evolving, since the institution of Christianity has been purporting that it is infallible there should really be no need for it to evolve. So you've got to ask yourself why it has been evolving... personally I feel that the reason is that because they want to increase their donation base they can let a few things slide... but if there is another answer that is believable to you then go for it.

[Faid1]

Originally posted by Savvy27@Aug 31 2005, 12:48 PM
One question I have for believers would have to be: Don't you find it a little worrying that God would create dinosaurs only to choose he didn't like them anymore and destroy them?

Noah just didn't want to bring them on the Ark.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by 89revival+Aug 31 2005, 02:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (89revival @ Aug 31 2005, 02:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I think he was refering to when I said his "Prove air exists" analogy was the dumbest analogy I've ever seen.

I stand by that statement, but That doesn't mean I think 89 is dumb.
Although if he actually things
Prove God exists and Prove air exists are comparable tasks then I may have to rethink a few things.

Perhaps my choice of wording was incorrect in what i was trying to get across......i meant that you "trust" and "believe" that air is there even though it is invisible to the eye.

I can't see God but I trust and believe that he exists, similar to how we perceive the air we breathe when we walk outside. [/b][/quote]
That doesn't really make sense.
Just becasue something is invisible to the eye doesn't mean that you have to have fait that it is there.
I can feel it, I can heer it, and if I go underwater I can see it, so it isn't the same as beleiving in God. I can think of at least three sense that tell me that air is there (smell doesn't really count, so I'll leave it at the three). I can't think of one way God has proven to me that he exists. However, that doesn't mean I don't beleive in God, as beleive in God is somethig that doesn't require proff, that's kinda the point.

Trust me, I beleive in both God and air, and both for very different reasons.

[FlamesAddiction]

Evolution is a fact. There are however different theories about the modes and mechanisms of evolution. But make no mistake, there is enough evidence to support evolution in some form. It can be viewed easily in different micro-organisms at the least. Plus, there is plenty of fossil and molecular evidence.

The only way you could deny evolution is if you use the excuse that Satan planted the evidence to turn people away from God. There is no science in that however.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Faid1+Aug 31 2005, 02:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Faid1 @ Aug 31 2005, 02:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Savvy27@Aug 31 2005, 12:48 PM
One question I have for believers would have to be: Don't you find it a little worrying that God would create dinosaurs only to choose he didn't like them anymore and destroy them?

Noah just didn't want to bring them on the Ark. [/b][/quote]
Laugh. No doubt. Gotta love the idea of the ark.

2 elephants eat 130 thousand pounds of food and drink 30 thousand gallons of fresh water a year (that's how long the ark was out there). That much food and drink would take up an awful lot of space. Where would you put the 46 thousand birds?

Really, you can't even argue with people who believe this ark story actually happened in reality.

[FlamesAddiction]

Remember this?

http://www.thetalentshow.org/archives/000267.html

I get a kick out of that every time. I can't find the original site anymore though.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Aug 31 2005, 01:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Aug 31 2005, 01:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Noah just didn't want to bring them on the Ark.

Laugh. No doubt. Gotta love the idea of the ark.

2 elephants eat 130 thousand pounds of food and drink 30 thousand gallons of fresh water a year (that's how long the ark was out there). That much food and drink would take up an awful lot of space. Where would you put the 46 thousand birds?

Really, you can't even argue with people who believe this ark story actually happened in reality. [/b][/quote]
I just can't picture Noah shovelling all that shinguard over the side. That's a stunning comedown.

Anyway, I'm not mocking someone's faith in this thread. I think you have the right to that faith and are welcome too it.

As an ex-winner of a jackknife for the best attendance at Pentacostal Sunday School, I still have a bit of the religious terror residing in my subconcious so I'll only go so far in kicking in the church doors . . . . just in case if you get my drift.

I'm more on the agnostic side (don't care one way or the other) versus aethist.

Cowperson

[FireFly]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Aug 31 2005, 02:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Aug 31 2005, 02:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FireFly@Aug 31 2005, 12:44 PM

Christians have evolved in their beliefs over 2 millenia, why are they not allowed to today? As we learn more, we also evolve in our beliefs, Cow. That's the reason there is an Old and New Testament. That's an evolution as well. Why is that one acceptable, and not any others?

To what purpose? Why would religion evolve even from day 1, let alone 2000 years later? How could it? Do you believe in something or don't you?

The last Pope was constantly trying to hold that evolution back.

Why?

A focussing of power? The threat of a loss of power? Just crotchety?

Would Christianity still be supreme if the Pope continued to insist the world was flat? Or is an evolution of thought necessary to stay on top?

What good is the Bible as a literal document? Or the Koran?

The Book of Revelations, which you cited earlier, has gone through many interpretations as well.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...tion/white.html

Is it true or just fairy tales? Wouldn't you know by now?

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Religion evolves as people evolve. If you take the Bible literally, then God knew what would happen when he said an eye for an eye. He also knew he would send his son to atone for all our sins. He knew that the Jews still wouldn't believe in Jesus, which is the purpose of the second coming. The first coming was in the Bible, and the second coming is in the New Testament. The purpose of it all has to do with God's chosen people: the Jews. That's why religion has changed. The Old Testament was written for the Jews, the New was written for those who would help the Jews. The Bible changes as the times change to guide those who believe during those times. Things that were relevant 2000 years ago are not necessarily relevant now. Why would God write a book that would confuse the heck out of people because it had to be relevant 2000 years later? The Book of Revelation was confusing enough at the time it was written, and had to be 'dumbed down' because of that. Put yourself in the world 2000 years ago... can you believe in the information revolution and that there will eventually be a device that will track all people on earth, which you hear is going to be billions, a number that you can't even comprehend as you've only ever seen maybe 10,000 people in your entire life? Can you believe that the world is round even? Can you believe in evolution when you've never seen any proof? If someone wrote about such a world, would you believe it? Or would you throw it out as fiction? Why would a knowing, loving God, not give himself a chance to be known by confusing people?

What's happened here is that the Bible was written for the times it was written in, and a bit into the future. It needed to be 'in' its time, and also 'ahead' of it's time. However, humanity has progressed so far that it is now 'behind' the times. The Book of Revelation was written for the times we're in, but at that time, there were no words to describe what would happen. 2000 years ago there were no information databases or military technology like we have now, so how could they properly describe it? Can we take the Bible into the future? There are certainly relevant points within it, but the world has changed so dramatically since it was written, that some can no longer see the relevance. They're so busy arguing over points that are irrelevant due to the time they were written, that they fail to look at what is relevant to todays world.

In the end, what really happened during creation doesn't really matter. Some Christians think it does, but all that really matters (or should matter,) is the lesson behind the story. It's a story. Like the flood, and the original sin, they're just stories. To test our faith, to make us believe, to give insight into human nature, to teach us something of God's nature. Our interpretations of them only matter in what they make us as Christians. I don't HAVE to believe in creation as written word for word in the Bible. It won't make me any more or less of a Christian. It's the lesson behind the story that matters.

The only thing that bothers me in this debate is that schools teach children the big bang theory, and nothing else. Which leads children to believe it as truth. There's no proof backing up the theory, only speculation and a few experiments with inconclusive results. And yet, this is all that's taught. Why can't schools just skip the entire creation/big bang? Why do they have to go into it at all?

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Ok, I'd like to wiegh in on this topic, first of all I am someone who is an absolute believer in science, how can't you be? If you find something that contradicts the facts, by definition science will accomodate that. On the other hand, there is obviously an awful lot we have no clue about and IMO there is such a thing as God....but what is God exactly? Consider these brain teasers:

If God is all powerful and can do anything she wants, then could she create an object too heavy for her to lift? Or could she create a square circle?

or

The cause and effect argument. Every effect is caused by something (basic science), so if you follow the trail of events back...wayyyyyyy back there MUST be a first mover, something that caused the first effect. The argument is that there must be a prime mover, or, God.

or

Does God have free will? If we assume that God is perfect then he must always do the perfect thing. If he can only do the perfect thing then he has no choice to do the less than perfect thing. Thus, God has no free will.

Anyways, to end this rant with a mini-rant...creationism is NOT scientific, has no place being taught anywhere near a science class but can fit perfectly into a philosophy class. The flintstones is NOT a documentary. Just becasue something is complex and not understood by us does not prove that an Intelligent designer exists. And finally the bible HAS been edited extensively and while it is filled with some good stuff, don't forget to drink the reality kool-aid once in a while.
________
Web shows

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by FireFly@Aug 31 2005, 02:56 PM
The only thing that bothers me in this debate is that schools teach children the big bang theory, and nothing else. Which leads children to believe it as truth. There's no proof backing up the theory, only speculation and a few experiments with inconclusive results. And yet, this is all that's taught. Why can't schools just skip the entire creation/big bang? Why do they have to go into it at all?

Well it may not be "proven", but it's the best we've got. You can't just "not teach it" because believe me, the kids are gonna ask. It's either this theory or it's nothing and nothing isn't really an option.

[FireFly]

Originally posted by Faid1+Aug 31 2005, 02:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Faid1 @ Aug 31 2005, 02:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Savvy27@Aug 31 2005, 12:48 PM
One question I have for believers would have to be: Don't you find it a little worrying that God would create dinosaurs only to choose he didn't like them anymore and destroy them?

Noah just didn't want to bring them on the Ark. [/b][/quote]
As a loving God, he wanted a 'creature' that would understand and love Him back. Some that would have the ability to think rationally, and communicate in higher forms with him. He realized that dinosaurs would wipe out humans, so he had to wipe them out to protect his 'chosen' species. Just a guess though.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by FireFly+Aug 31 2005, 09:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FireFly @ Aug 31 2005, 09:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Noah just didn't want to bring them on the Ark.

As a loving God, he wanted a 'creature' that would understand and love Him back. Some that would have the ability to think rationally, and communicate in higher forms with him. He realized that dinosaurs would wipe out humans, so he had to wipe them out to protect his 'chosen' species. Just a guess though. [/b][/quote]
But there are still plenty of things that can "wipe us out". Including ourselves.

If there is a God, then he is mighty wierd!

[peter12]

Originally posted by Savvy27+Aug 31 2005, 02:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Savvy27 @ Aug 31 2005, 02:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-peter12@Aug 31 2005, 07:58 PM
Whoa. Pretty sure you are going to have to provide a link to some academic journals to prove that little tidbit.

Look it up yourself... I really don't care if you want to believe the bible word for word. I do find it strange that you would assume that nobody would alter anything in the most powerful book ever written if given the chance. In fact I was actually trying to help you out by saying that intelligent christians use a contextual interpretation of the bible.

Here's another "tidbit" which I think you could use to explain why God has been so scarce. The universe is still growing, so it could be entirely possible that He has simply been busy finishing off the project .

As for religion evolving, since the institution of Christianity has been purporting that it is infallible there should really be no need for it to evolve. So you've got to ask yourself why it has been evolving... personally I feel that the reason is that because they want to increase their donation base they can let a few things slide... but if there is another answer that is believable to you then go for it. [/b][/quote]
I have argued in this thread already for a contextual based belief. I just thought with an accusation like that you might want to back it up.

The presence of God... I believe that is God is so undescribable in human terms that it would be impossible to sense his presence in any sort of physical terms. In spiritual terms... well we all have our own story.

[FireFly]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Aug 31 2005, 03:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Aug 31 2005, 03:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FireFly@Aug 31 2005, 02:56 PM
The only thing that bothers me in this debate is that schools teach children the big bang theory, and nothing else. Which leads children to believe it as truth. There's no proof backing up the theory, only speculation and a few experiments with inconclusive results. And yet, this is all that's taught. Why can't schools just skip the entire creation/big bang? Why do they have to go into it at all?

Well it may not be "proven", but it's the best we've got. You can't just "not teach it" because believe me, the kids are gonna ask. It's either this theory or it's nothing and nothing isn't really an option. [/b][/quote]
So why can't they say, 'we don't know, but we have a few ideas, some think it was a big bang, and others think it may have been the work of a higher power. We can't really advocate either, because we can't prove it one way or the other. We do know there is evolution though...' and explain it both ways? One theory is no more or less proven than the other at this point in time. Neither is scientific, because neither can or have been proven. What place does either have in a science class?