Christian Schools Bring Suit Against UC

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by FireFly+Aug 31 2005, 09:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FireFly @ Aug 31 2005, 09:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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.

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? [/b][/quote]
Why can't they say at church; "We don't really know for sure. We have a few ideas, but we can't advocate anything."?

The same reason that they can't do that in science classes.

[FireFly]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Aug 31 2005, 03:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Aug 31 2005, 03:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='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.

But there are still plenty of things that can "wipe us out". Including ourselves.

If there is a God, then he is mighty wierd! [/b][/quote]
Allowing us to wipe ourselves out is based on allowing us to be rational thinkers. Rationally, we would never do that. But he loves us enough to let us make our own decisions, or we'd be passed off due to a lack of free will. Most things that can wipe us out are of our own doing. There is the odd natural disaster, but he's already agreed he'd never allow that to happen, (hence the rainbow in Noah's ark). So we can certainly hurt ourselves, but nothing will ever wipe us out again... at least not of his doing.

[Hakan]

There's a great article on the hypocrisy of Christian nations in the July Harper's. This is a little off topic but it relates to Firefly's comment. I can't understand why Christians are so obsessed with the Old Testament instead of the actual words of Christ.

Anyone have some bandwidth to host the PDF?

[Cowperson]

Leave it to Fozzie de Bear to tell us "the Flintstones is not a documentary."

I spewed diet coke all over the screen Fozzie!!!

Firefly, eloquently stated . . . . however, I still have a problem with organized religion constantly evolving to fit the facts unveiled by science, kicking and screaming all the way, then coming out and trying to fit evolution into "intelligent design" while simultaneously telling us the world began only a few ticks ago.

There's a lot of squirming and non-sensical stuff going on with your side and frankly, I don't know how you wouldn't wonder what the heck is going on sometimes.

It boils down to a bunch of control freaks jockeying for position.

That's why its easy for me to separate God (or Gods) from organized religion. I just wonder if God (or Gods) isn't waiting for organized religion to sort out all their factions and theories and agree on what he/she truly is before stepping out of the closet for the big party.

Lastly, if I'm not mistaken, the concept of the Big Bang is taught as a theory in schools, not a fact, as it probably should be at this point. Its a different topic from Evolution which has been amply demonstrated.

I would also agree that religion and creationism could be taught in schools as part of philosophy and mythology. But its not science.

Cowperson

[Patek23]

My beliefs are simple, I was brought up Catholic, IMO religion is merely an attempt to make people live in a percieved "good" way, I believe in God, Jesus is sorty of iffy with me but I'll let it slide. But back to the point, I believe God created life in the form of all the atoms and molecules and such and we have evolved from it, because somehow somewhere someone had to create something because it has been scientifically proven that nothing cannot create anything, So I just live my day trying to do my best, happy with the fact that I don't have to worry about proving myself nor do I have to denounce the fact that there might be something better and holier than the human form. My other theory which will kick in when I'm older is that God created all that stuff earlier got busy (I know it sounds pretty human like) with some other stuff came back and was like wow look what happened, so now he decides to test us see if we are worthy of going to where he is so he gives us all the tools we need to suceed or destroy ourselves and that our lives are a test through out all our trials and problems if we can stay who we are without changing and maintaining ourselves wether we are conceived of as bad or good people that we will be rewarded for standing tall and staying true to who we are.


I got a few more and all can coencide with each other so I'm not too worried about going to chruch or denouncing anything because all of the other proposed ideas have too many flaws too prove each other wrong, mines a mix of both.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by FireFly@Aug 31 2005, 09:15 PM

Allowing us to wipe ourselves out is based on allowing us to be rational thinkers. Rationally, we would never do that. But he loves us enough to let us make our own decisions, or we'd be passed off due to a lack of free will. Most things that can wipe us out are of our own doing. There is the odd natural disaster, but he's already agreed he'd never allow that to happen, (hence the rainbow in Noah's ark). So we can certainly hurt ourselves, but nothing will ever wipe us out again... at least not of his doing.

The point I poorly tried to make is that with our intelligence, creatures like dinosaurs would have nothing on other more dangerous things; like, disease, famine, etc.

If we (humans) can survive the most brutal assaults of nature and man-made horror, then surely the dinos would have been a breeze. Surely they would have been incorporated into the ecological balance of the planet. If God wanted it of course.

[Flashpoint]

Originally posted by FireFly@Aug 31 2005, 04:12 PM
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?

Because a body of evidence exists for one, and not the other. Conclusive? No. Evidentiary? You bet.

The fact that Creationisim, or Intelligent Design, or whatever new clothing the emperor is wearing has been proven wrong again and again sure doesn't help those advocating it these days.

"Well, I guess we have to finally acknowledge evolution as a fact. But hold the line on the big bang! Science doesn't have enough evidence yet! We still got em there until the particle accelerator is built".

Religion holds back science. This is why I hate it.

[FireFly]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Aug 31 2005, 03:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Aug 31 2005, 03:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='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?

Why can't they say at church; "We don't really know for sure. We have a few ideas, but we can't advocate anything."?

The same reason that they can't do that in science classes. [/b][/quote]
The problem is you're teaching something that isn't science in a science class. While it makes sense to only teach religion in a church, how does it make sense to teach what isn't science in a science class?

In religion, it's faith. You still have that with creation. In science, you only have scientific methodology, and that doesn't hold with the big bang.

[Patek23]

Originally posted by Flashpoint+Aug 31 2005, 02:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flashpoint @ Aug 31 2005, 02:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FireFly@Aug 31 2005, 04:12 PM
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?

Because a body of evidence exists for one, and not the other. Conclusive? No. Evidentiary? You bet.

The fact that Creationisim, or Intelligent Design, or whatever new clothing the emperor is wearing has been proven wrong again and again sure doesn't help those advocating it these days.

"Well, I guess we have to finally acknowledge evolution as a fact. But hold the line on the big bang! Science doesn't have enough evidence yet! We still got em there until the particle accelerator is built".

Religion holds back science. This is why I hate it. [/b][/quote]
What if our first conceived fact or the main thing that we focus on science (I have no idea what that would be but it all had to start from one thing that was proven as a "fact" and then go from there) is wrong and now everything that we have "proven" is not real at all, my problem with religion and science is that both are so arrogant that each others wrong that they can't come to terms that they could both be right to a certain extent.

[FireFly]

Originally posted by Flashpoint+Aug 31 2005, 03:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flashpoint @ Aug 31 2005, 03:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FireFly@Aug 31 2005, 04:12 PM
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?

Because a body of evidence exists for one, and not the other. Conclusive? No. Evidentiary? You bet.

The fact that Creationisim, or Intelligent Design, or whatever new clothing the emperor is wearing has been proven wrong again and again sure doesn't help those advocating it these days.

"Well, I guess we have to finally acknowledge evolution as a fact. But hold the line on the big bang! Science doesn't have enough evidence yet! We still got em there until the particle accelerator is built".

Religion holds back science. This is why I hate it. [/b][/quote]
Science only holds itself back. There is no 'evidence' for the big bang... the same evidence can be used for creation.

We're talking just creation, vs just the big bang. Creationism really only disputes the big bang. Zealots who use it to challenge evolution are fighting the wrong battle.

Creation hasn't been proven wrong. A literal interpretation has been proven wrong, but that isn't to say that a higher being couldn't have created Earth. Only once the big bang is proven correct can creation be discounted.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally posted by FireFly+Aug 31 2005, 09:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FireFly @ Aug 31 2005, 09:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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.

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? [/b][/quote]
The reason they can't teach them equally is becasue THEY aren't equal. Scientists (good ones anyways) NEVER SAY THEY KNOW THE TRUTH, they always have the best option on the table that the constantly test, and test and test. There is lots of gee-whiz science that provide some evidence of the big bang (radiation echoes and other stuff) but it is a SCIENTIFIC MODEL that is being tested, it is not a STORY or a LEGEND or a FABLE.

That is why you can't compare the science with the Old Testament.

Not to say that student shouldn't know that everything that they learn in science today may be improved upon before they die. For example, scientists used to think that the Universe (i.e. all the matter and energy everywhere) was slowing down as it expanded. Then, about five years ago, they found evidence that it was ACCELERATING as it expanded...totally fata'd a lot of scientists, but that is the way it is.

Another interesting thing about science, scientists have made models for all the matter and energy in the Universe...and with the best knowledge we have now we can only account for 30% of it...basically we (humans) don't know 70% of the Universe is made out of. This is 'dark matter' you may have heard of.
________
Group Sex Cams

[Hakan]

Science only holds itself back. There is no 'evidence' for the big bang... the same evidence can be used for creation.

WRONG.

There is substantial evidence for the big bang.

Take your god loving melon out of your god loving ass.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by FireFly+Aug 31 2005, 05:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FireFly @ Aug 31 2005, 05:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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.

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? [/b][/quote]

well how do we suggest creationism as an alternative when we try to teach our kids that ghosts dont exist? There is simply no proof, hence a total waste of time for us to put it in our kids minds. There is a "possibility" that the big bang theory is correct....but there is NO chance that a God exists.
Unlike Cow I have closed the door behind me on the way out of the church...LOLOL

[Flashpoint]

Originally posted by FireFly@Aug 31 2005, 04:26 PM
Science only holds itself back. There is no 'evidence' for the big bang... the same evidence can be used for creation.

Ahem...

Evidence for the big bang - draw your own conclusions

I'm sorry, but to equate creationism (where there is no evidence, nor will there be any, because it is static and unable to change) with a scientific theory (for which more and more evidence will be accumulated in an adaptive form until it is proven or disproven, or CHANGED - unlike the dogma or "faith" of religion) is foolhardy.

Science changes. Dogma doesn't. This is the undoing of creationism.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by FireFly@Aug 31 2005, 03:21 PM

The problem is you're teaching something that isn't science in a science class. While it makes sense to only teach religion in a church, how does it make sense to teach what isn't science in a science class?

In religion, it's faith. You still have that with creation. In science, you only have scientific methodology, and that doesn't hold with the big bang.

This is a little confusing. What do you mean by "it isn't science"? How so? Who says?

[Patek23]

Originally posted by Hakan@Aug 31 2005, 02:27 PM

WRONG.

There is substantial evidence for the big bang.

Take your god loving melon out of your god loving ass.

How does Big Bang discredit creationism? it deiscredits the modern and generally accepted form of thought on creationism, but answer me this? what created these masses that crashed into each other how was the first atom created?

[Bobblehead]

Originally posted by FireFly@Aug 31 2005, 03:26 PM
Science only holds itself back. There is no 'evidence' for the big bang... the same evidence can be used for creation.

Wrong, there is lots of evidence.



link

Edit: OMG, there were 4 new posts since I started this reply!

[Hakan]

what created these masses that crashed into each other how was the first atom created?

I see your point. If we can't understand it then it must be god!

Maybe it was Paris Hilton's dog who made the first atom for all I know. That's completely unconvincing as to the presence of a God.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by Flaming Homer+Aug 31 2005, 05:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flaming Homer @ Aug 31 2005, 05:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Hakan@Aug 31 2005, 02:27 PM

WRONG.

There is substantial evidence for the big bang.

Take your god loving melon out of your god loving ass.

How does Big Bang discredit creationism? it deiscredits the modern and generally accepted form of thought on creationism, but answer me this? what created these masses that crashed into each other how was the first atom created? [/b][/quote]
umm...well maybe it was the 2 Gods Zeuss and Mercury playing dice...the dice rolled off to the side colliding with the atoms that were sitting beside Zeuss thus creating the Universe as we know it?

[Patek23]

Originally posted by Hakan@Aug 31 2005, 02:34 PM

I see your point. If we can't understand it then it must be god!

Maybe it was Paris Hilton's dog who made the first atom for all I know. That's completely unconvincing as to the presence of a God.

Well I thought that it was a scientific fact that nothing cannot create anything? which way is it? or is science wrong? Science doesn't know shinguard, for years it was facts for all sorts of thing, look at facts from 200 years ago to facts now, we have proven most wrong, in another 200 years it will be the same thing. If someone can give me 100% proof that god didn't create the universe than I'll believe it. I'm talking like a written statement from god with witnesses to where he was at the time of the creation