Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 67
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by shrewsbury View Post
    to me you would be the classic Bible basher, which has been going on forever.

    the fact that the Bible in accurate with foreign rulers, geography, military stradegy, mean nothing, you just want the miracles.

    we have had to hear how inaccurate the bible was, how places in the bible did not exist, but when they were found we only heard more excuses. how Jesus could not have existed because Pilate couldn't have existed because the romans kept such accurate records, no pilate no jesus, but wait the proof of Pilate was found, so now lets go to the miracles.

    proof of miracles? you cannot prove miracles with empirical science.

    you want Moses to part the sea of reeds, how about have a scientists create life out of nothing and have it evolve into a human? you can't do that either.

    faith in my god is no different than faith in your science, the human evolution empirical proof is so limited but yet accepted in full.
    Not a Bible-basher at all, I'm in fact a church-goer. Your faith in your God is in fact very different from scientific evidence. That's not putting down your faith at all, religion and science are often at odds with each other. In the scope of the Earth in its entirety, yeah, you're right, our empirical proof of evolution is relatively small. But when you consider what we've been able to develop about evolution over only 200 years (when you look at the scope of time being studied, which is billions of years), it's remarkable, and it continues to mount. Therefore, it makes it the most likely theory.

    By people wanting Creationism (a religious belief, I think you would agree) taught in the same manner of evolution (which we really do have evidence of), it's overstepping a crucial boundary. That's the church going into public schools and saying "Because this is a part of my faith, you have to teach it as a legit alternative, even though I have no evidence OUTSIDE my faith that supports it". In this country, that's flat out wrong.
    Blog: Hidden Content
    Steven Jackson Collection- 30 RCs, 160 #D, 182 GU/Patch, 23 AU, 8 Au/Jsy, Three 1/1
    Jermaine Gresham: 29 RCs, 26 #D, 30 GU/Patch, 25 AU, 29 Au/Jsy
    Steelers: 74 #D, 37 GU/Patch, 22 AU, 6 AU/GU
    Josh Johnson: 16 RCs, 9 #D, 17 Autos

  2. #22


    Wickabee's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    16,935
    Country
    Card Cash
    250.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    2
    Transferred Feedback
    Beckett (66)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    Quote Originally Posted by pghin08 View Post
    Not a Bible-basher at all, I'm in fact a church-goer. Your faith in your God is in fact very different from scientific evidence. That's not putting down your faith at all, religion and science are often at odds with each other. In the scope of the Earth in its entirety, yeah, you're right, our empirical proof of evolution is relatively small. But when you consider what we've been able to develop about evolution over only 200 years (when you look at the scope of time being studied, which is billions of years), it's remarkable, and it continues to mount. Therefore, it makes it the most likely theory.
    Yes, however, how many "most likely theories" over the years have been proven false? The fact is, Jay is right, there is very little evidence on the grand scale. Teaching something as "fact" when it's "the most likely theory" is any better?
    It ends with people jumping up and down claiming evolution as currently laid out by the scientific community is the only possibility and the evidence we have supporting is is in no way actually evidence of something even larger, like alex.
    The fact remains that, while there is more proof for this theory than any other, that does not make it fact. It simply makes it the accepted theory. But that seems to be enough to teach it as fact? There is enough eveidence that much of the Bible is true history, but that's wrong to teach because of the book it comes from. There is not enough evidence to call evolution the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, yet we teach kids that it is anyway.
    To me, that's a double standard.

    Quote Originally Posted by pghin08 View Post
    By people wanting Creationism (a religious belief, I think you would agree) taught in the same manner of evolution (which we really do have evidence of), it's overstepping a crucial boundary. That's the church going into public schools and saying "Because this is a part of my faith, you have to teach it as a legit alternative, even though I have no evidence OUTSIDE my faith that supports it". In this country, that's flat out wrong.
    In actuality, you're probably right. However, I see it more as "If you're going to teach evolution, which is accepted and not fully proven, you should teach creationism as there are enough things in the Bible proven true to think it could be right about this too," but I doubt those who are fighting this fight think like I do.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Wickabee View Post
    Yes, however, how many "most likely theories" over the years have been proven false? The fact is, Jay is right, there is very little evidence on the grand scale. Teaching something as "fact" when it's "the most likely theory" is any better?
    It ends with people jumping up and down claiming evolution as currently laid out by the scientific community is the only possibility and the evidence we have supporting is is in no way actually evidence of something even larger, like alex.
    The fact remains that, while there is more proof for this theory than any other, that does not make it fact. It simply makes it the accepted theory. But that seems to be enough to teach it as fact? There is enough eveidence that much of the Bible is true history, but that's wrong to teach because of the book it comes from. There is not enough evidence to call evolution the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, yet we teach kids that it is anyway.
    To me, that's a double standard.


    In actuality, you're probably right. However, I see it more as "If you're going to teach evolution, which is accepted and not fully proven, you should teach creationism as there are enough things in the Bible proven true to think it could be right about this too," but I doubt those who are fighting this fight think like I do.
    But those things have NOTHING to do with Creationism as a whole. It's not different from saying "In Mein Kampf, Hitler talked about many historically accurate things, so we should teach the Jewish peril as legit social theory". But no one in their right mind would ever say that. You guys seem to think that I believe that evolution is absolute 100% take-it-to-the-bank FACT. I don't. However, I do think that's the most likely scenario for our existence, judged from what we've been able to uncover. These things absolutely do change over time, and who knows what the next thousand years of scientific discovery will bring.

    None of this changes the crux of my argument however. Creationism is a religious belief that was built off of a religious text, and that is undeniable. It isn't scientific theory, and should not be taught as such.
    Blog: Hidden Content
    Steven Jackson Collection- 30 RCs, 160 #D, 182 GU/Patch, 23 AU, 8 Au/Jsy, Three 1/1
    Jermaine Gresham: 29 RCs, 26 #D, 30 GU/Patch, 25 AU, 29 Au/Jsy
    Steelers: 74 #D, 37 GU/Patch, 22 AU, 6 AU/GU
    Josh Johnson: 16 RCs, 9 #D, 17 Autos

  4. #24


    Wickabee's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    16,935
    Country
    Card Cash
    250.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    2
    Transferred Feedback
    Beckett (66)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    Quote Originally Posted by pghin08 View Post
    But those things have NOTHING to do with Creationism as a whole. It's not different from saying "In Mein Kampf, Hitler talked about many historically accurate things, so we should teach the Jewish peril as legit social theory". But no one in their right mind would ever say that. You guys seem to think that I believe that evolution is absolute 100% take-it-to-the-bank FACT. I don't. However, I do think that's the most likely scenario for our existence, judged from what we've been able to uncover. These things absolutely do change over time, and who knows what the next thousand years of scientific discovery will bring.
    Well, for the purposes of this discussion, you've kind of taken the "evolution" side.
    I never claimed to think you believe that though. All I said is it's being taught as absolute fact when, in reality, it's nothing more than the currently accepted theory simply because there isn't enough evidence to call anything an absolute fact. You might not believe it's 100% take-it-to-the-bank, but it's being taught that way in schools. Don't believe me? Ask alex if eveolution is 100% take-it-to-the-bank.
    People are so worried that religious teachings will brainwash kids into believing there is no other alternative to creationism and lead them down a road of misinformation, but no one seems to worry about teaching an only-somewhat proven theory as absolute fact with no alternative. Does that make sense? Why is a preacher evil and a science teacher trustworthy? Makes no sense to me.

    As for Hitler, I don't like that analogy. The Bible has constantly been called out for being inaccurate. The one that always comes to mind is Abraham's city of Ur. For centuries it was believed, and taught, that the fact Ur was not where the Bible said it was meant the whole Bible was a "fairy tale". The Bible placed Ur right in the middle of the desert. There was nothing there, so the Bible was false and all those who followed it were stupid.

    Then they dug far enough and found it.

    If you read Mein Kampf, you can pick out what's true and what's false, especially now with a little hindsight. However, the Bible is all about the past. For so long, so many things in there were ignored because people hadn't found it yet, therefor it must not exist. Thing is, those things end up being proven true every time. Mein Kampf is one man's views. The Bible is a historically accurate account, as far as things have been proven. They are not comparable at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by pghin08 View Post
    None of this changes the crux of my argument however. Creationism is a religious belief that was built off of a religious text, and that is undeniable. It isn't scientific theory, and should not be taught as such.
    I agree. However, evolution isn't proven fact. It's accepted as such (without all evidence present) and taught as such (with no worry about misinforming or brainwashing those kids), but as you said, it is not 100% take-it-to-the-bank fact. So why do we tach it as such?
    Last edited by Wickabee; 02-20-2013 at 11:19 AM.

  5. #25
    Shrew you gotta be kidding me right?

    "Faith in science"?

    Let me ask you something.

    Do you have faith in gravity, atoms, germs, and the heliocentric model?

    Because we are NOT 100% sure those things function the way we think they function....or if they even exist.

    There's a reason why we don't teach Alchemy, Astrology, or Creationism in public schools.

    You're fighting against education, facts, and reality.

  6. #26


    Wickabee's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    16,935
    Country
    Card Cash
    250.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    2
    Transferred Feedback
    Beckett (66)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    Quote Originally Posted by JustAlex View Post
    Shrew you gotta be kidding me right?

    "Faith in science"?

    Let me ask you something.

    Do you have faith in gravity, atoms, germs, and the heliocentric model?

    Because we are NOT 100% sure those things function the way we think they function....or if they even exist.

    There's a reason why we don't teach Alchemy, Astrology, or Creationism in public schools.

    You're fighting against education, facts, and reality.
    So you believe in the existence of things that you admit we don't even know for certain they exist?

    And that isn't faith in science?

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Wickabee View Post
    Well, for the purposes of this discussion, you've kind of taken the "evolution" side.
    I never claimed to think you believe that though. All I said is it's being taught as absolute fact when, in reality, it's nothing more than the currently accepted theory simply because there isn't enough evidence to call anything an absolute fact. You might not believe it's 100% take-it-to-the-bank, but it's being taught that way in schools. Don't believe me? Ask alex if eveolution is 100% take-it-to-the-bank.
    People are so worried that religious teachings will brainwash kids into believing there is no other alternative to creationism and lead them down a road of misinformation, but no one seems to worry about teaching an only-somewhat proven theory as absolute fact with no alternative. Does that make sense? Why is a preacher evil and a science teacher trustworthy? Makes no sense to me.

    As for Hitler, I don't like that analogy. The Bible has constantly been called out for being inaccurate. The one that always comes to mind is Abraham's city of Ur. For centuries it was believed, and taught, that the fact Ur was not where the Bible said it was meant the whole Bible was a "fairy tale". The Bible placed Ur right in the middle of the desert. There was nothing there, so the Bible was false and all those who followed it were stupid.

    Then they dug far enough and found it.

    If you read Mein Kampf, you can pick out what's true and what's false, especially now with a little hindsight. However, the Bible is all about the past. For so long, so many things in there were ignored because people hadn't found it yet, therefor it must not exist. Thing is, those things end up being proven true every time. Mein Kampf is one man's views. The Bible is a historically accurate account, as far as things have been proven. They are not comparable at all.



    I agree. However, evolution isn't proven fact. It's accepted as such (without all evidence present) and taught as such (with no worry about misinforming or brainwashing those kids), but as you said, it is not 100% take-it-to-the-bank fact. So why do we tach it as such?
    Nobody is saying that a preacher is evil and a science teacher is trustworthy. My point is just that they each have their place. Does your high-school science teacher come into your church and catechize about evolution? Of course not, and he/she absolutely shouldn't. Conversely, what would give a preacher the right to go into a science class and talk about Creationism?

    Let me ask you this: Do you think Creationism is a scientific theory, or a belief derived from religious text?
    Blog: Hidden Content
    Steven Jackson Collection- 30 RCs, 160 #D, 182 GU/Patch, 23 AU, 8 Au/Jsy, Three 1/1
    Jermaine Gresham: 29 RCs, 26 #D, 30 GU/Patch, 25 AU, 29 Au/Jsy
    Steelers: 74 #D, 37 GU/Patch, 22 AU, 6 AU/GU
    Josh Johnson: 16 RCs, 9 #D, 17 Autos

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Wickabee View Post
    So you believe in the existence of things that you admit we don't even know for certain they exist?

    And that isn't faith in science?
    No, what I'm saying is that there are certain things which are impossible to fully know.

    However we can build logical assumptions using science to explain how they most likely function.

    Faith is the belief of something without evidence.

    We have evidence of gravity, germs, evolution, etc.

    There isn't any faith involved, thats why it sounds so ridiculous to say we have faith in gravity or atoms.

  9. #29


    Wickabee's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    16,935
    Country
    Card Cash
    250.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    2
    Transferred Feedback
    Beckett (66)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    Quote Originally Posted by pghin08 View Post
    Nobody is saying that a preacher is evil and a science teacher is trustworthy. My point is just that they each have their place. Does your high-school science teacher come into your church and catechize about evolution? Of course not, and he/she absolutely shouldn't. Conversely, what would give a preacher the right to go into a science class and talk about Creationism?
    Unless it turns out that Creationism is the fact and evolution is a logical pipe dream If that were the case, what are we teaching our kids now?

    Quote Originally Posted by pghin08 View Post
    Let me ask you this: Do you think Creationism is a scientific theory, or a belief derived from religious text?
    I don't have to answer that for you to know my answer. Thing is, everyone spouts off about how the Bible was written by man and is therefor fallible, but put all their faith into texts of science. Who wrote those texts? Man.
    Basically, we're deciding what unknown truths to tell our children.

  10. #30


    Wickabee's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    16,935
    Country
    Card Cash
    250.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    2
    Transferred Feedback
    Beckett (66)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    Quote Originally Posted by JustAlex View Post
    No, what I'm saying is that there are certain things which are impossible to fully know.

    However we can build logical assumptions using science to explain how they most likely function.
    So you don't know how it works, but you have an idea how it might work.
    Then that turns into teaching kids "This is how this works. It's a fact"

    And you don't see the parallel with religious teaching?

    Quote Originally Posted by JustAlex View Post
    Faith is the belief of something without evidence.
    No, there's evidence. The earth is here.

    Quote Originally Posted by JustAlex View Post
    We have evidence of gravity, germs, evolution, etc.

    There isn't any faith involved, thats why it sounds so ridiculous to say we have faith in gravity or atoms.
    So you say gravity may not even exist, but believing it does requires no faith? You're contradicting yourself so much it looks like you're arguing with no one.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •