Creationism SHOULD be taught in school. ( alongside science theories! )

a reply to: deadlyhope

That if more people were like them, the world would advance in better ways.

Well we do know that if most people were like you [utterly dismissive of science], then we wouldn't have the advanced society we have now. Society would still look a lot like it did when men wrote the Bible.

a reply to: deadlyhope
Sorry, I assumed when I said you, you would realise that I was talking in generalities.
Once again, I haven't declared any belief system, not that it matters, because you categorise everyone as a believer in God, or an athiest.
That's your myopic p.o.v.
And of course, you fall back on the "unopen to discussion" , when I refuse to buy your fantasy, when you are the ones (again, a generality) that refuse to accept the reality of scientific truth, and instead chase your tail in circles, barking "faith, faith, faith".
Im sorry you feel that I think I'm superior, but you wring, on so many levels.
I reject your p.o.v., not from a sense of superiority, but because the evidence points elsewhere.
I reject it because you demand proof from us that science isn't a belief (which we have given you in spades, multiple times), but refuse to explain how creationism is science.
Therefore, in that respect, I am merely playing the debate a little closer to your level...what you refer to as not open to discussion.
I absolutely am open to discussion.
What I am not open to is disingenuous arguments, and circular logic.
I am not open to discussing a subject with people that aren't even that knowledgeable about the subject they are a debating.
And, I would guess neither is anyone else.
I'm sorry you feel that I think I'm superior because I have more knowledge on the subject, (both if them), than you, but what you see is fact, not brag.
Clear?

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

You assume a lot about me.

I am not utterly dismissive of science. I love science, it fascinates me, it actually plays a more important role in my life than any religion does.

I am utterly dismissive of people using the word "science" to posit superiority in ludicrous ways, especially when applied to questions such as how the universe was created.

I go to a doctor, not a shaman or priest ( though I wouldn't berate those that do..)
I maintain my vehicle, I don't just pray it will maintain itself.

I believe in science, the pursuit of more intelligence, higher technology, more understanding of our own world, and the universe. I advocate these things.

I do not believe any of that dismisses religion. It does in the sense that religion is not scientifical in the traditional sense, and sure, I'll agree this late into the thread it should not be taught in school - not in the way I presented at least.

See? I can learn from others points of views, even if I personally don't hold those views. I won't assume anything about you, I'd ask you do the same.

a reply to: VictorBloodworth

Read my previous post in reply to another.

a reply to: deadlyhope

You assume a lot about me.

I am not utterly dismissive of science.

Did I assume? Here is your quote verbatim. A quote from the same page as my post.

Your science is even more mystical and deluded than any religion I know.

That sounds utterly dismissive to me.

I love science, it fascinates me, it actually plays a more important role in my life than any religion does.

That's great to hear. I share those sentiments. I just don't understand how it reconciles with so much of what you have thus far said...

especially when applied to questions such as how the universe was created.

There is nothing wrong with science addressing questions if potential answers can be explored by observing the known Universe. It's not like science is claiming it can address events taking place in metaphysical realms. Yes, science has its limitations. Hence religious people taking that leap of faith.

a reply to: deadlyhope

To be fair, you've done as much assuming about others in here as anyone.
It's good that you've learned something.
This may be the first thread on here ever, where someone who wanted creationism taught in school beside science, has admitted they were wrong.
But I agree with lunacy...you've made many contradictory statements.
This is why its hard to take your arguments seriously.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I can't edit it anymore, and said that out of context. Science is far too broad to address in such a way . I meant to say "scientists" are more deluded than most religious people I know. scientists are becoming too political. "facts" seem to change daily based on who's funding them. Take many topics debated here on ats for instance, climate change, 9/11, and such. Scientists on both sides have been proven to take a stance based on who they're funded by.

I'm much more interested in the science and philosophy itself than I am interested in self-interested men that can be bought.

Show me someone without an agenda, without a superiority complex, that can't be bought - and I'm interested in what they have to say on a topic.

Science itself is amazing, and worthy of our time and energy.

"Scientists" on the other hand.. Is something I could create a whole extra thread on.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: deadlyhope

If creationism should be taught in our schools then so should mysticism.

God forbid we try and think outside our box! A prime example of humans believing we know it all.

Science is key.. right? Wrong. There are multiple facets to how we came to exist. I don't think science (or at least current science) can even go 1/4 of the way to explain it. I don't think it ever will.

And don't by any means jump to the conclusion I am meaning creationism is the answer.

Science class. History class. Geography class...

They can only teach what we currently know. In 10, 50, 100 years. What we know/understand will quite possibly be very different.

The more we discover, the more we learn. And by default, theories and even current believed "facts" will be discredited and forgotten.

That's why it's always necessary to keep an open mind outside of what we are told to be fact.

Creationism
Magic ( Unknown : dont know what make it tick )

VS
Evolution
Science ( Known : Knows What Makes it Tick )

Whats Better in Schools ?

The KNOWS ..

Gods , Angels, Demons :
Just a Civilization Type III Advanced beings to me.

It Sicking Evangelist are Homeschooling
their Children ..

although ::: the only favor I have for Creationist is..


Scientist have the Idea that :

This Universe is a Hologram Universe!
Or a Dimension Level Universe!
a Computer like Mainframe Simulation if you will.
like Tron , Matrix , 13th Floor..


Our Universe May Be a Giant Hologram
Physicist Brian Greene explains how properties at the black hole’s surface—its event horizon—suggest the unsettling theory that our world is a mere representation of another universe, a shadow of the realm where real events take place.
By Brian Greene|Thursday, August 04, 2011
discovermagazine.com...

Is the universe a hologram?

Date:
April 27, 2015
Source:
Vienna University of Technology
Summary:
The 'holographic principle,' the idea that a universe with gravity can be described by a quantum field theory in fewer dimensions, has been used for years as a mathematical tool in strange curved spaces. New results suggest that the holographic principle also holds in flat spaces. Our own universe could in fact be two dimensional and only appear three dimensional -- just like a hologram.
www.sciencedaily.com...

Are We Living in a Hologram?
Oct 27, 2010 04:59 PM ET // by Ian O'Neil
news.discovery.com...


What Is the Universe? Real Physics Has Some Mind-Bending Answers
Science says the universe could be a hologram, a computer program, a black hole or a bubble—and there are ways to check
Read more: www.smithsonianmag.com...
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://(link tracking not allowed)/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
www.smithsonianmag.com...


and we have CERN .. Seeking for the Answers ... Black Holes, God Particle , Dimensions , etc...

a reply to: deadlyhope

Ceationism is not a theory. Far from it. It should not be taught in school.

originally posted by: PurpleDog UK
Are we still talking about this.....??

There is NO God.......whether Budda, God with a beard, Mohammed with a bigger beard or a.n.other man made creation......

OP - you asked for proof from anyone on ATS being 'several billion years old'.....?

In return can you offer me any proof of a divine being or God enabling creationism......?

The sooner you divorce politics and religion from ones life then the simpler and better LIFE becomes....

Regards

PDUK

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: namelesss

So you're billions and billions of years old and have acquired all knowledge and wisdom about everything in that time?

Congratulations, mate. That's awesome.

Seriously though, you can't prove it to be false.

Seriously though, you wouldn't 'know' that, would you?
If you were honest, without needing to feed 'beliefs', you would simply have asked me for elucidation, which I would have gladly supplied.
But your sarcasm, and telling me what I cannot do, indicates that you are not being intellectually 'honest', that you do not want to 'learn something'/understand, just attacking something that makes the ego/beliefs feel threatened, uncomfortable.

a reply to: namelesss

I've studied the beginning of the universe.. I agree with some scientific models that explain it. I definitely don't believe it to be "truth" though. Simply our latest opinion based on knowledge gathered over time. It does not make it factual, and I don't know if we will ever have the facts, we do have ideas that are supported by what we do know of science,but I really don't know if I believe we will find the actual answer.

This isn't a fear or makes me uncomfortable. I simply won't concede that a topic this vast should be handed over to only one group of people, when there's millions of ways the universe could have came about, including ways we don't and can't understand. Perhaps laws and theories that exist now, didn't then. Is it ignorant for me to make assumptions about what could have been so many billions of years ago?

a reply to: deadlyhope

There are many competing ideas about universal origin, but that does not make them equal with scientific theory backed by evidence.

The idea that the universe is a dreamed into existence by Brahma every 864 billion years (or 100 years of Brahma) should be taught in religious or cultural studies, not in science class.

The idea that the universe was created by the Great Rainbow Serpent during the Aboriginal Dreamtime should be taught in religious or cultural studies, not in science class.

The idea that the universe was poofed into existence by a magic man with a beard shuld be taught in religious or cultural studies, not in science class.


The idea that every idea out there has equal merit and deserves to be heard is just nonsense. We don't give equal time to ideas that are clearly wrong or harmful, nor should we. Do you think everytime a geologist speaks we need to give equal footing to the flat earth society, or everytime medical advice is given it has to be accompanied by witchdoctors notes? It's nonsensical and counter productive.

a reply to: MrConspiracy

I would say that science is a key, and the only one we have that embraces the repetition of experimentation that returns the same results.

As to Creationism and/or Mysticism, the only school those should be taught at is Hogwarts.

Science will never give us all the answers but it may just allow us to build/develop the tools to answer some of the larger problems we face as a species. IMHO religion will just keep us all going in circles whilst killing one another over what amounts to the same belief(or at least a very similar belief system).

originally posted by: deadlyhope
I've seen a lot of threads, and plenty of articles and opinions elsewhere saying that creationism should not be taught in school, and frankly, I must disagree. School is supposed to teach the kids to think for themselves, not to follow the agenda of one political party. Evolution, and creationism should be taught in the same classroom as these are both the most widely accepted theories on how the world came about. If a third opinion came about, and was accepted and believed by a large amount of people, I would encourage that being taught, too.

You see, it's not about religion. I wouldn't tell the teacher to teach about prayer, morality, they aren't going to tell these kids how to conduct their lives under the banner of a specific sect, that's not what i am talking about - I am talking about teaching the most commonly accepted theories on how this world came about, even if conservatives dislike science and evolution, and even if liberals dislike creationism.

If anyone here on ats is several billion years old and can prove they are so old, we can have a law, or fact, or assurity on how the world came about, and we can be sure that schools only teach that. In the meantime, while we are working with theories, while we don't have a DVD that recorded earth billions of years ago, we should be teaching kids in an open minded way, we shouldn't be so quick to pigeonhole their thinking to accept only one answer - an answer that is just as much a theory itself as anything else.

I believe this should apply to all classrooms - teach the kids real history, tell them how other countries, and we interpret that history, then let them decide for themselves how to learn from the past. When I grew up I was simply reading a comic book featuring the great hero, USA.

While I realize I'll get some flack from the other side - please keep it civilized, and attempt to explain why the most common theory - THEORY - about how the world was made, should not be taught to children.

For the record - I'm talking about how the world came about, not about mutations of species and evolution over time - I realize some aspects are indeed facts, and believe schools should teach them as such.

Cheers ats, have a great weekend.

-deadlyhope

Sorry but no.
Firstly creationism isn't a theory.
At the very best it's an hypothesis.
So to keep all things fair should we teach children about every available and known hypothesis about how the universe came to be?


Should we teach Terry Pratchett's writings on how the universe came to be alongside what we know, Tolkien's perhaps?
What about the Sumerian's version, after all they're the most ancient of writings so by your logic they must be the most accurate?
Aliens?

Why single yours out for special attention?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MrConspiracy

I would say that science is a key, and the only one we have that embraces the repetition of experimentation that returns the same results.

As to Creationism and/or Mysticism, the only school those should be taught at is Hogwarts.

Science will never give us all the answers but it may just allow us to build/develop the tools to answer some of the larger problems we face as a species. IMHO religion will just keep us all going in circles whilst killing one another over what amounts to the same belief(or at least a very similar belief system).

Science certainly isn't perfect but it's a method which is always changing and adapting (can I say evolving?) over centuries.
Religious "explanations" stopped several thousand years ago.

So which should be taught...?

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Simply to teach that it's just as valid as any other theory on how the universe was made, at any point in time - can anyone in this thread show me something that's not a theory about how to universe came about? It would be news to me.

But it's not just as valid as any other theory. This is the one glaring flaw that religious folks constantly ignore. Scientific theories hold substantially more weight than some guy looking up in the guy and guessing that god did it. Look up scientific theory.

You should try familiarizing yourself with the scientific method, so you can understand where scientific theories come from. They aren't just made up and believed blindly like religions or worldviews. Physical evidence that is testable and verifiable is a REQUIREMENT for a scientific theory. Creationism doesn't fit the bill. I'm all for teaching it in a philosophy class or religious education class, but it doesn't belong in science, plain and simple.

Just imagine how a science class would be if we taught complete guesswork alongside science.

"Well, kids, today we will learn about weather patterns and what causes thunder and lightning. First we will talk about how warm fronts colliding with cold fronts has been shown to cause storms and how we know it. Next we will talk about the Zeus theory."

"Today we will be covering gravity, also known as intelligent falling"

"Today we will be covering mitosis. We will discuss how the process works, and then we will talk about how god's hand controls the process"

"Today we will learn about Volcanoes and what exactly causes eruptions. After that we will discuss how the ancient gods all live inside of the earth and cause earthquakes and volcanic activity when they are angry"

"Today we will discuss how the digestive system works. After that we will talk about the theory that invisible gnomes regulate the bacteria that controls the whole process"

Don't you see how utterly stupid that would be? All that would lead to is a complete waste of class time talking about things we know are wrong or have no evidence. Science should be taught in a science class. Nothing else. If you hate evolution because it conflicts with literal bible interpretations, that isn't the fault of science. Critical thinking matters, and it's something creationists completely avoid to justify their worldview and claim it is factual or "just as valid as any other theory". Nope.

a reply to: Barcs

For the record, this thread is basically over and I have conceded that the scientific method should be used in science class, and religion should not be. Thanks for replying to the original messages, but for anyone reading from now on - I disagree with my original post, and agree the scientific method should be used in the science class.