legislature fouls up again & Jindal will not stop it

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by red55, Jun 17, 2008.

Page 3 of 6
  1. mobius481

    mobius481 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    7,731
    Likes Received:
    1,350
    What about those talking apes from that movie with Charlton Heston. Where are they?
     
    mobius481, Jun 18, 2008
    #21
  2. Krypto

    Krypto Huh?

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,181
    Likes Received:
    272
    there are so many gaps.
     
    Krypto, Jun 18, 2008
    #22
  3. CParso

    CParso Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,852
    Likes Received:
    368
    The difference is that teachers were not mandated to discuss the religious aspect of whether god exists or not. You cannot really stop them from bringing it up to their class if they want to.

    Typically, scientists are not religious. That's what being taught to think for yourself & not accept magic will do to you.

    And evolution is proven, although not all aspects of it.

    Creationism cannot be disproven but neither can the speghetti monster.

    None of my science teachers ever brought up religion, and when asked about it they usually said the two could co-exist.
     
    CParso, Jun 18, 2008
    #23
  4. BP

    BP Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2003
    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    739
    Wrong!!!! Evolution does not mean there is no creator. In fact one of the greatest paleontologists and geologists of the last century, and a person who greatly expanded our knowledge of evolution, was a Jesuit priest (no wise cracks about Jesuits not being Catholic) by the name of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

    Science is concerned with that which can be proven. By definition faith cannot be proven (or else you wouldn't need faith). Thus science has nothing to say about God since His existence cannot be proven or disproven. Creationism is not science since it depends on the existence of a Creator, which as stated above, cannot be proven or disproven.
     
    BP, Jun 18, 2008
    #24
  5. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Are you saying that they taught evolution without mentioning any creation by God? That's what it's all about, chief! God has nothing to do with it. You had said that evolution teaches that there is no God, which is not true. It only teaches a process in which "creation" plays no part.

    Is the problem that they stick to science or that they don't stick to science? Evolution has no religious connection.

    They should teach science in science class and social studies in social studies. Everything in its proper place. Nothing excluded.

    Ah, you become wise grasshoppa. The connection is in your mind. Science cannot prove matters of faith nor can faith prove matters of science. The two can co-exist as long as there is no confusion as to what belongs where.

    I do not advocate stifling the ancient and endearing creation stories from all over the world. Not at all, I think they should be studied and taught. I just don't understand how some people mistake folklore for science and insist that it be taught as science, by scientists who think it is hogwash. Let it be taught as culture by anthropologists who study folklore enthusiastically and scientifically. Let it be taught a theology by religious students. Let it be taught as faith by priests and holy men who have deep religious beliefs.

    Just don't tell me it's science.
     
    red55, Jun 18, 2008
    #25
  6. Tigerbnd05

    Tigerbnd05 National Champs 2003 2007

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    69
    The problem was they weren't sticking to science, they were saying its proof there is no higher being. Make more since? It gives me somewhat of a bias because it was not taught correctly to me. I do understand that is not meant to have any connection but the teachers were most assuredly making a point for atheism(which is a religous view in and of itself).
     
    Tigerbnd05, Jun 18, 2008
    #26
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    That would be an erroneous conclusion for them to make. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

    Atheism is is not a religious view, by definition. It is, in fact, a denial of religion.
     
    red55, Jun 19, 2008
    #27
  8. LSUAthletics

    LSUAthletics Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    49
    You give an example of evolution within species. Science is lacking concrete proof that one species can jump its genetic track and morph into another entirely different species.
     
    LSUAthletics, Jun 19, 2008
    #28
  9. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    So you admit that evolution is a real process. I gave you an human-observed example of evolution that you said did not exist. Canis lupis evolved into canis lupus familiaris. Your chihuahua evolved from the gray wolf . . . and DNA confirms it.

    Nonsense. That is not how speciation works at all! :lol: This is an old and discredited Creationist talking point that is based on ignorance at best and on disinformation at worse.

    No scientist has ever described evolution as "one species jumping its genetic track and morphing into another entirely different species." Evolution works through speciation, whereby an original species evolves into two sub-species (often by isolation of a group) and eventually into separate subsequent species.

    Chimps did not evolve into humans. Humans and chimpanzees both evolved from a common ancestor.
     
    red55, Jun 20, 2008
    #29
  10. Tigerbnd05

    Tigerbnd05 National Champs 2003 2007

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    69
    Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism.

    Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.


    In my opinion, and it is always up for debate, the choice not to believe there is a or many higher beings in the universe is still a set of beliefs like others have which choose to believe the exact opposite. Just because one is an organized group and the other is not, doesn't mean it is not religion. But you are right, it assuredly does not match up with the most conventional definitions of religion. I just don't like to limit myself by a strict definition in a dictionary:yelwink2:
     
    Tigerbnd05, Jun 20, 2008
    #30
Page 3 of 6

Share This Page