My standpoint on "Separation of Church & State"

[rjensen11]

Duke, I have a question for you:

When you say non-physical, do you mean that literally? Or do you mean non-tangible? I know the two sound alike, but they have a little difference in them.

Oh yeah, another quick question:
Are you opposed to teaching creationism in classes other than the science class? I ask because there's some people who think that there should be alternatives, as so it doesn't infringe on other people's beliefs, and others who say it can't be taught at all.

And this has to relate to the previous/\:
Is it not correct to show the fact that evolution can't explain how everything came to be? It can't explain the first cell, or how the objects inside the cell were formed, or anything about the first anything, really, because people can't pinpoint saying, "That was the first!" but rather only say, "this may have caused this because of this or that?"

I'm trying my hardest to not sound like an asshole or dome dumbass who just wants to spark another argument, but just a curious person who wants to know the opinion of the other side of the debate.

 

[Duke]

When you say non-physical, do you mean that literally? Or do you mean non-tangible? I know the two sound alike, but they have a little difference in them.

Yes, I mean it literally, and yes, they are different - good call. Yet to me the intangible has no bearing on reality.

Are you opposed to teaching creationism in classes other than the science class?

Not at all, which I've tried to make clear throughout this thread. I think that the Creation story fits perfectly into the social studies/humanities/history curriculum, and should be taught there, along with creation stories from all the major world religions. My only objection is to it being taught alongside 'scientific' explanation.

Is it not correct to show the fact that evolution can't explain how everything came to be? It can't explain the first cell, or how the objects inside the cell were formed, or anything about the first anything, really, because people can't pinpoint saying, "That was the first!" but rather only say, "this may have caused this because of this or that?"

SURE it's correct to do that! That's what science is all about. All scientists can do is offer a theory that best explains the existing data. They are comfortable with an existence of uncertainty - their passion is to minimize that uncetainty, and investigate what it contains. When a theory has been exhaustively tested without a contradiction, it is then called a law. Biology class taught me the state of scientific understanding of the origins of life. Physics did the same for the origins of the universe. Neither claimed to know precisely how these events occurred - just the best explanation that fit all the available data.

I'm trying my hardest to not sound like an asshole or dome dumbass who just wants to spark another argument, but just a curious person who wants to know the opinion of the other side of the debate.

And that's great! I'm more than willing to explain the logic behind my thinking. I've spent 30+ years thinking about my morality, my philosophy, and my rationality. Any question you can ask me, I've already asked myself. That's why I'm so willing to defend my thoughts on the subject.

 

[Robin2]

:janitor:

















[edited: Pointless Dribble is edited for lack of content]

 

[Duke]

Ooooh, that was helpful. Why don't you just go away and drool over your own avatar some more.

 

[Der Alta]

Oooooo....Duke lays the smackdown...

AO

 

[rjensen11]

Yeah, um, where'd you find the pic? I mean avatar?

 

[rjensen11]

After looking this over, wow, my biggest thread ever. And with all of the text in it, it could easily be 30 pages... I'm not complaining though, over 200 posts on something I started I'm proud of :burnout:

 

[duo17]

You should be :thumbsup: ,this is where some of the smartest people at GTP meet and discuss. In my opinion this thread is probably one of the best things to come out of GTP ever! The posts actually made sense and got ideas across. Its not like those other threads where every post is one line long, and half the time they are just there because some moron got bored. I really look forward to more threads like this in the future.

 

[Sage]

duo-- In that case, you should check out this thread... another medal contender.

 

[Danoff]

So, when you really think about it. All you need to be able to prove that evolution exists and happens is to recognize that children get their genes from their parents.

I guess you also have to realize that genes are not always transferred perfectly, but I think that's easy to see because of the variations and occasional defects that happen with children.


The result is the following.

Children (of any animal) get their genes from their parents. Only children that get a decent set of genes are able to survive in the wild (that part should be obvious). The ones that survive are able to reproduce and the ones that aren't don't. Now if you factor in the occasional variation, the ones with the good variation survive and pass their genes on and the ones who end up with down syndrome or some other disease end up dead and don't pass their genes one. That part should be an obvious consequence as well.

The result is natural selection and the evolution of a species. The only thing you really have to rely on science for is that children get genes (slightly varied) from their parents. The rest is simple reasoning and really obvious.

So evolution does happen. I don't think anyone can credibly deny that.

Note that evolution doesn't rule out creationism. But it is science and it has been shown to occur through genetic research.

So it is perfectly acceptible to teach this in public schools.

Another thing that is acceptible to teach in public schools is the formation of stars and solar systems. We have observed this empirically with telescopes. We know quite a bit about how our solar system formed and how stars formed. So this information is also fine for public schools.

Now I don't know if the "Big Bang" theory is taught in public schools. I honestly don't remember if they mentioned that to me. To me, it seems to have more supporting evidence than creationsim - which seems like conjecture. However, I could understand leaving that out of the curriculum. The "Big Bang" theory is on its way out anyway, there are new more credible theories about how the universe began.

I still think the only answer that makes any sense is that the universe is the mathematical equivalence of nothing. That it is simply impossible that nothing exists and we can prove that our universe must in all cases exist. But hey, that's for people smarter than me to show. In my mind, it's the only thing that adds up.

 

[87chevy]

I think it would be hard to say danoff's post has no merit. It is very simple. Is it that some people think evolution applies to other things but not humans? Try proving creationism, that's what i'd like to see. I'd like to see someone come up with a good case for creationism with the use of "because the bible says so." maybe i'll just read through the 200 posts.

 

[Frenchie4256]

I agree with Danoff - what did I say??? AAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!

I want someone to explain their creationist beliefs to me without saying: "It says in Genesis..."

Genesis is the Jewish creation myth. I could quote the Epic of Gilgamesh (almost the same) but it would not shed light on the origins of matter, only the origins of my mythology.

 

[240Z]

Great thread.
I don't see any more room for debate that has not been discussed in this thread before.

 

[rjensen11]

Wow, did he just feel like reviving this thing or what? Look at the date difference between his post and the previous post.... Over a year and a half?

Anywho, this post just originated because I had to do an IS for my english class to years ago. I really could give a rat's rear of the subject. Creationism, if it is taught, only really needs to be taught by parents, churches, and church-affiliated schools (Private schools, etc), if it's taught at all. Big Bang should be taught in school, just because of the sake that it's one of the most major scientific theories. Both Creationism and the Big Bang will always be theories. We can't PROVE scientifically one happened or the other, mostly because we can't find evidence to back up one or the other that can't be disputed, which would nullify it from the "evidence" category.

Therefor, I suggest we all just agree to drop the subject and respect whether people believe in some form of Creationism or Big Bang.

As for the evolutionism idea, there is clear, undisputed evidence that it happens constantly. Case closed.

 

[Danoff]

Therefor, I suggest we all just agree to drop the subject and respect whether people believe in some form of Creationism or Big Bang.

Or something else besides those.

I think it's very pessimistic to think that we'll never have evidence for or figure out how our universe was formed. I think it's totally possible that we'll do that and it makes sense to present the evidence for the current theories.

The big bang was not just invented. It comes from empirical evidence from astronomical observation as well as physics. Creationism wasn't just invented either. It comes from a book.

 

[rjensen11]

Or something else besides those.

I think it's very pessimistic to think that we'll never have evidence for or figure out how our universe was formed. I think it's totally possible that we'll do that and it makes sense to present the evidence for the current theories.

The big bang was not just invented. It comes from empirical evidence from astronomical observation as well as physics. Creationism wasn't just invented either. It comes from a book.

Dude, just chill for a second and relax. We will find more and more information helping to prove the Big Bang, but we will never be able to prove it 100%, there will always be a small part that we can't prove, and that mostly has to do with the fact that we can only see so far with our telescopes until the radiation screws up our view. The fact that we can only see things at the speed of light, and that the universe is expanding, it just means we won't be able to see everything we want. I'm just saying that we're ignorant or stupid or anything, it's just that physically, we can't PROVE it, but we can believe it. Even if we get quantum physics and quantum computers running, it will help our understanding, but we won't understand all of it, that is, unless someone has a revalation right as they're dieing and it comes to them right then, but then we'd never know, because they couldn't tell us, because they were dieing and couldn't tell us because they were dieing.....

 

[Danoff]

We will find more and more information helping to prove the Big Bang, but we will never be able to prove it 100%

Maybe not 100% but I'll be we could prove it mathematically at some point. And math is about as close as you get to 100% proof.

 

[87chevy]

Maybe not 100% but I'll be we could prove it mathematically at some point. And math is about as close as you get to 100% proof.

i would like to know why math is so real? It's an idea someone had one time. It's based on numbers, which aren't actually real at all. They are ideas. Very widely accepted ideas however. Math is as real as my belief in God.

 

[ledhed]

1 plus one = 2 no matter how you post it! How much more real can you get ?

 

[240Z]

i would like to know why math is so real? It's an idea someone had one time. It's based on numbers, which aren't actually real at all. They are ideas. Very widely accepted ideas however. Math is as real as my belief in God.

Math itself is not real, but rather a representation. It is as real as calling something "red." While there is no independent thing that is the color red itself, it describes a characteristic. The same thing applies to numbers, i.e. there is no independent thing that is "2" itself, it describes a quantity. I hope this makes sense.