America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

I say no- because we have no proof and why teach something we have no empirical evidence of.

Problem with public schools now they cannot teach without propagandizing.

You build strong minds when you aren't afraid to learn. Literature isn't science based, art isn't science based, physical education isn't science based

OP keep falling into the spiral were sinking down, the puppeteers appreciate the support.

Not in a science class but OK in a Religion or philosophy class. It just isn't science.

Wow gryph, stir up the pot eh?

Anyway, evolution teaches a very slow and gradual change from simple to very complex (in a nutshell). There is micro evolution, change within a specie, and macro evolution or Darwinism, one life form changing over a long period of time into another. The latter is what we are talking about here. With that in mind, if evolution is true then we should see evidence of it in the fossil record. In fact, we should see this gradual change all over the fossil record. What we can actually observe is the appearance off all kinds of animals but very distinctive in characteristics. When we see a fish, it is definitely a fish...and so on. We are hard pressed to observe this slow gradual change. Instead we see distinct lines between the different species.

If we look at the definition of the two models of evolution and creationism and predict what we should find in the fossil record based on those definitions, and then examine the evidence that we have today in the fossil record and the geological column, I am convinced that the scales are tipped towards creation more than evolution.

I have changed my view after reading zrx1200 post.

He makes a very good point (albeit not so clearly) a good portion of people, need art and romance. Not everything in life is clinical.
He then also makes the case against it by pointing out the inherent misgivings schools have, they use authority to propagandize.

I am now just confused.

Sir, with respect; I believe it was a strategic mistake for the Church to take an adversarial stance against evolution. There was no need and they created division purely based on fear of losing control. Imagine if they had done the same with Medicine?

I was just looking at the observed evidence that we have today and which model it better supports. I don't think church or religion needs to be brought into the teaching of creationism or evolution. Just the facts ma'am, the bare facts. Also con toto respetto!

Sam

My point was not to stir the pot. I think this is a very debatable question in our society today.

My point was if they were teaching critical thinking subject matter shouldn't be the big deal it is.

You did well Gryph......that is an excellent question you asked.....thanks for asking.

Gryph sees himself as cbids John Handy.

You're throwing the baby out with the bath water and not really getting the point of my post. No one is going to change anyone's view on this subject and numerous other topics so we are all pretty much just wanking off here.

This is not science. I'm sorry, but even if you do take religion out of it completely, your argument falls flat on its face.

In a nutshell, you're using the "well you can't prove this theory completely, so this unrelated idea must be true".

Evolution has evidence. We can see micro-evolution within our lifespan, we see fossil evidence of species with clear relationships and divergences over the centuries of our planet's existence.

What evidence does one have for creation? Your claim that there are "distinct lines"? Even if that were a valid claim (and I don't believe it is), that isn't evidence of creation. Creation isn't a theory. You don't have a valid agency, a method, anything that could be proven or disproven. Are you saying aliens dropped specific species on the planet? What color aliens? How did they fly their ships? Did they just drop eggs or entire communities? You've taken religion out of the argument, so you have to have a non-deity agency to perform these actions...

This is the problem with religion. It allows people to believe that they can replace critical thought with a patch by throwing an omnipotent power in the mix. Look closely at the theory of evolution, how it builds on scientific concepts (such as mendelian genetics) and how new scientific concepts are able to be fit in with it. This is a well developed theory, with an agency, a time frame, supporting evidence and some real-life examples. You have none of this with "creationism".

winner-winner, chicken dinner.

We teach scientific theories.

What's the science behind the universe beginnings?

Something cannot come from nothing, "big bang" or not.

What empirical evidence do we have that our established ides on black holes and dark matter are fact?

Z...
I like you, but that's a dumb statement. (I mean that in the nicest way tho!)

That same argument can be used against ANY theory and ANY religion until someone can either prove: 1 - That some random deity which they communicate with has actually existed forever (not just human "forever" but actual forever beyond time) or 2 - An implementation of theoretical physics which replicates enough parts of any origination theory to prove you can create something out of nothing.

^ It is a good time to be alive............new discoveries are very cool.....i just wish we could discover a way to make one grow taller instead of trying to lose weight.........how about you get on that for me scompay.....when i bend over, it's like trying to fold a grapefruit in half!

Thanks,
Sam

I am fascinated by religion (all or most of them), their practices and historical context. A few years back I decided to learn more about as many as I can. Life got to busy and I've fallen down on my task a bit but I'll get there. I am amazed at the people that will not study another religion because the fear it. Its the same with folks that think you can't comment on it if you don't don't share a particular faith. Somehow having a closed mind gets confused with being vigilant or smart...... meh....

bloviating aside


I think all (major) religions should be taught in school. It would be great if every single religion could be taught but there are just too many. So take the most prevalant world religions (6-12 or whatever and yes non beleif etc should be included) that represent the largest share of the population (90% or whatever.....) You'd need to make suree you are careful with it because emotion and bias is hard to avoid.... nature of the beast. You need not have a muslim bashing christianity or vice versa but should teach where and why the tensions are that exist.

As for science.... none should be taught as a science. The one I am familiar with that comes closest is buddhism for several reasons but I still would not put it in that bucket.

opinions, aholes etc.

Here is a question; how do we deal with the fact that each religion is based on denouncing its predecessor. For instance Christianity denounces Judaism and Islam denounces Christianity.

I agree in principal that we would solve much of the problems in the world if we taught the history of all religions. I know the Jews and Arabs would be shocked how their religion is uniquely identical.

I learned a lot about Islam from talking in depth with my muslim friend (who has no desire to kill whitey and is a good muslim). He does recognize some flaws in the practice of his religion and wishes the extremists did not represent the face of his religion to the west. It is not how he was brought up to practice but folks who fancy themselves experts in the religion because they hate it think differently.

The most fascinating conversation I had with him involved the sunis and shiites (sp?), where they evolved from, why there is unrest between them (violance) and how stupid it is..... all in laymans terms. It certainly didn't rise to an academic conversation like religious conversations in here do LMAO. It did devolve into a poo and handwashing conversation but that was my fault.

Islam has to denounce Christianity, because it blames it for straying from Judaism.

Have you also noticed how similar Islam and Judaism are. Is it like one of worlds best kept secrets.

Moreso with Islam and Christianity perhaps.... I was referencing christianity and judiasm. But Islam need not denounce Christianity any more than Christianity needs to denounce Judiasm and vice versa all around LOL

All three religions are very similar, folks just don't want to admit it. And those are fightin words to some folks from all sides. Even within each of those religions there are factions pissed at each other and willing to die for it.

Just sharing tidbit you will find interesting. Before they passed all the smoking laws. His Eminence the Dalia Lama would frequent this cigar lounge at the Ritz Carlton. I never saw him there but sat often in that legendary chair.

Yes the very concept of health and using heath to get closer to gods is absent from all other religions, but Hinduism and its subculture Buddhism. And i am also fascinated how we in the west have finally seen the light and trying to be like them.