user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
School should be the 3 rs.Creationism can and is taught at Sunday School.Would you teach Auto Shop At a culinary school?
These are modern times and the last thing the US needs is for it to be taken back into the middle ages. If creationism is taken back then sooner or later feudalism is going to be taken back as well. Good poll, real original.
Teach them both, to balance the divergent viewpoints, but have the teachers be sure to remind their students that, if evolution is true, then when they enter the job market, there'll be a Rhesus monkey filling out an application for the same job...
^Truthseeker said it^. That's exactly what I would say. Teach both.
I'd let them teach the idea of creationism but telling them it is true would be wrong, in my opinion.
I'd teach them both same way in college the idea of communism is taught. That way they can choose what they want to believe.
Let's not teach what is demonstrably false. Some aspects of evolution are still in dispute, but the main concept is eminently reasonable. Great heaping gobs of creationism are demonstrably false.
by Wank on Fri Oct 29, 04 12:09am
[+]
Teach creationism in school, because the Bible says its true? If we're going to do that, why stop there?
In biology class, let's teach that bats are birds, insects have only 4 legs, and snakes can talk. The Bible says so!
In Math class, let's teach that the value of pi is not 3.14159; it's an even 3. The Bible says so!
In geology, let's teach that the Earth is flat. The Bible says so!
In science, let's teach that the universe is 6008 years old and the sun goes around the Earth. The Bible says so!
In civics, let's teach that slavery should be legal, women are worth half as much as men, and anyone working on Saturday should be killed. The Bible says so!
One need only read the Wholly BuyBull - uh I mean Holy Bible - to be convinced that creationism is every bit as accurate as anything else in that Good book! Amen!
I dislike the Bible and religion. They are minor annoyances in my life. However, evolution is plainly an absurd idea. The possibility that chemicals formed themselves into a living cell or even a functioning cell membrane (which is itself incredibly complex) is beyond comprehension. Even the method of evolution, genetic mutation, is fanciful. Almost no genetic mutations give any benefit at all to a living creature. Genetic mutations create nothing but freaks. It isn't X-Men you know.
Finally the THEORY of Evolution contradicts the Second LAW of Thermodynamics. I would diagree with Wank. The idea of evolution is not eminantly reasonable. It is a load of old wank. And Neal Anderthal can carry on bashing the Bible instead of discussing the facts. He loves his straw men.
1Neither
2.Teach Tesla, Schauberger , and Marcel-Paul Schützenberger.
3. blow up schools
**schutzenberger**
And Arthur M Young
4 Bash teachers
cretin_slap, why would I need straw men, when I've got you?
Now to the NORMAL people reding this I say: study cretin_slap well. By his very example he proves my case for me better that anything I could say. By his incoherent babbling about evolution, mutation, and thermodynamics, he proves only that he hasn't got the vaguest idea what any of those things even are. But he thinks unless he condemns them his imaginary playmate Jesus will send him to hell, just like cretin read in some Jack Chick tract.
And he always trots out that tired old line comparing evolutionary mutation to the X-men. That indicates his knowledge of science derives from comic books. "The X-men are mutants - don't you see?"
Not entirely from the X-men, though! Cretin also watched "The Flintstones" and was totally convinced by it that dinosaurs and humans once lived simultaneously! [Cretin, that last word means "at the same time". I know reading those big words puts a strain on your lips.]
So, Cretin you've done your duty to your imaginary playmate Jesus now by battling that nasty old evolution. In fact, you've disproven evolution - by your personally DEvovlving from the apes!
[readers, cretin will now think about last line really hard for the next 12 hours, finally figure out it's an insult to him, and fire back an angry comment.} Cretin, don't ever change. We evolutionists are counting on you to prove out case for us!
cretin
Evolution does not violated the law of entropy. I hate it when people say that because most creationists scientists don't even believe that.
They should just teach science. Creationism doesn't have a strong foundation yet but there's plenty of things to critique with evolution. I wonder though, if the same standards that creationists apply to evolution had been applied to Newtonian physics, how far back would we be today?
I dislike the Bible and religion.
by cretin slap
Any idea what that means, Neal Anderthal? Do you think that it means that I think Jesus is my imaginary friend?
Cretin, don't ever change. We evolutionists are counting on you to prove out case for us!
by Neal_Anderthal on Oct 29, 2004
Nothing else will, loser.
Would teachers have to explain each religions creation story, because there are a whole bunch of them. I'm not sure but I think an Egyptian story of creation is that Osiris(or another god) ejaculated into the Nile River and man emerged from his divine goo. I'm assuming creation stories would only be taught after sex-ed.
they do teach auto shop in our public schools
Uh, actually, I was being sarcastic when I said "teach both". Read my previous posts, and you'll know that I'm a staunch separatist between Church and State.
Even calling creationism a science betrays a lack of understanding about what the scientific method is. Science demands that we base theories on what we observe, then test them rigorously to see if we can find evidence that the theory is wrong. Based on the results of those tests, we either scrap the theory, change it, or move on to harder tests. According to the philosophy of science, there is no such thing as a "proven" scientific theory, just theories that have "not yet been disproven". While scientists have found holes in Darwin's original theory, and refined the idea, evolution itself has not yet been disproven.
Creationism, on the other hand, creates a theory based not on what is observed but on a religious idea. It then tries to tear down other theories. Totally unscientific. Any evidence against this "theory" is either dismissed or discredited.
If you want to teach Creationism in schools, teach it in religion class, or mythology class, or literature class. Anything but science because it IS NOT SCIENCE
Neal_Anderthal - I couldn't put it better myself.
As AMSearch explained "Creationist Science" is the biggest oximoron.
Now let's ask these Creationist to teach Evolution and Big Bang in their religious classes "to be fair" as they say... Let's resolve this issue first, and only then we shall talk about (why not to) teaching creationism in schools.
Excuse me.
Aren't there some nice folks who are not Christians.
Oh, I forgot. Those people don't have any rights.
Never mind.
fundy sci. materialists are heading for the rubber room
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sherlock Holmes
"One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid."
- J. D. Watson -The Double Helix-
When leading authorities are all in agreement, they are almost always wrong.
- An Old Axiom
lock em up
"...Then, as now, I had/have absolutely no respect, no respect for the class of all scientists or the class of all their activities. Scientists are one of the lower castes and their activities do not even constitute a "high game" as Robert DeRopp would have it.So, I never lightly enter into a dialogue with any of them. Why get sucked down their cognitive black hole? "
BMN
Yeah! Science, what's with that? Facts, proof, sound reasoning?
Who wants that when you can have fairy tales!
oh oh
CRETIN SLAAAAAP wheere rrr uuu?! .He thinks im a religious creationist
sic im
Derek Dillon
Robert Grace
George Merkl
Nikola Tesla
Viktor Schauberger
May a Tsunami wipe every skool from Gaia
May a baboon spot you 600 moves in a Rubiks Cube contest , Dear sir
no matter how much creationists try to slime evolution, it's still better than their theory. they try to say "it's just a theory", but that's not what it's about. that's the excuse their using.
I agree with the person who said that creationism should be taught in literature class, religion class, or mythology. I also agree with the person who said that if we are going to teach creationism, then we need to discuss ALL creation myths. Every culture/religion has creation myths. When I do a mythology unit in my class, I discuss the Greek Gods. Now, my students obviously know that those stories pertain to those ideals and cultures. They aren't leaving thinking that Athena was borne from an armpit. I have students of all races, religions, and creeds...it's not fair to assume that teaching Christian creationsim wouldn't offend my Jewish students, Arab students, etc. I think that each class has topics that solely pertain to that class. How could a science teacher teach the scientific method involving creationism? religion is faith-based, science is fact-based. There wouldn't be a logical, cohesive way to prove or disprove creationism. I'm not trying to offend anyone, I'm just saying that certain topics belong in certain classes.
Thanks SpeakingUp.
Finally: a bit o' common sense.
(Something sorely lacking on Bestandworst).
I don't know bout yall, but my dessicants diddn't come from no monkey hangin on no tree. Naw I agint got no collede edumacashun, but I know they cant prove biologee or chemostry anyhow. Besides all dem fossils are tricks. What we should really focus on is Jesus. Don't temp God by asking these high falluted questions. Yall don't want to go to hell naw.
I think creationists should be taught paleontology 101.
Great gag CouchGnome. Now do the bit about the Bibo, and then go hyuk snnoorrtt! Your ridicule really shuts down a debate. Who'd want to debate things sensibly now that you have unleashed your destructive humour? Those creationists must be struck dumb. Do you still think i'm religious, CouchGnome?
"Your ridicule really shuts down a debate."
because we all know how above that kind of pettiness you are.
"Why not make your own ballot? How about, I'm an atheist and I think that everyone should be equally ignorant as me."
"You lot are fucking useless."
"I think that's a pathetic, gutless, view to have of existence. neothe1, you are a fucking coward. Buk buk buk buk BBKEERRRK!!"
"He's just one of the whiny little fuckers who like pissing on all things good and holy."
"Do you still think i'm religious, CouchGnome?"
yes, you've clearly expressed that fact
Are you and CouchGnome special friends, neothe1? I was hoping that maybe he had read one of my many posts in which I say that I am not religious, and that I think they represent neither God nor man. I stand by those quotes. Especially the one that calls you a gutless chicken. Buk buk buk buk BBKEERRRK!!
"I was hoping that maybe he had read one of my many posts in which I say that I am not religious"
adjective: having or showing belief in and reverence for a deity
Great question.
Creationism is not and never will be an alternative to Evolution.
The only valid place to mention Creationism is wherever you talk about mythology. For example, in Religious Education lessons.
The sooner we all accept that Creationism is not Science the better this world will be.
yeah and teach them the stork theory as an alternative to reporodction while they are at it
I've been signed up for Obedience School. Look at my classes this semester:
CR 101 Creationism: God Did It, Now Just Accept it!
SC 101 Santa Claus and his place in the universe.
EB 101 The Easter Bunny
and Easter Eggs: The Connection.
TF 101 The Tooth Fairy:
You Can't Handle the Tooth!
I'm so excited!!
Evolution theory is not perfect, but if we are to use reason and the scientific method, we must teach it as the best explanation that accounts for the facts as we understand them.
Creationism has its place in understanding the ways men have sought to understand themselves before science, and it cannot be ruled out by science as a possible explanation for the world. So, teach evolution in schools and creationism in churches.
You sound as if this is a big deal. 96% of the world`s population are quite happy to watch you being collectively insane.
I feel justified in saying that teaching creationism is similar to teaching holocaust denial. That sounds provocative I know, but in my oppinion it's just as damaging to teach people that God made everything exactly as in the bible as it is to teach them that the holocaust is a hoax. There will always be people who say they want to challenge accepted opinion and 'open free debate', but usually they have something else to prove. The reason a consensus exists on issues like this is because the vast majority of evidence supports. It's dangerous to give people alternative theories, however plausible they sound, because in doing so you're teaching them to dissregard evidence in favour of myths and half-truths.
I'm all for free speach, but education is a special case. The values we teach our children in school often remain with them for life. We can't present them with two hypotesis and say they're equally plausable, when one is supported by evidence to a far, far greater degree than the other.
Voted : Teach evolution in religion class!!!
these two concepts have the same outcome. We as intellectuals need to ask definite questions in order to reach the ethically moral outcome, which involve the essence of the foundated question, for the sake of argument that indicate the same premise and the same outcome. The problem is the use of conceptualization on terms that are synonymous .
|
|
