Debate Topic: (short version) Should Creation be taught in schools as well as Evolution/Big Bang? (Long version): So, currently the only information given in the public school system about the creation of the world is the Evolution and Big Bang Theories. Technically, these are both theories, because no matter how much evidence science finds, there were no witnesses, and the can never be %100 positive, making it a theory. Creation is also technically a theory, just with a different sort of evidence. Therefore, shouldn't both theories by taught in our schools so that students have to opportunity to choose for themselves, not just accept what they are fed from their teachers. Isn't that one of the problems many atheists have with Christians, that they are just force fed their religion from the parents? And yet, the same thing is being done in our school systems. Finally, it would not be violating the Constitution by breaking the separation of government and religion, because it would not be endorsing one specific religion. Almost all forms of religion have their own creation theory, and so if these, and the Big Bang/Evolution theories were presented, the students could then make their own decisions. I think that the way we operate currently is quite one-sided.
I thought we were supposed to read the bible and believe it literally? If so, there can be no reading between the lines. According to strict religion, we are to take the bible, read it as it is, and do NOTHING to alter its meaning whatsoever. No reading between the lines. Because once you read between the lines, its a personal interpretation. Strict religion certainly does not support personal interpretation. No. As my biology teacher told us, creationism is an unsupported idea. Its not a science, and has as much evidence as saying that the universe was created by me or you.
If students want to learn from the creationists' point of view, they can go to church or wherever for it, not school. Separation from church and state in the US bill of rights.
I would also like to respond to this. Public schools arent created to be "fair" or anything like that, they are meant to educate the public in a way that makes them most useful. Generally, sciences are very secular since when you bring religion into science, you are diverting education away from tangible usefulness.
If you teach creationism in schools you would also have to teach every creation story form every religion, not just Christianity's point of view. I agree with the creepy clown man and jk, if you want to learn about an unscientific religious story you can go to a church.
... Please support your argument with evidence, not unfounded BS -_- http://google.about.com/od/socialtoolsfromgoogle/a/android-vs-iphone.htm
In the words of Matt Smith (11) himself: "I love them all equally more than each other." Note: Yes, he actually said that. In response to the question: "Who's your favorite companion, Clara, or Amy and Rory?"
"Reading between the lines" is a barely valid response at that, but here there are no lines to read between to support your assertion! That quote said, very clearly, if you do not TRY to work for the lord you will not join him in heaven. Go big or go home. That makes no proposal of a) What heaven is like at all or b) What happens to the memories of the damned. That support is completely irrelevant.
From the same source you had linked: Where iPhone Shines The iPhone is certainly a great phone with many great features. From the expansive and ever growing iTunes store, to great quality music player, and outstanding camera and video camera and a very stable operating system, the iPhone is certainly no slouch. Phone calls sound clear and, once you learn you way around, the user interface is very user friendly.
You noob, i bet thats the only part you read -_- Did you not realize that that was a hit against Apple for its aesthetics priority? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I tested the iPhone 4 for two months and had the opportunity to keep it under contract with AT&T. My Verizon contract was up and my Android phone, though still activated, saw much less use once my iPhone 4 was set up and personalized. After 60 days, decision time was upon me. iPhone or Android? My decision was actually quite easy. I returned the iPhone 4, and I now am deciding between the HTC Thunderbolt and the Motorola Bionic." It came down to Android's open architecture and greater flexibility. For many, the Android OS is more about functionality and power than streamlined looks and catchy marketing." "Yes, my Droid is rooted, which allows me added flexibility and access to more customization. But even without root access, Android smart phone owners enjoy the fact that Android uses non-proprietary software formats. What this means is that when you buy music for your Android, it is not wrapped in a format that requires a specific music player in order to be played. Apple uses a proprietary format that demands that the music be played with Apple's music player. Each song is licensed to the person who purchased it in order to prevent piracy, but this causes problems if you want to play it on a device not made by Apple. I have a simple belief that if I purchase something it should belong to me; not to me and the company who sold it to me. Choosing Android means that you can watch Flash media files on your smart phone, something that iPhone users simply cannot do. Many people have no idea just how many websites and apps rely on Flash." "With an iPhone, what you see is what you get. There is only one interface with iPhones while with Android, there are as many user interfaces as there are manufacturers. HTC uses the Sense UI while Motorola uses Moto Blur. Samsung and LG have their own spin to the Android user interface. With the open architecture of Android, the options are practically unlimited to the customization and manufacturer's spins and enhancements that are available. With Apple as the only maker of the iPhone, the interface options equal one." "I chose Android and will continue to carry an Android based smart phone with me for a very long time to come. Whether it is the flexibility of the open architecture or Google's ability to remain focused on just the operating system; for me, the battle over smart phones has ended, and Android is the clear winner." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ^^^The parts you seemed to miss. Also, what you pasted from the website says absolutely nothing about customization. So basically, you didnt support your side at all. I have read that article, and i get that magazine. There is nothing in there about customization, so once again, you did not support your side. -_- And to add to the above, i found while on the site this article about why Android is better. Here is what it said: http://blog.laptopmag.com/10-ways-android-beats-the-iphone-5?slide=3 ^^^ Custom widgets. http://blog.laptopmag.com/10-ways-android-beats-the-iphone-5?slide=5 ^^^ 3rd Party Keyboards. http://blog.laptopmag.com/10-ways-android-beats-the-iphone-5?slide=6 ^^^ The ability to attach any file you want to an email. http://blog.laptopmag.com/10-ways-android-beats-the-iphone-5?slide=7 ^^^ Sharing using a service of your choice. We are debating about customization, not which phone platform is prettier.
I knew I'd regret coming back to this thread... I'm going to say yes, actually, but not in Science classes. It should be taught in English Literature / History along with Greek Mythology and other aspects of past beliefs. Fundamentally, the idea that your christian God created man "in his own image," as well as everything else in existence, is no more valid (or invalid) than the Greek mythos of Prometheus fashioning man from a pile of mud, and Athena breathing life into it. Children may choose to believe whatever they wish. They've also been informed of Santa and the Easter bunny by popular modern practices, and of course an excess of crass commercialism. Sometimes parents convince them of the Tooth Fairy as well. The more educated kids learn the origin of these folktales and mythologies. But if you're here to advocate that one particular mythology of religious text belongs in an institution of learning as something other than mythology, then you'll need a much stronger case than "because my thousands-old historical document says so." EDIT: Since I'm aware the original topic of religion got started with jtc0999's "God exists" debate topic, let me be clear. I am all for the idea that "a god" (or something like unto a god, as far as man is concerned) does exist. The idea that the Christian God specifically exists, whereas every other religion and ancient mythos on earth got it wrong? I find that not only improbable, but intolerably arrogant.
So, first you misrepresent my definition of an atheist, and then you go on to ask a question like that after I've posted a very detailed article on it in my previous post... I'm starting to question your commitment to the discussion. Had you read the article, you would not even be asking this question. Here, a summation: Theist: Believes in god(s) (Deals with belief) Atheist: Rejects belief in god(s) (Deals with belief) Gnostic: Knows whether there is a god(s) or isn't a god(s) (Deals with knowledge) Agnostic: Knows not whether there is a/are god(s) or isn't a/aren't god(s) (Deals with knowledge) All people fit into one of the options in both categories, they are dichotomies. From experience, a lot of people will argue against what I said above: That everyone fits into these categories. Here I will argue why I'm right. It has to do with the fact that each option is the negation of the other. That is to say, if you're not the affirmative one, you're automatically the negation. Examples: All people are either biking or not biking. All people are either watching TV or not watching TV. There is no in-between. Semantic games about only half-watching the TV, because you're also doing something else, are just silly: Then you're simply watching the TV at some times, and not at others, all just within a short time span. A lot of people, when asked "Do you believe in god?" want to answer "I don't know." This, however, it not a valid answer. Their answer is addressing a different topic. The answer they are giving would be a valid answer to the question "Do you know if there is a god?" That is not the question that was asked, however. There are exactly two valid answers: "I believe" or "I don't believe." (Though other version to the same effect are obviously also valid, such as "yes" and "no.") This is why I'm both an atheist and an agnostic, and why everyone—whether they choose to consciously acknowledge it or not—also is exactly two of the above. Including you. That sounds awful. I'd rather be in hell and remember all the people I loved, than to forget about them, no matter how "nice" I'd have it otherwise. I'm very used to theists not giving valid responses to the arguments that I make. In my experience, they seem very reluctant to say "I don't know," and will instead pull answers out of thin air, or at best, from very specious sources. Even worse, at least half of the things that I've said or pointed out, nobody even addressed. It makes some sense, I suppose, since when you've run out of arguments, your only two options are to concede that the other side made a better argument (which, by the way, is not the same as saying they are correct) or keeping silent. I don't understand why people choose to keep silent. If I were arguing with someone, and they literally had me stumped, I'd concede the point to them with no hesitation.
Oh, this argument never gets old. *sigh* This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of the word theory when used in a scientific sense. Please read this, it'll only take two minutes, and you won't make this mistake again. Yes, that website speaks specifically about evolution, but the definition of the word theory is the same regardless of which theory we're talking about. The most relevant part (emphasis mine): Make particular note of the last point: Can be used to make predictions. This is where religious ideas (like creationism) fails spectacularly in reaching any sort of serious scientific acceptance. Creation is not a theory. (For the record, I will be using that word exclusively in the scientific sense from now on, as that is the only relevant definition to teaching it in school.) Creation is an idea or a hunch at best, with no supporting evidence. This idea has been tested in courts in the US numerous times, and fails over and over, with very good reason. Evolution is science. The Big Bang is science. Science has no other agenda than finding out what's true. The creationists just want their specific story of how the universe and us humans came to be taught on the same level as science theories. This would be so incredibly dishonest, trying to teach that religious people's hunches are on the same standing as hundreds of years of verified, scientific evidence. Yep. I'd even go so far as to say that it can be child abuse. (Please note the can. I'm not saying it always is.) Our world would be a very different place today if people were allowed to reach the age of reason before religious indoctrination was allowed on them. A young child's mind is extremely malleable and easily convinced. This makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint: During our hunter-gatherer existence, children who simply listened to their parents, and ran away from danger, didn't eat the poisonous plants, didn't jump off cliffs, and so forth, had a greater chance of survival than those children who didn't listen. Sadly, this malleability is not discriminating, and is equally effective at being used to brainwash children into religion (or really, anything, especially when it comes from parents) long before they have been given the shield of critical thinking and questioning that age affords us. This is why I think we should be careful in insisting with children regarding anything we don't know for sure. I won't be teaching my children much about religion, though if they come and ask me questions concerning it, I will answer them as neutrally as I can, and provide ample reference material for them to look at, so they can come to their own conclusions, instead of merely adopting mine. If my children decide to become religious, that's their prerogative, and I won't hold it against them one bit. However, like any other person, I will discuss it with them and poke holes in their arguments, should they be flawed, just like I'm doing with you guys in this thread. Yeah, teaching only verified facts may seem one-sided when you don't know the true meaning of scientific terminology, but even if these theories are slightly wrong, (extremely unlikely at this point, though science will admit to it the second it finds out) I'd much rather have them teach something slightly wrong, than something entirely unsubstantiated, especially if this entirely unsubstantiated idea gets to be taught on the same level as fact.
We were having such a pleasant conversation. And then you had to call my integrity into question. This is referred to as an ad hominem. An attack on the person making an argument. My commitment to logic and civility have never wavered, nor my attempt to disagree with some of the things you have said on a logical basis. Logic is the framework upon which all valid arguments must be based. It sounds here like you are implying that there is a difference between belief and knowledge. You say they are different things . . . that one can say, "God is unknowable," and at the same time, "There is no God," and that these can be logically coherent statements. What is also confusing is that you stated earlier, This sounds like a very agnostic statement, knowing not whether there is/are god(s) or isn't/Aren't god(s). But you also claim that you are atheist, which, according to your definition is, one who rejects belief in god. To me, this is illogical. Perhaps there unstated premises about how you define belief and how you define knowledge. I would be interested in learning them. Yes, you are definitely seeing belief and knowledge as two different things. I would be very interested in how you define them. Cheers, Curundu
I don't believe that I did, though regardless, I never meant to. It merely seemed to me like you weren't reading the material I provided, which makes it difficult for me to discuss, because I prefer providing links to people who say things better than I ever could with my own words, rather than making a less eloquent argument myself. I think it's pretty obvious that there's a difference between knowledge and belief, why else would we call them by different names, and use them differently? And no, I never said that one can say those two things and be logically coherent. I don't know where you're getting that. They are both obviously conflicting statements of knowledge. Now, what one can say is "I don't know whether god exists," and "I don't believe god exists." No, it's not a statement about my own belief or knowledge, it's merely a rejection of someone else's presented claim. I'm not saying "there's no god," I'm saying "the claim you have presented regarding god's existence is unconvincing, because you have failed to provide sufficient evidence." I'm trying! Haha. I'm mostly wondering where I'm losing you... because I'm not sure I could present it any more clearly than I already have...
Just saying the definitions of the terms should be obvious is not the same thing as defining them. You could say that the words truth and verity mean the same thing, and they are different words. When you say belief, what do you really mean? How does that differ from knowledge?
