i don't know about you guys, but I personally don't have a religious affliation. This whole creationism thing kinda bothers me, because not only do some poeple know the topic better than others, but because people with other religions, or no religion like myself fell left out. I'm a person who is open to everything, but I firmly believe in fairness. If a person growing up with a different religion is in turn forced to learn something that may ultimately negate all that s/he has learned, that person will be growing up very confuse. Children are the future, dont force them to take certain ideas, let them be what they want, and maybe the violence in this world will end...
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Moronic Georgia School Board Allows Creationism in School
Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
WinkOsmosis
Banned
Teaching kids religion as scientific theory will not end violence.
Red Dawn is right, but to do so is to posit Creationism as merely a belief of Christians and not a result of critical analysis as evolution is.
🙂
It boils down to this:
if scientists find evidence against evolution, they reevaluate their understanding, and try to find the truth[/i. If Christians find evidence against creationism (but we all know how scarce that is 🙂), they merely dismiss it away because they feel they already have the truth.
🙂
It boils down to this:
if scientists find evidence against evolution, they reevaluate their understanding, and try to find the truth[/i. If Christians find evidence against creationism (but we all know how scarce that is 🙂), they merely dismiss it away because they feel they already have the truth.
Yes, because as you know, all other posters here never misspell a single word.
What a foolish statement to make.
Like it or not, those who disagree with you are also literate. Maybe, once you realize that the ATOT crowd consists of a small spectrum of people, many who are atheists and agonists, while most Americans beleive in religion, you will realize how foolish that statement is.
You say "Prove to me there is a creator", I say "Prove there isn't one". Most people have faith in a creator, few have faith in "Science" as a religion, which is what it takes to agree with Evolution, the Big Bang theory, etc.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
its because he's trying to twist science into a religion so he can attack it. theres a difference between theorys with mounting evidence, and religious dogma with none. science is about questioning, religion is about faith. don't mix them up.
i know.. if that were really true you'd go to church to heal your desease like they did for centuries. but now instead we go to doctors, go figure, such devout peeps?
That's not entirely true.
Not all religions are simply about faith. To some, proper rituals and customs are more valued than the faith itself (and some religions don't require any form of faith either). If you said, Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions, I'd agree with you.
And to some extent, Science is about faith also. Taking the Big Bang theory, for instance, why did the universe had to be created? And also think about dark matter. There are so many unknowns and uncertainties in the study of cosmology. I personally support the scientific view of the universe, but it does take some faith in me to accept all these arguments proposed by scientists.
I find it ridiculous when I keep hearing the same old dumb argument about the uncertainties of radiometric dating, but you gotta admit that there are some iffy stuff in the world of science as well.
So the problem here isn't so much that it'll be taught in school, or even that's it's being taught at all...the problem is in which class it should be taught in?
I ask again...are you guys upset that this policy makes it likely that kids will be exposed to Creationism (and, by extension, religion) in school? Or exposed to it at all?
I see a pattern here. Athiests, by definition, don't believe in God/religion, right? That's fine...hell, I'm agnostic myself, but I seem to lean more towards Evolution/Big Bang. But it never occurred to me that one of the criteria for being an Athiest is to bash religion every chance you get. Can a person be considered Athiest if, like you guys, he doesn't believe in God/religion but doesn't have a problem with people discussing/learning it? Can an Athiest be so confident in his beliefs (I guess his beliefs would be that there is nothing outside of science) that he doesn't have a problem...or doesn't feel threatened...with people talking about religion?
Is there a difference between a person A whose anti-religion...and person B whose an Athiest. Or are they the same? The Athiests who take potshots at religion every chance they get and shout from the tops of buildings "Religion is hogwash!"...are they just the equivalent of the religious zealots (those guys who preach door-to-door come to mind) that everyone despise?
pretty much. creationism is a theory rooted in religious beliefs... specifically the dominant religion in this country. i know quite a few buddhists and hindus who would be very offended if their children were taught that God created the earth in 6 days. even coming from a jewish family, my parents would have been appalled if creationism was even suggested as being on the same level as evolution at the public schools i and my sisters attended. creationism is a biblical myth. it is not fact, it is not a credible scientific theory, it is a religous explanation of how we are here today, and only one of many, at that. there should be no debate on whether or not creationism should be allowed to be taught outside of a religion class, and it should never presented as a credible alternative to evolution in an accredited school, public or private. if anyone wants to teach their children stories in place of science, they should do that disservice to their children at their place of worship or in their home.
my opinion: the only reason so many people today believe in creationism instead of evolution is because it's much easier to believe a story than it is to learn about biology, geology, geography, astronomy, etc. to understand evolution and the actual history of the planet and the universe.
You know whats disturbing? Its fanatics that kill the debate process. The reason why people dont actually debate things anymore is because there is a large amount of idiots whose minds you cannot change no matter how balatant the facts are against them. Creationists constantly criticize Science (NOT scientologists, those a F'ed up Christians thinking they know science) for lack of evidence and yet they fail to see that they also have a lack of evidence. Usually, they patch those holes with faith to cover it up. Since faith shields the lack of evidence, there is NO way any type of arguement can penetrate through, unless its faith piercing, but such ammo is rare.
Except the trend is has always been in Science's favor: Science had to use carbon/potassium/uranium dating to disprove the notion that the earth is less than 6000 years old. Science had to launch a shuttle to disprove that the world is flat and that the stars are unreachably further than imagined. Science had to utilize lightwave and gamma radiation observations to disprove that the universe is of constant size. Science created skyscrapers to show that the atmosphere is limitless (unless you're telling me some primitives from thousands of years ago built a tower higher than 110+ stories).
I think the first step is to teach REASON and LOGIC in schools. They have LOGIC tests in the graduate level, but by then its too late for the rest of America. Thats why as the education curve gets higher (less than high school, high school, some college, college, graduate), the fewer the fanatics and the fewer the people that believe in myth and baseless theories. Although the graduate level fanatics are the real fanatics that power other fanatics.
Except the trend is has always been in Science's favor: Science had to use carbon/potassium/uranium dating to disprove the notion that the earth is less than 6000 years old. Science had to launch a shuttle to disprove that the world is flat and that the stars are unreachably further than imagined. Science had to utilize lightwave and gamma radiation observations to disprove that the universe is of constant size. Science created skyscrapers to show that the atmosphere is limitless (unless you're telling me some primitives from thousands of years ago built a tower higher than 110+ stories).
I think the first step is to teach REASON and LOGIC in schools. They have LOGIC tests in the graduate level, but by then its too late for the rest of America. Thats why as the education curve gets higher (less than high school, high school, some college, college, graduate), the fewer the fanatics and the fewer the people that believe in myth and baseless theories. Although the graduate level fanatics are the real fanatics that power other fanatics.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
