Now is your chance. Convince me otherwise if you can, and I will refute them. Creationism does NOT belong in science classrooms no matter WHAT. I dare you.

QED. Science didn't find creationism, creationism attached itself to Science. In the search for credibility, appearing credible is far easier than being credible.

Agreed, like evolution they should demonstrate some working models, if they can't it ain't science.

I can only throw in my agreement -

Creationism is based on religion. Religion should not be in schools. Creationism should not be in schools.

That was easy :).

So has no one challenged me yet on this? So everyone here admits defeat? So creationism does NOT belong in science, right? I still dare you to say otherwise:mad:

So everyone here admits defeat?
Generalities are never true. Look again. ;)

Only those who haven't previously posted here can be construed to admit defeat. Even then, it's still an assumption.

Zero, you are on a science forum. Creationists may "troll" through occasionally, but most of our posters in this section of Sciforums have a good grasp of science.

Thus they are not creationists.

Oh. Which forum site can I go to do battle?

Zero:

I am the veritable empress of debating creationists, once given the title:

"Xev Bellringer, who debates creationists until the squeal like Ned Beatty in "Deliverence""

It's bloody pointless though. They will never really open their minds.

However.........

Do you have a newsgroup reader? Try alt.talk.origens - http://www.talkorigins.org/

If not, either post in our religion forum - Tony1 might be up for a fight, and then there is Chosen.

Otherwise, there are a lot of Sciforummers here:
http://www.philosophyforums.com/read.php?TID=117

Have fun. It's part of how I cut my teeth on the 'net. :)

I have to agree with Mr. G and Xev. You are in the wrong place for a battle.

Almost all here will be on your side as creatism doesn't prove anything except how easy it is to jump over to religion when you go to talking proofs. Religion is based on faith, science is not.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2)

I totally absorbed that article before, the issue is in tatters. Loved it.

Zero:

I will attempt to take the side of creationist. I may fail. But it would be fun.

Just a premise. Extrapolate our technological progress for a billion years. I think only 10,000 years may be sufficient - but let us say, mankind in its new incarnation continued for a billion years developed science in genetics, physics, nano technology and so on...

It occurs to me that sometime in future we should be able to understand the initial condition of how universes form. We may be able to control creation of mini universes that are a bubble from our universe but independent. We may be able to accelate the time under this scenario and see for ourselves the formation of stars and planets and life as it is forming. Then the question is: did it hapen by iteself or we created it? (Creationism)

Not convinced. Consider this. Someone gives you a very large nth qbit quantum computer. You decide to play God and create a simulation of the universe and testing your bing bang theory. You let the computer run for six days while you are away on a trip. You come back and surprised to find that not only the computer created the stars but virtual life has formed on planets and these virtual entities are debating if a God has created them?

Is it science or creationism or both?

I'l have to contemplate this deeply, but here are some immediate thoughts.

Did it happen by itself? Well, it is virtual, right? It's not real, no more than a virtual physics experiment. If we actually managed to pull off an experiment where we somehow plant some cells in an ideal planet and life springs up, well yeah. MAnkind would have created the life on that world (and therefore they are all our SLAVES!!! :D just kidding). But the thing is, the cells still have to evolve. Evolution and that whole theory is still needed to explain it. Even if you bring a big huge Noah's ark full of stuff, the whole artificial ecosystem is still going to evolve. The animals/plants with the traits that enable them to survive better will thrive (of course, there is no single best trait. Some areas might require different traits to survive there). Thus, the organisms with those traits and those genes will pass them on to their offspring. The whole passing on of genes will cause further evolution.

And one thing. Just because there is no perfect, good scientific theory for a specific slot (like the creation of life) does NOT mean that you can just stick another theory in there, such as creationism or intelligent design, without sufficient verification by concrete, measurable physical evidence.

And besides, the whole theory about creationism. There is no way you can disprove the existence of a god, or a superior intelligent life form. Creationism is always true!!

But so is the rest of religion. The Koran, the Bible, the whole schmeer. It is all totally, irrefutably true. That is why we do not call it "science", we call it religion. And creationism is also a part of religion. The defining trait of a scientific theory is that it HAS to be disprovable with physical evidence. This was defined by the philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930's (I think).

For example, the theory of relativity. If we saw something moving faster than the speed of light, if we were able to verify that speed, then the whole theory of relativity would come crashing down. It is disprovable, if you only have the evidence. So is evolution. If some super intelligent space aliens came and told us that they 'made' us, the life on earth and that they had manipulated all of our genes to make us evolve, then...if they gave us concrete evidence, there you go. Same thing with the theory of evolution. They are disprovable, this is known as falsifiability. That's why they are scientific theories. And of course, we have NOT found any evidence lke this. They adequately explain the phenomena of the natural world. That's why they became theories in the first place.

Any thoughts on that?

I doubt, Zero, that your aliens vere also genetically modified. atlest they needed to evolve

kmguru, I agree you.
I saw this good movie, btw. Don't remember how was it called. There was that one company made such a computer and even could send people in tht world. But later our hero discovered that their own world was a simulation.

The Faith of Creationsim (http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/AB-Creationism.html).

Creationists base their entire argument on trying to discredit evolution. Because there is no positive evidence for creationism, the typical creationist must have faith in the following eight things:

1) It is necessary to have complete physical evidence to totally explain every single aspect of the natural evolution of life in order for evolution to be accepted as true.

2) Any gap in knowledge means the evidence doesn't exist and will never be discovered. Gaps automatically mean a non-evolutionary entity or force was at work.

3) The non-evolutionary entity or force responsible for life is supernatural in nature (as opposed to, say, extraterrestrial).

4) It is possible for supernatural entities or forces to exist.

5) It is possible for supernatural entities or forces to interact with the natural world.

6) It is possible for supernatural entities or forces to interrupt or violate the observed regularities ("laws") of nature.

7) The supernatural entity or force responsible for life is a god or gods.

8) In particular, it is the Judeo-Christian god of the Bible.

Creationism is obviously a faith-based religion and should not be taught in public school science classrooms.

Personally, I think it's prima facie evident that Creationism is not science.
However, I'm more concerned with the idea that someone of obvious intelligence is on these boards looking to do 'battle'. Debate is a good thing, but, more often than not on these boards, people are too ready to 'prove' that their point of view is right, regardless of what anyone says. Positive debate should be a dialectic, not a battle.

should creationism be taught in the science class?

YES!!!

here's one reason. truth.

maybe creationism isn't truth to you but with over 3/4ths of americans claiming some form of christianity it becomes truth to a lot of little children in sunday school. remember memorizing what god created on day one and two....

when schools stick their head in the sand and ignore 3/4 of american's truth then they are ignoring a truth that is out there in many people's minds.

here's another reason. tradition.

you know, the same reason there are christmas trees in school lobbies at christmas time...

no, not scientific, but yes, tradition.

personally i believe that creationism and evolution could be one in the same but there are so many people that want everything clear-cut and catagorized. the creationist want to do battle, the evolutionists want to do battle. what if god's day is different than our day? who knows? are you god? maybe 7 days to god is how long it took everything to evolve.

glaucon,

You are right that it should not have been termed "battle". That debate, while it can degrade into such a state, should not in essence be anything other than the stating of opposing views and examples plus rebuttals. The context of the inital post lead me to that thought.

Welcome to sciforums, harrykarry.

I would take issue with the teaching of creationism in schools. What do they teach? That it is in support of the religious right? In otherwords that it would not be there if it were not for them getting government to demand equal time. That is hardly any proof of anything but successful lobbying. I have seen very little evidence to support our teaching and wasting what I consider valuable time on such a subject of so little worth, IMO.

i'm not opposed to kids not having to memorize what day god created the sea or the sky... i'm opposed to colleges with an agenda insistant on spewing out science teachers determined to prove to children that creationism and evolution are two completely different things and that the "accurate, self-righteous, i-have-the-facts-to-prove-it" scientist has all the answers in the universe so ergo religion is something fuzzy that you can believe if you want to but it has no relevance regarding the fermament.

i know that the religious right throw out the same horrid attitude but just because science THINKS it knows it all doesn't mean we should throw away everything that can't be proved.

it goes back to this silly little theory of mine, all things in moderation (accept drinking and sex, of course.)

and i hate the religion of intellectualism that is being taught by those science teachers. we have all the answers. we don't need god. how apropos.

actually, this whole sciforums stinks with intellectualism. i never met so many know-it-alls in my whole life...

sorry... i know that's harsh.:bugeye:

harrykarry, I have never felt a need for god, and I have never heard a nowaday scientist say that "we know all the answers".
Generally most are very amazed of what they migtht discover.

oh and the creatonsim theory even from its beginings is quite doubtful. I better "believe" in space aliens creating the first people than some misterious bored divine being
actually, this whole sciforums stinks with intellectualism why thank you:) it is really nice to hear it. I'm proud...
and about your negativism towards this fact -> this is SCIforums not RELIGforums (thank the holy quark it is not:cool: :p)

avatar...i've never felt the need for science either. yet i'm as sure that it has benefited me as much as god has benefited you.

the one-sided manner that religion is attacked in this forum makes me feel like a german citizen during hitler's reign who dares to defend the jews. i can't help but defend the underdog knowing full well i'll get shot. :)

I will make no amends for believing in science. Science shows step by step how we get to where we are. Each fact build upon the previous one. Supportable, tested, and verified. No imaginary being required. Religion on the other hand has little to dole out to say do this and this and this in that way and walla! you will get so and so. Come here, touch it, feel it, inspect it.

Somehow religion falls a bit short in that department.

No one has claimed to know all the answers. We learn as we go. There are many blind paths tried for each proven answer.

I do not accept the tag of "know-it-all". I do state what I think.

harrykarry

the one-sided manner that religion is attacked in this forum makes me feel like a german citizen during hitler's reign who dares to defend the jews.

Defending the Jews during Hitler's reign was a rational, brave and noble gesture. Big difference.

Defending religion is as irrational as the religion itself.

actually, this whole sciforums stinks with intellectualism. i never met so many know-it-alls in my whole life...

So sorry that our rational views conflict with your irrational views. Some of us must rely on reality in order for the irrational to continue to benefit from sciences contributions, ie. your computer and it's connection to the internet, for example.

You may now continue the religious fantasy already in progress. ;)

harrykarry:
"the one-sided manner that religion is attacked in this forum makes me feel like a german citizen during hitler's reign who dares to defend the jews."

I'd advise you not to use what my ancestors went through to inflate your already over-filled ego, bitch.

I'd expound more on why you are a sleazy protozoan, but you're not worth the ASCII.

Originally posted by harrykarry
actually, this whole sciforums stinks with intellectualism. i never met so many know-it-alls in my whole life...
Umm...Thank you. Now you do....and you are a part of it...if you want to....

the one-sided manner that religion is attacked in this forum makes me feel like a german citizen during hitler's reign who dares to defend the jews.

I can defend religion too. In science, no one defends the 2000 year old idea that sun revolves around the earth or the earth is flat. But in religion they do defend similar thought processes that are not relevant today.

That does not mean, we can not create a decent framework knowing the limitations of humans and the need for emotions and such...but lets discuss for what it really is and not what it was 2000 years ago.

Xev is a jew!:)

from which country did your ancestors come?

Originally posted by harrykarry
actually, this whole sciforums stinks with intellectualism. i never met so many know-it-alls in my whole life...

sorry... i know that's harsh.:bugeye:

I think if you can present better arguments, we know-it-alls wouldn't seem as rude to you ;)

*Glares at Avatar*

Xev is an athiest, thank you very much. :p

Russia, more or less. Fled to Czeslovakia during the Revolution, then fled Czeslovakia (a few converts to Catholicism in order to get out, I'm not exactly sure how this worked), married into well-established American families - of English/Italian descent.

So while I may be quite divorced from my ancestry, I do get a tweee bit pissed by the likes of Harrykarry.

At least, this is as far back as I can trace my ancestry, going from family stories.

Joeman: Roosky=Russian.

I occasionally delete old posts when I'm really booooooored.

gee it sucks being a fundamentalist preacher's daughter and junior sciforum member with a major in art:)

but you know what those evolutionists say about inbreding so consider me outside dna.

Post by all means but on topic...

gee it sucks being a fundamentalist preacher's daughter

You could join the ranks of the rationale.

Criteria: Observe. Look for evidence. Use logic and reasoning. Apply critical thinking.

What's a female doing with a name like "harry"?

Oh well. Welcome to Sciforums.

I'll be nice now.

As the Q said, apply critical thinking, show evidence for your contentions, and you'll fit in just fine.

what were the url's of those two 3d art sites Xev? I can't relocate the thread you mentioned them.

Originally posted by Zero

Any thoughts on that?

Your theory of relativity example can not be experimentally proven but it has physics and mathematical basis. The same is with anti-matter. We haven't found it yet but we know it exists hypothetically. That is science.

Creationism doesn't have any kind of scientific basis whatsoever. Kmguru's innitial condition argument is as good of an argument you will ever hear about. If you ask creationists "Why is the universe 6 billion years old?" Their best counter argument is "because it is made old". It is a theory with no basis therefore I don't consider it a science. No science but just a theory.

What's a female doing with a name like "harry"?

Could be Hari Kari:

1/2 parts brandy1/2 parts cointreau
juice of 1/2 orange
shake

Or perhaps:

hara-kiri [Jap.,=belly-cutting], the traditional Japanese form of honorable suicide, also known by its Chinese equivalent, seppuku.

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0822673.html

Or maybe:

http://sadcassettes.8m.com/harikari.htm

This guy:

http://www.chicagonights.com/features/harrycarry/harry.htm

what i "observed" were a lot of evolutionists patting each other on the back.

i also "observed" anger, smugness, and finally boredom. "where can i go to debate this..."

i observe that if i place myself in the underdog position (yes, i'm a german and yes my ancestry did get killed in the same consentration camps for helping the jews, but that's besides the point) then people get very offended and i'm not sure why? did i somehow play the race card unfairly? and i don't think i'm the only one generalizing the other "side" here.

i'm not so big on "evidence" because i'm running low on poroxide but i don't see anyone providing evidence that there isn't a supernatural entity or force out there occasionally interrupting or violating the observed regularities of nature.

all of those "gaps in knowledge" that evolutionists pooh pooh away as nothing....is that the evidence you are talking about?

logic and reason are over-rated because logic would tell me to quit pissing in the wind but i do it anyways and reason is just one of my ridiculous wanna bes.

if i apply critical thinking to this....i come up with something not very nice so i hesitate.... but what the hell... i come up with a bunch of athiests who have really bad relationships with their own father's and so attribute those same characteristics to god. my only evidence of that is all of the above and you're right, it's not scientific.

maybe i sound self-righteous. maybe i'm not playing by the science rules. i probably should have had a better science teacher!!!!!!!!!

You are doing fine....harrykarry


You need a cool picture avatar...go get it....


Welcome.....

Oh...the human traits...I can just visualize...harrykarry shows up in to the sciforum gathering...a bunch of members circle around her...sniff...sniff...check out the credentials...check out where to place her....

Humans have not changed in 5000 years....

i come up with a bunch of athiests who have really bad relationships with their own father's and so attribute those same characteristics to god.

I've never heard that one before. Rather Freudian with Jungian undertones.

gee it sucks being a fundamentalist preacher's daughter

You could just be yourself, rather then the daughter of a fundamentalist preacher.

harrykarry,

Let me talk some senses into you.

First of all look at the bigger picture. People debate on internet because it is fun in their own way. No one can really convince another person, and no one would admit defeat.

With that being said, if you don't want to apply any logic, reason, and critical thinking, what exactly are you in here for?

You can learn a lot of things from other people here, but if you want to learn a fact, trueth, or whatever you call it, you are in the wrong place. You are better off in a library.

You need to come up with a different name. harrykarry is ridiculously. People won't take you seriously no matter you are male or female. Harry Karry is a dead old alcoholic fool. At least he appears to be. Contact the administrator to change your name to something else.

is the zenia princess warrior icon taken yet? i also like carol burnett, calamity jane, huck fin, and anything with flowers. maybe i need a icon with some kind of tatoo or dildo. i'll have to think long and hard about this. probably settle for a harry dildo.

have a great evening!

Let me talk some senses into you.

ahhh, i think i already have too many senses. i'm only here because it's a safe place to contain myself (if you know what i mean).

and do i really want you to take me seriously?

i think not.

Got out of harry karry posts....

...it's a safe place to contain myself ...with...long and hard ...dildo...

...(if you know what i mean)...


Now I know....:D

Is not that fun....

Is creationism true? OF COURSE, it is the absolute truth, no one can disprove it. I did not say that it was not a truth. I said it was.

No one can disprove it, therefore it does not belong in the science classroom. For someything to be scientific, it must be vulnerable to physical evidence that suggests otherwise. Read up on Karl Popper's phiolosophical works if you wish to rise up out of your current state and be enlightened.

Am I god? Welcome to sciforums, harrykarry. Such attacks will do nothing but earn you a cold, amused but somewhat sympathetic silence from the sciforum gurus. WNDWAA. (surely you know what THAT means?)

I am only staunchly against teachign creationism in SCIENCE classrooms. Why? It is unscientific, that's why. IT can not be disproved (how do you disprove the notion of a god?), therfore it is not scientific. There is another name for such "truth", it is called "religion".

And frankly, I hope you have heard of the separation of church and state. Teaching stuff about your religion, and the whole creationism effort threatens that separation.

All views deserve respect, but under only one condition. The view must not threaten or discriminate against any particuluar people. Creationism claims that the christian viewpoint is the only correct one. If it doesn't register in your brain, I'll tell you that freedom is also restricted under the condition that one does NOT threaten or reduce any other person's freedom.

I'm sure other people have more to say. Xev, any thoughts? (one of the few intelligent and rational people in these forums)

what i "observed" were a lot of evolutionists patting each other on the back.

I guess this is what you would expect in a site where "sciforums" is the title. However, I did state My opinions and not some pack's idea. If it seemed that way, it was coincidence of the moment. Nor was it meant to be smug but rather a statement of how I feel. If it came across that way, then my apologies for not being clearer.

harry:

"what i "observed" were a lot of evolutionists patting each other on the back. "

First off, we are not "evolutionists" any more than physicists are "relativityists" or "Newton's second lawists". Evolution is proven scientific theory, and as scientists, we subscribe to it.

"i observe that if i place myself in the underdog position (yes, i'm a german and yes my ancestry did get killed in the same consentration camps for helping the jews, but that's besides the point) then people get very offended and i'm not sure why? did i somehow play the race card unfairly? and i don't think i'm the only one generalizing the other "side" here."

It is not your placing yourself in the underdog position, but your equating of an anonymous post on a internet forum with an act of heroism.

You cheapen the sacrifice that (virtually no Germans did this, don't decieve yourself) certain heroes made when you compare posting against the grain to sacrificing your life.

i'm not so big on "evidence" because i'm running low on poroxide but i don't see anyone providing evidence that there isn't a supernatural entity or force out there occasionally interrupting or violating the observed regularities of nature.

First, it is not fair to ask us to prove a negative.
Second, we never claimed that there wasn't, or that such was impossible.

So quit injecting red herrings into the discussion.

all of those "gaps in knowledge" that evolutionists pooh pooh away as nothing....is that the evidence you are talking about?

"Gaps in knowledge"? What gaps?

logic and reason are over-rated because logic would tell me to quit pissing in the wind but i do it anyways and reason is just one of my ridiculous wanna bes.

One must always balance logic and emotion, yes?

if i apply critical thinking to this....i come up with something not very nice so i hesitate.... but what the hell... i come up with a bunch of athiests who have really bad relationships with their own father's and so attribute those same characteristics to god. my only evidence of that is all of the above and you're right, it's not scientific.

I would advise you not to insult our fathers. It is cowardly, as they are not here to defend themselves, and another red herring.

maybe i sound self-righteous. maybe i'm not playing by the science rules. i probably should have had a better science teacher!!!!!!!!!

It is never too late to learn. Try Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" for an introduction to the scientific method.

This is a good site on critical thinking and skepticism:

http://www.lysator.liu.se/~rasmus/skepticism/skeptic.html

As for evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

http://answersinscience.org/

http://www.evolutionhappens.net/

...and do i really want you to take me seriously? i think not.
HK,

Then you've come to the right place. ;) :p

Originally posted by Joeman


Your theory of relativity example can not be experimentally proven but it has physics and mathematical basis. The same is with anti-matter. We haven't found it yet but we know it exists hypothetically. That is science.


We have indeed "found" anti-matter. It is naturally occuring. There are several nuclides that emit positrons (the anti-matter companion to electrons), we've created anti-protons, and even gone so far as to put the two together and make anti-hydrogen.

See, you learn something new every day. :D

Wow!!!!!

Someone on sciforum who knows science.... Welcome strange one.

I love this I have never posted here before but I figure I will give food for thought in the realm of creationism and push you to think farther than man's natural tendency to known what we don't. Ok first in regards to a "religion" (disgusting word) you have two here that are disputed. If religion shouldn't be exposed in school than science needs to only teach that it should prove theory and nothing else. Creationism and evolution both should be taken from the classroom or both included because they both are part of a religion. I being human have been taught that I must have faith in a big bang theory that offsets natures natural tendency to decay and believe that it will improve. Take humans for example disease gets worse our bodies fall apart as we get older and the only thing that appears to improve is our knowledge. I would have an easier time believeing in a creation that is slowly imploding because of nature's natural tendency toward decay, than to believe that our universe is improving itself by stars collapsing and and colliding with other stars.

See if you want to see religion there is two religions one in creation the other in science there are followers of each separately and followers who attune to both.

It is funny because take creationism and fold it into God creating a race of humans that used 100% of their brain and they decided they didn't want to serve God because they could be Gods themselves. So being intelligent as God appears he decided to limit humans to 10% of their brain so that we could be insecure and be forced to prove our own intelligence or rely on God. Seeing there that God gave us a choice.

If you look at the world and see the differences in our landscapes and other unexplainable issues. One large such unexplainable land formation would be all of South America. It looks like and even scientific evidence suggest that that continent at one time boasted a some 50 million people. Yet in all our knowledge something major and aside from the meteor killing the dinosaurs caused a whole civilization from disappearing. There being no physical evidence it could leave the theory I proposed first as that explanation and God cleared them out.

If you read the beginning of the bible you will notice it took God six days to create earth and man and woman. Then it says that God on the fifth day created Adam and Eve. My last food of thought for you: why create man and woman and then state that you created Adam and Eve.

Yes I am a christian I don't question Gods plans but enjoy entertaining interesting thoughts of what he did and will do. I have experienced his spirit and witnessed unbelievable things. I also enjoy what science does in this life because it explains his simple plan and idea. Solar system is a large model of and Atom

Enjoy and butcher if you like. :D

god first created Adam and Lilith , only then Eve, because Lilith didn't like to be pasive in sex with Adam.

Hey, I LOVE it when a girl is nice and aggressive in the sack!

damon,
"religion" (disgusting word)
Why do you think religion is a disgusting word?

If religion shouldn't be exposed in school than science needs to only teach that it should prove theory and nothing else. Creationism and evolution both should be taken from the classroom or both included because they both are part of a religion
I'm not following you. What religion is evolution a part of? You just said science should only teach that it should prove theory . Umm that would include evolution. If science is the religion then we shouldn't teach science???

See if you want to see religion there is two religions one in creation the other in science there are followers of each separately and followers who attune to both.
Maybe you are confusing 'science' with 'scientology' :). How is science a religion?

he decided to limit humans to 10% of their brain so that we could be insecure and be forced to prove our own intelligence or rely on God.
Humans only use 10% of their brain? Show me the evidence of this.

There being no physical evidence it could leave the theory I proposed first as that explanation and God cleared them out.
There is no physical evidence because you are talking nonsense.

hey newby, get ready to be spanked. how dare you say that science is a religion ;)

the fine attenders to this discussion claim the need for "rationale."

they take pride in observing, in evidence, in logic and reason, and of course applying critical thinking.

your observations of god and your logic and reason for interpreting what you know, your means of applying critical thinking.... even your evidence....doesn't count here.

oops... is that part of the religion of science?... "only our shit counts..." gee, imagine a religion being close-minded.

that would be akin to me not being sarcastic!!!!

and why do you think god made man and woman and then adam and eve? is that correct. is that what the bible says? and which version?

I personally don't care for the word religion because religion is man's word for putting God in set of rules and guidelines for a creator that first thought us up. That is why I don't like it.

Yes that would be the best term scientology and yes if they want a separation of church and state then science's belief in evolution should be removed from curriculum until it is proven as the absolute truth for how things have come to exist in fairness to those who don't support it. I do like the teaching of how certain things operate. Thank you Fadingcaptain for pointing things out so I could clarify myself. Science isn't a religion but the belief in some of the theories is. That better :)

Well here is a small answer to the other thing about proof for the 10%. I don't have physical proof but with examples that I have weighed I feel that the human mind has been limited in because we were again made exactly after the image of God and he can see the past, present, and future. He also is not lacking on the learning level we are because he is able to do all math, all variables, and develope the best strategies for correct his misjudgements or his own flaws. We as humans lack in one area but are better in some and I feel that we should be good in all areas such as God. The only thing is our mind is limited because our memory can't be completely used. That is the best I can do because even science is still trying to understand the mind and to give a scientific answer for this when even science hasn't come up with one is just a tad bit difficult :p

With in regards to the last issue you picked out Fading I ment there is no evidence such as a meteor or graves or anything proving why the 50 million dissappeared. That would be like a 5 Houston cities dissappearing with no bodies or buildings being there anymore.

Well I hope I gave a better explanation for my theories.
I always invite criticism because it helps refine my thinking
Thank you Fading

This is where is states that Harrykarry
Genesis Chapter 1
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [2] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Chapter 2
When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [2] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth [3] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [4] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the Lord God formed the man [5] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Why create man twice also Kane found a wife in the land of NOD if God hadn't had two creations then where did his wife come from.

I don't question the Lord but I hear and I see to receive more truth from him.

Damon,
I personally don't care for the word religion because religion is man's word for putting God in set of rules and guidelines for a creator that first thought us up. That is why I don't like it.
I see. Thanks for the explanation. I agree that religion is man's word...

science's belief in evolution should be removed from curriculum until it is proven as the absolute truth for how things have come to exist in fairness to those who don't support it
How can you prove something as the absolute truth? There are people that still believe the earth is flat..should we remove the notion that the earth is round from school? After all, it isn't fair to the flat earth society...The point is that the theory of evolution is generally accepted in the scientific community as supported by evidence.

Science isn't a religion but the belief in some of the theories is
Sorry, but that still doesn't work. You said earlier that : religion is man's word for putting God in set of rules and guidelines for a creator that first thought us up.
How does belief in evolution fit this definition? It doesn't because religion is based upon spirituality and belief in a supernatural power.

I don't have physical proof but with examples that I have weighed I feel that the human mind has been limited
The reason I asked was because I think this is a myth that is widely regarded as true. There is no evidence to support this and last I checked there aren't any sections of the brain that have no purpose. It seems to me that this is a wive's tale. You are right though in that we really still do not know how the brain works and have alot to learn through science.

With in regards to the last issue you picked out Fading I ment there is no evidence such as a meteor or graves or anything proving why the 50 million dissappeared.
If there is no evidence, where did you come by this idea? Did you read it or did someone tell it to you? I would be highly skeptical if there is no shred of evidence to back the claim. That's just me though :).

Thanks for replying...I enjoy these discussions because it helps me refine my thinking also :D.

Originally posted by harrykarry
hey newby, get ready to be spanked. how dare you say that science is a religion ;)



Pathetic. You only have 20+ posts and you're calling someone else a newbie.

Originally posted by Avatar
god first created Adam and Lilith , only then Eve, because Lilith didn't like to be pasive in sex with Adam.

Lilith??? Who the hell is that?

You don't know?!

ok->
I no longer have the URL of that page, it's copied on my hdd, and I can't remember from where I got the paper.


Lilith - We Hardly Knew You



There was a time when you were not a slave, remember that. You walked alone, full of laughter, you bathed bare-bellied. You say you have lost all recollection of it, remember . . . You say there are not words to describe it, you say it does not exist. But remember. Make an effort to remember. Or, failing that, invent.



I started out this project in the hope that I could write something about Lilith. As a topic, Lilith seemed a great idea for a class rooted firmly in feminism; Lilith, who was Adam's first wife as the story goes. The strong female role model around whose banner rally many feminists, the symbolic woman who stands on her own, has a power all her own. Someone who lives outside of the realm of patriarchy, and needs no male figures, in fact someone who shuns the male altogether. And yet, as I sit here with research material strewn about from Jewish texts to World Wide Web URLs that go nowhere, I look at these papers and have to wonder if the viewpoint we have built is entirely correct. Perhaps it would be better if I were not to start by asking the question, "who is Lilith?" but rather "what is Lilith?" For the sake of clarity, I am going to divide this paper into three portions: one which explores the closest I have been able to come to an a priori account of Lilith, predating Biblical or Talmudic references. A second portion that will deal with the original question, "who is Lilith?" as people from scholars to the media have come to widely understand her. Finally, a portion that explores how all of the information has come to manifest today, and the implications this may have on feminism as a whole. In my research, I have found that in order to understand the present, we must deal with the past, or in this case, the non prevalent idea, or place of origin outside of Western thinking. To this end, I will begin with the pre-Biblical accounts of Lilith, follow with the Biblical ideas, and end with manifestations and ideas about how all of the information to be presented has come together.



PART ONE

"…In the Beginning…"



The earliest text of any kind pertaining to Lilith that I was able to locate comes from an arguable translation of a Gilgamesh Prologue. The Gilgamesh myth dates back as far as ancient Babylonia and Sumer. The story of Gilgamesh is among the first epic writings found. Gilgamesh was considered in early times, that is, pre-Middle Ages, to be an historical character. The lifetime of the historical Gilgamesh cannot be accurately determined, however, it is generally agreed that he lived between 2800 and 2500 BCE (See Dalley, 40). The passage that should concern us for this writing is as follows: "a dragon had built its nest at the foot of a tree/the Zu-bird was raising its young in the crown/and the demon Lilith had built her house in the middle/But Gilgamesh, who had heard of Inanna's plight/came to her rescue" (Humm, 1 from Kramer 38:1f).

Taking this passage at face value, one can assume that Lilith is not even human, that in fact she is a demon. She has no real 'power' per se either. The story goes on to tell of how Gilgamesh vanquishes the dragon, at which time the Zu- bird flew away, and Lilith flees into the woods, "petrified with fear". The image of Lilith portrayed in this short passage is one of a 'demon' whose attendance can be construed to be little more than an annoyance, or at best, an evil presence. There is reason to believe that Lilith is without gender, or at least of no particular gender. "[T]he father of Gilgamesh was a lillu, (a man with demonic qualities)" (Dalley, 40). This passage about Gilgamesh's father may furthermore indicate that the 'qualities' possessed may not be evil, but rather only extraordinary. It is difficult to believe that a hero as great as Gilgamesh would be born of demonic stock; rather, it seems likely that Gilgamesh's parentage would have to be special to endow him with the qualities he possesses which make all of his heroic adventures possible.

The word 'demon' may be particularly apt in that it may also describe an evil spirit. Aaron Leitch makes an interesting observation about the etymology of the name Lilith:



In Sumerian, the word "lil" means "air" . . . The oldest known term relating to Lilith would be the Sumerian word "lili" (plural "lilitu"), which seems to imply the same definition as our word, "spirit". In many ancient cultures, the same word for "air" or "breath" would also be used for "spirit" . . . Therefore, the Lilitu were either a specific type of demon, or were simply "spirits" in general (Leitch, 1).



At the very heart of the Lilith myth, it is a reasonable possibility that the name, and indeed what came to be the being Lilith, represents nothing more than a spirit or an apparition. By definition, a "spirit" can be thought of as merely the immortal, nonphysical part of humanity, or the sum of an individual's mental and moral qualities. This is not to deny the pejorative aspects of the definition of the word, but rather to illustrate that at an a priori point, Lilith may be quite benign, embodying the intangible aspects of Humankind. At her heart, it is possible that Lilith is much more than scholars and religious thinkers tend to believe.

The next available literary work skips ahead millennia. Although I had hoped there might be further record of Lilith in between, none could be found. The next time she is mentioned is in a text known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered nearly one hundred years ago along the Dead Sea, near the river Jordan. Carbon dating processes have dated these scrolls to between 3 BCE and 68 CE. Although the passage to follow is in all probability based on Isaiah 34:14, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not considered a biblical text per se. The fragment from the scrolls that should concern us is as follows: "And I, the Sage,/declare the grandeur of his radiance/in order to frighten and terrify/all the spirits of the ravaging angels/and the bastard spirits,/demons, Liliths, owls and [jackals]/and those who strike unexpectedly/to lead astray the spirit of knowledge" (see Humm, 1).

The two points of interest here are that Lilith is disassociated from other 'demons' and held in her own right, and that the plural is used to refer to Lilith (see Humm, 1). The two things that interest me about this for the sake of my paper is that we see an evolution of Lilith as an entity unto herself, and the fact that the wording implies the new category contains more than one Lilith. One has the distinct impression that a 'Lilith' is some form of special demon, or different sort of evil. It would be fair to assume that this opens the possibility for Lilith to become more human. Perhaps a Lilith could then be seen as an entity more akin to humanity, rather than just a general sort of demon. It would not be a leap from this point to create a myth based on a single entity known as Lilith. If biblical writers were to encounter such a being, it seems reasonable to me that the writers of any given midrash, (Jewish creative retelling), may draw upon sources at hand. "These tales did not emerge from a vacuum in the Middle Ages, where they flourished, but are an outgrowth in every respect, of the biblical, Rabbinic and folk traditions that preceded them" (Schwartz, 341). It is reasonable that writers of any given era would draw upon all the forces that were then at work around them. This may explain how Lilith first appeared in more contemporary works.



PART TWO

"…and the LORD said…"



So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (Gen. 1:27). So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man (Gen. 2:21-22). In these two verses from the book of Genesis, we see more than a problem in consistency, we see the birthplace of the legend of Lilith as it stands today in Judeo-Christian terms. The Torah, as is widely known, is literally the word of God. By this merit, it cannot be altered in any way, or refuted by any means. These writings are sacred; they are fact. As such, students of the Torah were left with only one conclusion: there were two women in the Garden of Eden -- one which was created alongside of man, and another who was created from man. The story goes on to relay the tale of Adam and Eve, his wife, with no further direct mention to the first of the two. What became of the first woman?

This first woman is believed by Jewish scholars to have been Lilith, and the following is her story as widely believed in the Jewish tradition. Lilith is said to be the First wife of Adam, created from the dust just as Adam was, created simultaneously and equal to Adam in all respects. As the mythology is told, Adam wished that Lilith should be subservient to him, particularly in the realm of sex. It is said that Adam wished to have sex with Lilith in a missionary position, thereby placing her on the bottom, and she refused him this. In fact, she "[refused] to let him dominate her in any way. Instead, she insisted that they were equal" (Schwartz, 343). It is said that having become frustrated and exasperated with Adam, Lilith spoke the Ineffable Name of the Lord and with this power, flew out of the Garden of Eden and away from Adam.

Lilith then flew to the Red Sea, where she found a cave in which to live and took demons for mates, giving birth to thousands of demon offspring who populate the world and cause all manner of hardship to men. Meanwhile, Adam, missing his companion, beseeches God to bring her back to him. God takes pity on Adam and sends three angels in search of Lilith, the object being to return her to Adam. These three angels, (Senoy, Sensenoy, and Semengelof) find her by the Red Sea and command her to return. Lilith stands her ground and refuses.

In punishment for her refusal, the angels proclaim they will kill one hundred of her demon children each day until she returns to Adam. Lilith exclaims that even this fate is better than living in submission to Adam. Furthermore, she vows to kill the children of Adam, stating that she would take the boy's lives until they were eight days old, and the girls until they were twenty days old. She is even said to have proclaimed that she would attack the mothers in childbirth, and attack men while they slept in order to rob them of their semen, which she would use to create more demon spawn to make up for the one hundred lost to her each day.

Lilith, having still maintained a sense of pity, promised that any child who bore an amulet or had within their room a carving containing the names of the three angels who had punished her would be left in peace. As the mythology goes, this is the arrangement to this day.

There are a number of variations to the story, some additions in other works, but these are the high points that all stories I have encountered agree upon. What may we, as scholars, draw from such a story? What effects does it have upon the culture that accepts the myth? Schwartz offers an idea: "Times of stress, like marriage, birth and death, inevitably become the focus of rituals, superstitions and folklore . . . it is the supernatural, after all, that provides an explanation for all kinds of events, especially misfortunes" (339). Lilith becomes a scapegoat for misfortune. "As queen of the Demons, she kills babies in their cribs, (apparently, this was the folk explanation for SIDS)" (Smith, 1). It is more than simply this, however.

Much more interesting is the way the myth is used to shape a culture. "Lilith is . . . the projection of the negative fears and desires of the Rabbis who created her" (Schwartz, 345). Not only do Lilith's proclamations explain a child's possible death after birth and a mother's possible death during, they force a moral code: "it is forbidden for a man to sleep alone in a house, lest Lilith get hold of him" (Weigle, 254). This seems to me to be a way to ensure that men will have no ejaculation save for intercourse, and if they should, they are then to blame for God himself knows how many demon spawn. "Lilith becomes the repository and incubationary of the male sexual drive that can not be satisfied by normal means" (Smith, 1). Men live in fear of Lilith, but the ramifications for women are far greater. For them, Lilith spelled out the precise way they should not be according to God's will.

Lilith, as we have seen, refused to be subordinate in any way to Adam. The Rabbis who studied the story thus saw her as exactly the example of what not to do; she was "the negative side . . . of woman. Lilith is assertive, seductive, and ultimately destructive; Eve, [by way of comparison], is passive, faithful, and supportive" (Schwartz, 343). For the early followers of Judaism, Lilith became the vehicle for maintaining women in a state of submission. Any means of assertion or independence by any woman was seen as qualities of Lilith, and by extension, evil qualities. If women were to remain in the good graces of God, they had to be submissive, they had to accept Eve as a role model for themselves. It may serve us to remember, however, that Eve is traditionally held responsible for the fall from grace, and so women of the time had a no win scenario.

To make matters even worse, another interesting development occurred when Lilith was demonized. As much as Lilith was used to explain away misfortune, she also became an excuse for men in the realm of infidelity. According to the myth, Lilith spawns many hundreds of demons each day, which then roam the earth causing hardship. Among the hardships these demons create is the seduction of otherwise pious men, thereby leading them down an ungodly path. A story from around the 8th or 9th century tells a tale of just such an occurrence. The man in question subsequently encounters the Prophet Elijah, who utterly absolves him of any guilt associated with the act, stating "You are free from sin, for this was a demon" (see Schwartz, 345). Although the demon in question was not said to be Lilith herself, she is associated with her, in the same manner that all acts which correlate to Lilith's are deemed evil. In such a hierarchy, it is reasonable to assume that the people of the time would associate common women as demons in such cases. The end result is that men are absolved from any evil, and women become the embodiment of all evil. One can see how such a vicious circle could lead to historical occurrences like the burning of 'witches' in Salem.

The truly ironic quality about this whole biblical slant of the story of Lilith is that it has almost no basis in biblical study. Lilith is mentioned by name but once in some versions of the Bible, (Isaiah, 34:14), in which a vague and fleeting reference is made to her as the "night hag" in a somewhat apocalyptic verse. Lilith owes her link to Judaism almost entirely to a Midrash found in a text known as the Alphabet of Ben Sira. This document has been dated between the 8th and 10th centuries and is the first known place the myth of Lilith appears as understood in Biblical terms. It is not, however, a Jewish text, nor is the myth found in any Rabbinic tradition. The entire writing of the Alphabet of Ben Sira is questionable. "Some see it as an impious digest of risqué folk-tales. Others have suggested that it was a polemical broadside aimed at Christians, Karaites, or some other opposing movement. I personally would not rule out the possibility that it was actually an anti-Jewish satire" (Segal, 1). Whatever the Alphabet of Ben Sira was at its conception, it was somewhere accepted by Jews as myth. People came to believe this story was as rooted in fact as the Bible, likely spurred by the passages that opened this section of my paper. It is altogether possible that Lilith had nothing whatsoever to do with Adam, and that the common perception of those who feel they know the myth of Lilith may well be inaccurate. Whether Lilith came in the front door as myth or through the back door as mere interpretation that somehow managed to gain a foothold in Jewish mythos, her staying power has been strong enough to last to the present day.



PART THREE

"…revelation…"



What then, does this mean in our contemporary studies relating to feminism and religion? From a Jewish standpoint, it is reasonable that Lilith would be considered a champion for women's religious lives and values. Patriarchy, as we have seen, has demonized all aspects of the popular Lilith myth with the end result being that women are considered evil when they show the qualities of the mythical Lilith. As Lilith's replacement as the wife of Adam, Eve represents a less than empowered character. Traditional religious ideas have little in the way of powerful female figures. As Tara Warren illustrated in her lecture on October 8, the Virgin Mary herself is not only forever nothing more than a mother and nurturer, she is also an unattainable level of perfection.

The traditional myth of Lilith, however, would be an ideal example of what Muszynski speaks of when she calls patriarchy an historical phenomenon (Muszynski, 64). It is unreasonable to assume Lilith's evil nature based on nothing more than what prior religious thinkers, almost exclusively men, have made of her. Religious feminists would look at the myth of Lilith and see the character of Lilith as one who defies the ideas and standards set by the 'fathers' of Jewish and Christian traditions. She demanded equality above anything else, and she refused to allow even God himself to lure her back to Adam, and consequently into a life of servitude. In this framework Lilith becomes almost a challenge to traditional myth. She is a feminist way of saying that the ideas put forth by a patriarchal culture are unacceptable. To embrace what goes against the culture is ultimately a way of stating that the culture in question is not acceptable to those who would embrace the alternative.

An excellent example of this is the recent Lilith Fair concerts that have happened annually for the past two years. Sarah McLachlan, in an interview dealing with Lilith Fair, told the reporter that she got the idea from the traditional Jewish myth of Lilith being Adam's first wife, and her refusal to be dominated. "I loved the egalitarian element of that, I loved the reactionary element of it, it was a bit cheeky, and I thought it was very perfect for Lilith . . . she's such a strong and wonderful feminist figure, yet we've never been taught that. So I feel really proud to have helped to put her back on her rightful goddess position" (McLachlan, 1). An interesting statement, as now we see a new generation embracing Lilith as a goddess.

But are we correct? Consider the evolution of Lilith as portrayed in the pictures seen here. Directly to the left we have an image of Lilith from antiquity. She possesses many qualities, beauty as well as a darker element noted in the clawed feet and wings. The image seen below to the right is somewhat different. This is the logo used to promote Lilith Fair. In it we see a distinctly more human idea of Lilith, with all aspects of any evil qualities removed. She is represented as nothing more than a beautiful woman, the rays behind her perhaps signifying some hidden divinity.

I believe that of all of the readings I have done for this course, the one that haunts me most is the work we read by E. Spelman. Her ideas that it is unreasonable to assume the existence of a universal woman seem among the most valid I have encountered (see Spelman, 137). Looking at all of the facts outlined in this work, we have been able to rightfully call Lilith a spirit, a demon, a wife, a champion and a goddess to name a few. We have seen that she can be belligerent, independent, evil, thieving, murderous and feminist. Can we rightfully select whatever aspects of Lilith suit our needs at the time and call this being Lilith? Was Sarah McLachlan any more correct when she called Lilith a goddess than the 'fathers' were when they called her a demon? I believe that Spelman would disagree.

Rather, I believe it would be more useful and indeed more valid to think of Lilith in a different way. Leitch makes an astute observation that is worth consideration:



Adam was created to perfection, [in the image of God,] who is not seen as being male or female, but as both at once . . . thus, if God is male and female, the mother and the father, then Adam . . . must also have originally been male and female in one. To be otherwise would have been to be unbalanced, and thus imperfect" (Leitch, 1).



When we consider the first part of the paper, and we see that etymologically speaking the name 'Lilith' may well spring from the word 'spirit', it is intriguing to find that the name 'Adam' comes from the Hebrew 'adamah,' meaning 'earth'. As the earth, Adam could be said to represent the tangible, the elemental, the raw components that make humankind able to live. As spirit, Lilith may well represent the intangible, the transcendent, the divine components that make humankind strive for an understanding greater than itself. When both are brought together, we have the complete picture of a human being. The genders come to represent components that should strive for equality in consideration rather than independence from one another.

This idea is not without historical literary precedent. If one considers the writings of Plato in The Symposium, Aristophanes makes largely the same point:



. . . originally it was different from what it is now. In the first place there were three sexes, not, as with us, two, male and female; the third partook of the nature of both the others and has vanished . . . (Plato, 59)



Curiously, Aristophanes goes on to nearly echo many of the ideas put forth by Leitch. Aristophanes says that Zeus, concerned with the power of this third sex, comes up with an idea to remedy the problem of their power: "I will cut each of them in two; in this way they will be weaker . . . they shall walk upright on two legs" (Plato, 60). Finally, Aristophanes explains the yearning of humanity for union among the sexes:

Man's original body having been thus cut in two, each half yearned for the half from which it had been severed. When they met they threw their arms around one another and embraced, in their longing to grow together again . . . when one member of a pair died and the other was left, the latter sought after and embraced another partner, which might be the half either of a female whole (what is now called woman) or a male" (Plato, 61).

The feminist movement, at the very least from a Liberal feminist standpoint, strikes me as largely a necessary attempt to attain equality among the sexes. The ideal would be a communion between both sexes in which there is no division, all humanity benefiting from the combined power that arises out of two distinct yet equal forces. For the sake of this paper, one could argue that Lilith, if taken as the shadow side of humanity or as the defiant or headstrong is a perfect compliment to Adam, who is considered penitent or grounded. Combined we achieve not only equality on levels of power but completion as human beings.

And this is what I take with me from the writing of this paper. Who is Lilith? Throughout our history she has been many things to many groups of people as we have seen, but as Spelman has pointed out, can any group of her qualities be considered without also considering all of the others? The answer to that question is that Lilith can be nearly anyone. What is Lilith? That is another matter. Seen from the above perspectives, she can represent anything from the spirit of humankind we all identify with on some level to the dark side many of us may never see. In either case, she is a part of a much greater reality, that of human consciousness, in which she runs freely. We can make use of her in whatever way seems to suit, but we would be mistaken if we were to believe for a moment that we could compartmentalize her. Lilith is a valuable component that feminists can quote from and rally to, but only inasmuch as the realization that she is more than her sex is kept intact. It may be wholly unfair, as suggested at the outset of the paper, to invent any goddess that suits. An unalterable definition of Lilith in this case seems not only unfair but also impossible. ?



Works Cited

DALLEY, STEPHANIE, Myths From Mesopotamia. Oxford University Press,

New York, ©1989

HUMM, ALAN, "Lilith" from The World Wide Web,

http://ccat.sus.upenn.edu:80/~humm/Topics/Lilith/, December

6, 1998.

LEITCH, AARON, "Lilith" from The World Wide Web,

http://www.cjnetworks.com/~lilitu/lilith/Khephframes.html,

December 6, 1998.

MCLACHLAN, SARAH, From an interview presented in Lilith Fair, Produced

By High Five Entertainment, Inc. ©1997.

MUSZYNSKI, A., Race, Class, Gender. ©1991 by Jesse Vorst/Society for

Socialist Studies.

PLATO, The Symposium. Penguin Books Ltd. New York, (C)1951.

SCHWARTZ, H., "Jewish Tales of the Supernatural" from Judaism Vol. 36,

Summer 1987.

SEGAL, ELIEZER, "Looking for Lilith" from The World Wide Web,

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/950206_Lilith.html,

December 6, 1998.

SMITH, JEFFREY, "Lilit, Malkah ha-Shadim" from The World Wide Web,

http://www.cjnetworks.com/~lilitu/lilith/lilit.html, December 6,

1998.

SPELMAN, E., "Woman: The One & The Many" from Inessential Woman.

©1988 by Beacon Press.

WARREN, TARA, Lecture Material from October 08, 1998.

WEIGLE, MARTA, Spiders & Spinsters. University of New Mexico Press,

New Mexico, ©1982.

WTF.. ... ... all this outta the genesis. Cool.

Very interesting. I would rather say that Lilith is the type of woman I would like in a relationship. Assertive, so she has the brains to think for herself. Aggressive, so she constantly send warning signals when I act like a jerk so that the relationship can get patched up more quickly. Independent, so that she can create ideas of her own and discuss with me. A woman like Eve would not be so great to me.

Zero:

Lillith isn't actually in Genesis - not in the Bible. I think she's mentioned in the Babylonain Torah, and other misc. Jewish myths.

Sorry, had to be anal-retentive.

Indeed? And what is anal-retentive?

Anal-Retentive (anal stage of development): The anal stage of motivational development is characterized by the child's central area of bodily concern in the rectum. Bowel movements become a source of pleasure to the child. The child may defecate to receive pleasure. However, gaining pleasure from defecating brings the child into conflict with the parents regarding toilet training. Freud claimed that delays during this stage (or this stage occuring prematurely) can cause fixation. Fixation during the anal stage can result in anal retention in which a person exhibits compulsive cleanliness, ordderliness, or fussiness.

Others say you're 'anal retentive' because you're "full of sh*t" or being a 'tight-ass'.

actually, i think over 300 posts to this site is closer to pathetic but i love you anyways man!

and since you come from atheism, i'll pray for you.... maybe you could pray for me too as i probably need it more than you do :rolleyes:

i don't necesarrily think you need to mean the words. "god help harrykarry." i think the words themselves might have some power as words of life....

back to the discussion at hand (so i don't get in trouble....)

it comes down to mans' need to sort and separate everything into catagories... it's sad really. why can't it all be taught and it all be lumped together and it all be included then let the lost children of the earth decide for themselves.... scientists would rather burn the bible then include it in the discussion... it smacks of shit... again.

harry,

...scientists would rather burn the bible then include it in the discussion.
Scientists have no more reason to include the bible in science process than they have to include the National Enquirer (http://www.nationalenquirer.com) or the World Weekly News (http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/). ;)

Here's a little scenario for everyone to ponder. A scientist suspects that non-intelligent processes may be insufficient to produce biological complexity. He wishes to follow-up his suspicion with an investigation using the scientific method. Two questions: Is he a creationist? Can what he is doing be called science?

huh? clearly they are directly connected......more...Friday

zero:
Am I god? Welcome to sciforums, harrykarry. Such attacks will do nothing but earn you a cold, amused but somewhat sympathetic silence from the sciforum gurus. WNDWAA. (surely you know what THAT means?)
Pathetic. You only have 20+ posts and you're calling someone else a newbie.
Zero, what the hell is up with your shit talk. YOU ARE BETTER CAUSE YOUVE BEEN HERE LONGER! ROCKING, now shutup please.


And these religious folk say that evolutionist theory is a religion because its belief that energy is eternal (it can't be created or destroyed, yet its here, right?).

I agree it (evolutions) has its flaw, but to say the earth is 6000 years old is a bit rediculous.

And to teach that in the schools is ever more rediculous.

I have seen Dr. Kent hovind (creationist speak), and the worst part about it is he makes all these claims that apparently counteract the age of the earth (the moon is getting closer to the earth this much ever year, if we go back 10000 years it would be in the middle of the earth...). All of his statements are easily invalidated if one only speaks to the correct authority. He is the source of all this creationist babble and the idea that it can somehow be TAUGHT in a classroom. :D ha ha

And these religious folk say that evolutionist theory is a religion because its belief that energy is eternal (it can't be created or destroyed, yet its here, right?).

evolutionist theory is based on data right? (wether theorized or proven) the worship of data (with or without physical proof) is a religion. endorsing a belief that the physical; the rocks, the stars, the trees, even man are above god... somehow smarter.... somehow omnipotent in and of themselves, self-created and then mutated over time until intelligence as we know it (jerry springer) slowly emerges.
yes. evolution is a religion. the fact that evolutionists hide behind data and worship it as their god...is a religion... it's even very narrow minded as religions often are...

i believe that "religious folk" aren't niave enough to believe the world is only 6,000 years old. those "religious folk" are saying data is not god. god is god. god created the energy.

the speaker you are talking about is probably a wacko. giving creationist a bad name.... mix a scientist with a religious zelot and you'll probably get a wacko...throw in the need for attention and a few degrees and he becomes a self-appointed mouthpiece for the extreme... and heaven forbid that a christian speak out against our self-appointed creationist guru....

kindof like any liberal program that wants to emphasize how rediculous christianity is.... show an evangelist with a bad hairdoo...

i believe that "religious folk" aren't niave enough to believe the world is only 6,000 years old. those "religious folk" are saying data is not god. god is god. god created the energy.

Well then you have no connection at all with the creationist community. They do indeed say the earth is 6k to 10k years old through biblical dating (using the generations of people listed in the bible).

the speaker you are talking about is probably a wacko. giving creationist a bad name.... mix a scientist with a religious zelot and you'll probably get a wacko...throw in the need for attention and a few degrees and he becomes a self-appointed mouthpiece for the extreme... and heaven forbid that a christian speak out against our self-appointed creationist guru....

Kent hovind...yes he is a wacko perhaps. But he is a leading voice in creationism and the attack on evolution. I wouldn't attack him blindly if I were you because he actually does his research, he comes off sounding a lot more intelligent then you. You have yet to present ANY facts as to why evolution might be false. You are a much bigger wacko in my book.

As for worshipping and hiding behind data, that is just insane propaganda that you heard at your latest church meeting! Who is 'hiding' behind data? Do you even have slightest idea of what science is about? Seriously?

There are plenty of religious scientists in the world, and I have no doubts the huge majority of scientists have entertained the idea of creationism. But how can a scientists take anything like that at face value without any facts at all? The bible is not the be all and end all of answers, and it would be very destructive to society if we treated it as such (remember the dark ages....ya well we would still be there if the world listened to wackos like you).

At least kent hovind understands what science IS, go read a 4th grade intro book on science or something and then come back to argue.

Use fewer ellipses please, its like reading a long pause.

I hear ya barking big dog.

shit, maybe only you edjumacated folks should be allowed on sciforum.

should anti-religion be taught in the classroom? you've not given me any evidence that evolution is not an anti-religion (and as such, a religion in itself). and your pompous atitude makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. (an instinctual thing that god allowed to be evolved into women way back probably even before eve was wearing fig leaves...)

clearly the six days it took god to create the world and my women's intuition were not days as we know them. i look forward to the paradymn shift when we have the answers (in heaven or hell).

Use fewer insults please, its like being disappointed by a little dick.

should anti-religion be taught in the classroom? you've not given me any evidence that evolution is not an anti-religion (and as such, a religion in itself). and your pompous atitude makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. (an instinctual thing that god allowed to be evolved into women way back probably even before eve was wearing fig leaves...)
Sorry you don't know what the hell you are talking about. The hairs stand up on my back when I talk to idiots, what can I say.

I am so baffled by your insistance that evolution is a religion as to be left speachless. What is your definition of religion?

Why do you waste your time with the Bible if all you do is twist the meanings and words around so much that it comes out to have real meaning only in your mind. I respect eki a lot more than you, at least he understands the importance of th book you base your faith, your life, and all your assumptions on science on, has to be TRUTH at all times, or else you are just spinning your wheels.
(Either take the thing figuratively or take it literally. But if you take it figuratively don't try to apply meaning to every word and phrase, it makes you sound like a desperate moron).

shit, maybe only you edjumacated folks should be allowed on sciforum.
If you believe that education teaches a person to treat things with logic and common sense then yes I agree with you. I however, believe education is mearly a means to get access to good material, no one can teach you to think. That is your problem, thinking.

As far as evolution being a religion I really don't know what you want me to explain to you. That it is a theory based on observations of the world and scientific data collected for almost 200 years now? That it is continually growing, changing and expanding to fit in line with REAL data (something RELIGION can never do, unless of course your name is harrykarry and you change your religion and your creed to fit the day of the week. "no i swear a day means 50 million years").
Perhaps if you explain HOW it is a religion, I will understand your feeble attempts to debase it, and then I can reply in kind.

I speak outside what is recognized as the border between "reason" and "insanity".

get outta here. you believe only what you can see.

jesus spoke in parables because of such fools.

Originally posted by harrykarry
I speak outside what is recognized as the border between "reason" and "insanity".

get outta here. you believe only what you can see.

jesus spoke in parables because of such fools.
So thats your response? You quote my sig that has nothing to do with the discussion and then try and slam my intelligence and 'open mindedness' with absolutely no substance to back it up. This was after slyly sending me to 'hell' in your previous post. This is so good. Now I know what the thread starters were talking about when they said discussing creationsm is so much fun.

lol!

Lets try one last time to get something of substance out of you, I'm finding this very entertaining.
Perhaps if you explain HOW it is a religion, I will understand your feeble attempts to debase it, and then I can reply in kind.

So now it comes out. You see what was meant in the begininng of the thread that when theists get started it is a quick trip from there into faith.

The thing you do not hear is why creationism and here is fact to support it. What you will hear is attack at evolution because there is precious little that can be offered for creationism. There are two ways to formulate an arguement or debate. One is to present facts to support the issue. Very little of this will be done simply because there is precious little that can be offered to substantiate it. The other is to attack the validity of the concept. Which is where defenders of creationism are forced to go being as they can not pull out facts short of the bible that support it. Science can go to multiple places to support the facts. The only reason that creationism is taught in school is that you have successful policital lobbying which is a far cry from proof...

Now everyone knows my penis is small, what am i to do:(

harrykarry,
Evolution is a religion
From Is evolution just another religion? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html):
"....as a metaphysic, evolutionary theory is fairly poverty-stricken. This is what should be true of a scientific theory; for the number of conclusions beyond the empirical evidence that can be conjectured is unlimited. Any theory that committed itself to a metaphysical conclusion as a logical inference would be almost certainly false."

Human genome reveals human evolution (2001)
With the first draft of the sequence of the human genome complete, scientists see more than ever before how intimately related the human species is to other life on Earth. Humans not only share more than 98 percent of their genes with chimpanzees, they even have genes in common with fruit flies and yeast. The field of genomics gives scientists new tools for understanding how humans, along with all living organisms, have evolved over billions of years.

Source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/index.html)

I'm still trying to figure out how you anti-creationists define creationism. Are you guys just against the hypothesis that the earth and universe are only 6.000-10,000 years old or are you opposed to anything that's not compatible with materialism? I posted the following on August 1 to get the ball rolling and no one responded:

Here's a little scenario for everyone to ponder. A scientist suspects that non-intelligent processes may be insufficient to produce biological complexity. He wishes to follow-up his suspicion with an investigation using the scientific method. Two questions: Is he a creationist? Can what he is doing be called science?

Warren,

I would attest that clearly he IS a creationist, although he might be using a back door to get his opinion in. To answer whether or not what he is doing is called science, I would respond by saying THAT question has no relevance in this regard. Calling it science would be a clever attempt to try and PROVE a creationist theory using the same parameters that a scientist would use. One could can call Anything science in that regard.

I am personally reluctant to wedge myself into either corner for the purpose of this discussion, I have my own ideas on the topic and much chatter on this subject contains more mental masturbation than actual substance.

Warren,
Can what he is doing be called science?
If he is using the scientific method, it is science. He would have a hypothesis. If I were to believe that the moon is made of cheese it would be my moon is cheese hypothesis. I could begin a vigorous study using the scientic method. However, until I had evidence and facts to back up my claim it would remain a wacky hypothesis and never be taught in schools :).

Teerum>>I would attest that clearly he IS a creationist, although he might be using a back door to get his opinion in. To answer whether or not what he is doing is called science, I would respond by saying THAT question has no relevance in this regard. Calling it science would be a clever attempt to try and PROVE a creationist theory using the same parameters that a scientist would use. One could can call Anything science in that regard.<<

Teerum,

Thank you for your honest reply. I think it's important to note that the hostility of the scientific community towards creationism is more than just a disagreement over the age of the earth and the age of the universe. It goes even deeper than a difference of opinion over common ancestry. What we have here is a commitment of the scientific community to the blind watchmaker hypothesis. This hypothesis rejects the idea that any intelligent direction has occurred in the evolutionary process. If this were common knowledge there would be much more opposition to the teaching of evolution in the public schools than there is.

About half of those that consider themselves Christians believe that God directed the evolutionary process in some way. But the evolutionary process that the anti-creationists are promoting is a non-intelligently directed at any level process. They should be up front about this when presenting their case before school boards. The Christian belief that God had something to do with origin of humans is not compatible with Darwinism.

A Darwinist doesn't investigate to answer the question "did X evolve" but only looks to answer the question "how did X evolve" and "how are X, Y and Z related by evolution." A scientist that investigates to answer the question "did X evolve" is not doing science according to the Darwinists, thus there can be no scientific evidence against Darwinism.

Warren,

I believe that in order for the scientific community to successfully support this non-intelligence theory they have to make to many concessions and on the other hand, it may also be said that the creationist has a very convenient way out also. Neither side can actually provide enough information to prove the other wrong. However, I believe that in order to make an intelligent assessment we actually need to take a few steps back.

Yes, we can say that evidence of fossilized microbes found on Mars is potential evidence that we as Human beings are also aliens that flew through space and landed on earth. I myself feel this is a great possibility. Clearly this is a great departure from Adam and Eve. However, even if the scientist reaches back to microbes flying through space, the mere process of the origin of life beginning like that is so incredible that the most astute scientist would not be able to explain HOW the process came to be. No matter how it is explained, it is a catch 22.

I can go on and on, but I would like to say that I am very happy about the differences of these opinions, because without the scientist I am not sure the creationist would ever have the ability or desire to strive to really know the truth.....the answer lies within the convergence of both positions........

About half of those that consider themselves Christians believe that God directed the evolutionary process in some way. But the evolutionary process that the anti-creationists are promoting is a non-intelligently directed at any level process. They should be up front about this when presenting their case before school boards. The Christian belief that God had something to do with origin of humans is not compatible with Darwinism.

Your whole point is really missed on me.

Yes there are diffent kinds of creationists, so what. What does that have to do with a someone wanting a line in highschool biology books saying one theory is that 'god created everything' (by the way that was in my 9th grade bio book, my teacher was a evangelists son and didnt even teach us evolution).

In my view evolution is NOT trying to deal with how things got here, but rather how stuff evolved into more complex beings. Yes they have their 'theories' about minerals and lightning and primordial soup, but that is just random guesses that are not science, but theories of that nature are right alongside theories of creation in the bio books ive seen.

My big beef with creation is what the hell do they want to teach about it exactly? God created the world, the end.

And I still say that trying to fit evolution into the bible is complete shit. Give me a break, it doesn't even hint to it, it just says 6 days. Seriously, how do you turn 6 days into millions and millions of years of evolution. silly.

So if you say something of a creationist scientist who completely believes in evolution, but thinks the original form of life came from God, I say so the hell what. That is no different than a scientist thinking it came from some soup or rock or lightning bolt. Neither have proof, get my point.

sorry I ramble too damn much sometimes.

people with small dicks have a tendency to ramble :D

sorry, cheep shot... but at least you're not a blithering morron like me...



the answer lies within the convergence of both positions........

the open hostility of evolutionists who throw darwin on the table and say, "seeeeeeeeeeeeee, creationists are idiots" and the creationists who throw the bible on the table and say, "seeeeeeeeeee, you're all going to hell" make this whole black and white, wrong and right, only one can exist in a science class, narrow-mindedness, insanely sad.

oops, i was rambling too.... thank god i don't have a dick.

and i wasn't implying that you were going to hell... i put myself in that catagory before anyone but you do set me off. let's never get married.

But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. — 2 Peter 3:8

(and please don't start doing the math you literal science fools.)

...do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. — 2 Peter 3:8

And do not let this one fact escape your notice: that with the Scientist one creation tale is like a thousand creation tales, and a thousand creation tales like one creation tale. - Gen. Science 101

Most critics of Neo Darwinism do not question “evolution”. They question that random mutation and natural selection is capable of creating complex biological structures and systems. In the past evolution was attributed to ‘DNA copying errors’ (random by common usage of the word) shaped into complex biological structures by ‘natural selection’. More recently Darwinists have claimed that ‘random’ has a different meaning in biology. In biology random supposedly only means ‘random with regard to fitness’. I congratulate Neo Darwinists upon finally realizing the implausibility of biological complexity being created by a truly random process such as ‘copying errors’ and ‘natural selection’. However, so far no one has specified exactly how biological complexity might actually be created. No one has explained what is non-random about the process. If biological structures are not created by random, blind, purposeless copying errors plus natural selection – then how are they created? (There is nothing for natural selection to select until a complex, rational, functioning biological structure is in existence.) Is life ‘self organized’? Intelligently self-organized? What would be the difference between intelligently self-organized and intelligently designed?

Creative intelligence consists of the ability to make fallible choices. A computer, or any other mechanistic process, can only make the choices it is programmed to make. A computer won’t make mistakes, so long as the system is not corrupted, but neither is it capable of creativity. It can't make free falllible choices.

I can think of three possible explanations of evolution:

1. The theistic assumption that God guides nature’s creative processes.

2. A creative intelligence innate in all living matter drives the process – a creative intelligence which might be viewed as a natural force such as gravity. However, unlike gravity, creative intelligence is neither measurable nor predictable.

3. Novel Biological structures are the result of some unknown non-intelligent, mechanistic process - as yet to be specified by ‘science’.

Does our present understanding allow us to impose any one of these possibilities upon society, and prohibit consideration of the others? If science is required to limit itself to mechanistic explanations, and life is not a mechanistic process, perhaps science can not explain life.

Just because science can not explain somethign does NOT mean that another theory gets free access to the empty slot.

And the fact stands that creationism does NOt belong in science. It is mainly built around proselytizing and negating evolution. And creationism spouts random absolute truths and shoves them down your throat, "believe it or else". On the other hand, scientific theories are always open to disproof. The close mindedness lies in creationism.

And harrykarry, the necessity for allowing new ideas in science does NOt apply to creationism. C is unscientific, that's why it does not belong.


I might add that, according to philosopher Karl Popper, the defining characteristic of science is falsifiability.

Zero>>Just because science can not explain somethign does NOT mean that another theory gets free access to the empty slot.

And the fact stands that creationism does NOt belong in science. <<

Depends on how you define creationism and how you define science. You are obviously confusing intelligent design with a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis. They are not the same.
And you seem to equate science with materialism. One can use the scientific method without subscibing to the philosophy of materialism. And ID is every bit as falsifiable as Darwinism.

The materialist belief that a blind watchmaker turned microbes into magpies, maple trees and musicians doesn't require any evidence because a blind watchmaker is a logical deduction from materialism. If a critic finds the current blind watchmaker inadequate to explain everything that's occurred in natural history, his only permissible move within science is to suggest a better blind watchmaker. That a competent blind watchmaker may not exist at all and that certain aspects of biotic reality may be better explained by a seeing watchmaker is not a logical possibility. Thus, most scientists don't investigate to determine IF life evolved, they only search for ways life DID evolve. Now, why should it be surprising to materialists that non-materialists remain skeptical of the current blind watchmaker hypothesis and feel that evidence for a seeing watchmaker may not be getting a fair hearing?


Richard Dawkins, author of the book The Blind Watchmaker, doesn't say that biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having evolved. Instead he says, "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." If nature looks this way to an atheist like Dawkins then what's wrong with a non-materialist having a suspicion that biological things that exhibit machine-like complexity look designed because they are designed? In particular those things for which there is no evidence they evolved solely through non-intelligent processes. And what is wrong with following up on this suspicion with an investigation employing the scientific method?

Just because science can not explain somethign does NOT mean that another theory gets free access to the empty slot.

zero, the "empty slot" was created while you were still in diapers and god was removed from schools. yes, we used to be able to sing christmas carrols such as silent night and away in the manger at school. that was way back when we bowed our heads and silently prayed right after the pledge of allegiance....

the "empty slot" was quickly filled by materialists who have much invested in claiming to NOT be a religion. (or they too would be booted out the door, [by themselves]).

but i'll again contradict myself by saying that unlike grocery stores.... i don't believe the mind has just so much shelf space. in fact, data isn't even hardly taught anymore. more important is the skill of collecting data and to include creationism and evolution as subjects to be researched with information on how to do so is not a threat to any "slot."

it's too bad that the whole "slot" mentality was encouraged by fundamentalists..... then adopted by evolutionists and other bad people (just kidding, really)...

the best thing we could do for our kids is include them all and teach them how to come to their own conclusions. obviously, it would be WAYYYYYYYYY more interesting for them.

I have been out of this thread for a while. I hope, I did not miss anything. My understanding is that "Creationist" view is basically Christian view. That leaves more than half of the world population for a competing religious view too.

Another monkey wrench....

Darwinism is the genisis story of seccular humanism and many other non-theist points of view. That in itself is the real issue. Evolution on it's own, as a biological theory about our origins and the way life has come about on this planet has reached far beyond it's original meaning as a biological theory.

Who we are as people - what ethics we decide upon, and what values we teach to our children have much to do with the philosophy and beliefs we instill about what is the nature of human beings. Evolution clearly states that we are a byproduct of millions of years of random chance and accidents. Their is in all reality, NOTHING special about human beings. We are nothing more than upwright walking primates with the ability to think.

If one is to accept their is a divine creator, then one is brought into the idea that MAYBE their is a purpose to the world as a whole. You look upon your fellow man as differnt from the animals we evolved from and something else entirely. You wonder WHY do I exist?

The issue with Darwinism / Creationism is a clash of values, morals, and beliefs which has little to do with science in itself and more to do with the instilling of ethics. Many Christians feel (correctly) that the teaching of Evolution in the classroom leaves their children more susceptable to accepting non-theist beliefs. However, to say that the teaching of non-theist ideas philosophies in school without teaching theist philosophies as well is fair because one is science and the other is not is not a valaid argument.

In Colleges, their are whole schollarly courses on Islam, Christianity, Judism, Hinduism, and many other world religions. Teaching religion in High School in the same mannor would not be unbenificiary.

In Colleges, their are whole schollarly courses on Islam, Christianity, Judism, Hinduism, and many other world religions. Teaching religion in High School in the same mannor would not be unbenificiary.
Do away with the Math and Science CRAP, ITS RELIGIOUS STUDIES TIME:D

Actually I took a new testament course my 9th grade year at a public high school, just a little peep into how a grew up and why I am so messed up.

If I may pose the question: what does teaching Evolution in the classroom have to offer young minds? It's nice to know, but it's not applicable for everyday like Math will be. By contrast, courses in religious beliefs would offer people a tool to understanding other cultures beliefs, and thus an invalueble tool in world politics and world history. The whole situation in the Middle-East for example, becomes much easier to grasp if you understand the religious teachings of both the Jews and Islamics.

You've failed to make a case that teaching religious beliefs has less value than Evolution.

You've failed to make a case that teaching religious beliefs has less value than Evolution
sensative are we? If you'll notice I didn't exactly construct an argument, I was being lighthearted...

But yes I completely believe that teaching science is a much more constructive use of time than teaching religion. I could honostly care less if you disagree with that. You want to change my mind, you construct an argument saying they are both equally necessary and perhaps I'll respond.

I gave you a good reason. Even if you don't agree with what religious people believe, knowing what they believe would give you a tremendous asset in understanding where they are comming from. I do not believe in non-theism, but I learn about it so I can understand why they think the way they do. For those same reasons, religion ought to be in classrooms. The knowledge is an incredible tool in understanding world politics, or the guy just down the street.

To an extent, we already do this in schools. When we learn about the Egyptian Pyramids in Gaza, we learn some smatterings about the religion the Egyptians practiced to help students understand WHY the Pyramids were built. We teach whole units about Greek Mythology and about Christianity to some extent when we talk about the Roman Empire.

If we were to teach courses in Islam (and some schools have begun to already!) then the actions and motivations of Osama Bin Laden become clearer to us. If we were to talk about Christianity in the same open-minded by distanced manor, then the "religous right" would be more understandable. If we were to teach our students about Judism, we would understand why Israel acts the way it does.

When we teach Evolution in classrooms, do we teach it in the mannor of "YOU MUST BELIEVE."? The truth is that we don't. We teach it in the mannor "This is what the scientific community's concensus is." That is the nature of science. Fossil Bird Expert Larry Martin said it best. "It's probably a bad thing in science when everyone can agree on something. If you look historically, some of the most horrible mistakes generally had wide agreement." Remember also that in science, the word "Fact" is defined as a general concensus, not absolute truth.

Religion should be taught the same way in classrooms - as a scholarly study of the beliefs of other people. Jeff Horner, a noted Paleontoligest said it best. "If you ask someone what they think happened, that's not nessassarily what happened. That's what they think happened." In other words, you do not HAVE to teach Religion in the classroom as "gospel truth".

I do believe there never was an argument about the usefullness of teaching religion. Teaching about all major religions is most probably very good indeed, since they are an important part of our world, and fundamental for so many individuals.

The debate is about teaching creationism as a science. And if I'm allowed to give my opinion, that would be quite negative. This since creationism is not a scientific theory, and thus would be all together in the wrong place. It should be in religion class together with Hindu and Buddhist world creation ideas as well.

Warren, I recommend you read through the article which had its address quouted at the top of this thread. Science does in fact not stand baffled at all by the randomness problem in evolution, but have detailed those processes much closer during the last years.

As a final argument, I would like to make the following example: I could right now come up with my very own religion. It would say that everything, the world, the universe and so on, was all created yesterday by an impossible to detect allmighty force. It was created so that it in every way will indicate to have existed for a lot longer, and people were created with falsified memories of times past. Nothing existed before this.

Seems perfect, right? Impossible to disprove, and it even happens to explain everything I would ever find strange about the world.

But it still just doesn't seem to quite cut it, does it? It just doesn't seem likely. And no matter how much strange things I find about my other theories, it never ever makes my first theory any more likely.

That is fundamental in science. If there is no way to show something and no things or occurences which would disprove it, there is no reason to try to present is as a scientific theory, as science cannot do anything with it. It just doesn't belong.

I'll give you that one - their is no way to disprove that God exists with science. By the same token, the mainstream scientific community should not act like they have, and they do when they aren't being politically correct.

By the same token, I can suggest the Evolution is also not disproveable. Since as I have said before no one has directly watched animals trasmuate over generations, no one has witnessed it in action. Oh sure you can say that the Fossil Record can count for that, but that's only how you interprit what your seeing in the fossil record. I could say a divine creator causes each transmutation, but I can't watch him do it. By the same token, I can say that we cannot watch macroevolution happen. Scientists act on faith at this point. Remember, Darwin formed his theory AFTER he saw a hundred differnt things in Nature which confirmed what he already believed.

The idea of Evolution is an old one - it's been around since the Sumarians introduced it in their religious doctrines. That's right - Evolution was originally a RELIGIOUS doctrine. We have had a few thousand years to change it in the light of observations. After all that time, do you really think the theory is left disproveable? Of course not - it's been changed each time a new observation comes up. Thus, the theory never dies, but changes when it's disproven. Since the theory can never be disproven, I submit that Evolution is in itself pseudoscience!

<i>The idea of Evolution is an old one - it's been around since the Sumarians introduced it in their religious doctrines. That's right - Evolution was originally a RELIGIOUS doctrine.</i>

This is a new one for me. Can you provide any evidence for this? Some quotes of Sumarian writings about evolution would be good.

Also, evolution is falsifiable. For example, evolutionary theory predicts that all life on Earth should be based on similar DNA and have certain parts of the DNA in common. To disprove evolution on this basis, all you need to do is show me <b>one</b> animal, plant or whatever which doesn't have DNA, or which does not share any DNA with other lifeforms. Can you do that?

It is somewhat strange for a Creationist to claim that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable, since they devote much of their time and effort to attempting to falsify it.

pseu·do·sci·ence (sd-sns)
n.
A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation

Hello Xevious.

:eek:

Prepare to get flamed, eh?

Not that I will be the one to do it. I just want to say that "theory" is not a "law." What we understand about evolution changes. Just as our understanding of the atom has changed from it being solid and unbreakable, to the discovery of subatomic particles in orbits, to the current mathematical model that seems to be holding up all right. It's still a theory, but today it is much different than it was fifty years ago.

I wonder if anyone was upset when Dalton's gold foil experiment showed that an atom is stunningly mostly empty space? Rather this new knowledge was assimilated into the theory. Science learns... I'd rather the theories change, than scientists refuse to look at new data, or even tamper with it so it will fit. Haven't you clamed that the case in the past? Open that topic for discussion:D

I gave you a good reason. Even if you don't agree with what religious people believe, knowing what they believe would give you a tremendous asset in understanding where they are comming from. I do not believe in non-theism, but I learn about it so I can understand why they think the way they do. For those same reasons, religion ought to be in classrooms. The knowledge is an incredible tool in understanding world politics, or the guy just down the street.
You changed things around on us, I said show me why they are equally important. I never denied the importance of studying the religions of the world, but is it just as important as science? hardly.

We arleady have 'social studies' in the classroooms anyways. This is a much better solution than what you are proposing as it addresses the culture being studied as a whole rather than boiling it down to the just its religion.

Think of it this way: w