I do beleave i asked this once before back in august but im asking again because this topic has showed up on my old highschools school board meetings.(there always so much fun...>.< not!) If Evolution is aloud to be taught in school why cant creationism be taugh also. its like the teachers say before they begine the lesson on evolution. "you dont have to beleave i just gotta teach it" if thats the case why cant they teach creationism too? Some Call Creationism a science others a religion...the same goes for evolution.... no one is saying the teacher is has to give his personal opinion on the subject. and no one is saying the kids have to beleave it eithor so why is it that to this day it is still not taught in our school systems?
"They took your comandments off the school house walls. they say its a crime to even pray within the halls. but bless the child that lets you in and knows with out a doubt. once you live inside a heart they cant take you out!"
Monday, October 12, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
The Bible
Welcome back ladys and gents,
since the school year has kicked off i decided to stick to a topic that caught my attention in my Western civ. class. (for those of you who dont know my professer is an athiest as well)One thing he often does is bing his religous views into his lectures.Some times everyone can tell that what he's saying is complete crap, other times though he makes everyone question things. One thing he asked us the other day was this:
The bible has been rewritten into many different languages, copied, rewritten into different versions and passed down through so many generations, how do you prove that no one has tampered with it, which would make ur bible faulse even if its origanal message was true?
any thoughts?
since the school year has kicked off i decided to stick to a topic that caught my attention in my Western civ. class. (for those of you who dont know my professer is an athiest as well)One thing he often does is bing his religous views into his lectures.Some times everyone can tell that what he's saying is complete crap, other times though he makes everyone question things. One thing he asked us the other day was this:
The bible has been rewritten into many different languages, copied, rewritten into different versions and passed down through so many generations, how do you prove that no one has tampered with it, which would make ur bible faulse even if its origanal message was true?
any thoughts?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Alright, due to recent circumstances, namely one person who could not control their words for many weeks, our patience has run out and only people who are actual members of the blog may post anymore. Feel free to join the site if you're out there and have anything to say though! This is basically an unfortunately necessary measure against one specific person.
Friday, September 11, 2009
New Topic
Hey everybody,
Our new topic is going to be Animal Rights, specifically animal experimentation. How much liberty do you think should be given to experiment on animals? Any other thoughts relating to this topic would be awesome.
Our new topic is going to be Animal Rights, specifically animal experimentation. How much liberty do you think should be given to experiment on animals? Any other thoughts relating to this topic would be awesome.
Monday, September 7, 2009
This Week's Discusssion
This week we're gonna talk about any kind of addictive and harmful sustance, as in drugs, smoking, etc. What are your views on these kind of substances and the abuse people do to their body with them ?
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Getting back to Buisness
Sorry Guys, Monday kicked off the start of college for me and its been alittle hay wire round here but Im back and we can start up some convos again!
ok For this week and and the next few to come im going to try somthing different. I have found a website that has thousands of debate topics, I am going to post the topic, with a Question to follow that then post the pros and cons list too, for those of you debateing, State what side your on yay or nay and tel me why. (also i will warn you i may not be back on the site for a bit if my hw keeps up the way it has already started so if you members of the team notcie that i havent posted anything up in weeks or so feel fre to put up a topic!) FYI also the pros and cons list i did not come up with they too were found on this website!
This weeks Topic: Creationism vs Evolution
Should schools be allowed to teach creationism alongside evolution as part of their science curriculum?
Pros:
1)Evolution is an unproven theory about the origins of life. Both creationism and evolution are faith-positions, given that both are attempts to explain the past, which is in principle beyond direct scientific examination and verification. If we are allowed to teach one, we should be allowed to teach the other.
2)Creationism is science. It has discovered evidence for a young earth and for the biblical flood. It has pointed to the absence from the fossil record of intermediate forms between known species. It has argued that certain species could not have evolved gradually because of their particular chemical or physical make-up. All of these discoveries and observations confirm the truth of the Genesis account of creation.
3)Biology can be studied in a creationist context. Looking at the way in which different organisms work shows us the beauty and perfection of God’s design. Classification is still possible, along the lines of the ‘kinds’ described in the Bible - but cladistic classification based on hypothetical ‘lines of descent’ is deeply flawed and should be rejected. Creationism helps us to understand the power, goodness and majesty of God and to see how everything is under his authority.
4)Schoolchildren are vulnerable and impressionable: if you teach them that Genesis is wrong, they may well believe you. This has implications for the possibility of bringing them up as believing Christians, which is of course the point of having faith schools in the first place, and what their parents must be presumed to want if they choose to send their children to faith schools. If a majority of Americans are creationists then the school curriculum should reflect this.
5)If we are allowed to teach religious studies, we should be allowed to teach all of the implications of religious belief. The idea that God created the world is central to Christian, Muslim and Jewish belief. If we allow faith schools in which children are taught about their religion from an explicitly committed perspective, if we allow (indeed encourage) religious worship in schools, it is bizarre to allow this to be contradicted in science lessons.
Cons:
1)Evolution is not a theory about the origins of life at all. It is a theory about the development of life. All scientific theories are necessarily unproven - that’s what ‘theory’ means. If we only taught those areas of science which were entirely ‘proved’ there would be little or no science teaching at all. The theory of evolution is, however, supported by overwhelming evidence, and is therefore not a ‘faith-position’ whereas the ‘evidence’ for creationism is discredited. The fact that much (not all - evolution is a continuing process) of the evidence relates to the past is not a problem: all sciences (and indeed history as an academic discipline) make what are, in effect, predictions about the past which are then confirmed or disconfirmed by evidence such as, in this case, the fossil record.
2)Creationism is not science. It takes the Genesis account (actually there are two Genesis accounts, in Gen 1.1-2.3 and Gen 2.4-3.24, but let’s not get into that) as true in every particular, and bends the evidence to fit that so-called ‘hypothesis’ - in fact it is not a hypothesis at all, since it is in principle unalterable for the creationists. Meanwhile, evolutionists come up with hypotheses which they test, modify and, where necessary, abandon as appropriate.
3)Evolution should be a central part of the science curriculum, because the rest of biology is dependent on it. Understanding how and why different organisms work as they do requires a knowledge of mutation, natural selection and adaptation, which are rejected by creationism. For creationism, the classification of living things based on lines of descent and chronological speciation makes no sense. Furthermore, understanding how evolution works as a theory helps teach students about the nature of scientific method - a matter on which creationists are notoriously shaky.
4)Schoolchildren are vulnerable and impressionable: if you teach them the literal truth of Genesis as science, they may well believe you. Since you are wrong, this is not to be welcomed, particularly since what your teaching involves is a wilful misunderstanding of the nature of scientific method, with implications for their understanding of science in general for the rest of their lives. The fact that more than half of all Americans believe that the world was created by God in seven days is a testament to political pressure from Christians to water down the science curriculum, and it is harmful - because it is wrong. We may allow children to be sent to faith schools, but we do not allow those schools to teach them whatever they like.
5)The belief that God creates and sustains the world is not the same as the belief that God created the world in seven days a few thousand years ago. The former is a theological position which implies the goodness and sovereignty of God, and his continuing involvement with his creation, not a scientific claim. The latter is an empirically testable claim which has been empirically tested and found to be false. We should not allow schools to teach our children things that are just plain wrong, and known to be wrong. This is distinct from allowing the teaching of religion, which is culturally and historically significant and which involves beliefs which are in principle distinct from science.
Thease are only some of the pros and cons of that list, if you want i will post up the rest but for now that will do, I havent gotten to read through them yet but let me know what you think!
ok For this week and and the next few to come im going to try somthing different. I have found a website that has thousands of debate topics, I am going to post the topic, with a Question to follow that then post the pros and cons list too, for those of you debateing, State what side your on yay or nay and tel me why. (also i will warn you i may not be back on the site for a bit if my hw keeps up the way it has already started so if you members of the team notcie that i havent posted anything up in weeks or so feel fre to put up a topic!) FYI also the pros and cons list i did not come up with they too were found on this website!
This weeks Topic: Creationism vs Evolution
Should schools be allowed to teach creationism alongside evolution as part of their science curriculum?
Pros:
1)Evolution is an unproven theory about the origins of life. Both creationism and evolution are faith-positions, given that both are attempts to explain the past, which is in principle beyond direct scientific examination and verification. If we are allowed to teach one, we should be allowed to teach the other.
2)Creationism is science. It has discovered evidence for a young earth and for the biblical flood. It has pointed to the absence from the fossil record of intermediate forms between known species. It has argued that certain species could not have evolved gradually because of their particular chemical or physical make-up. All of these discoveries and observations confirm the truth of the Genesis account of creation.
3)Biology can be studied in a creationist context. Looking at the way in which different organisms work shows us the beauty and perfection of God’s design. Classification is still possible, along the lines of the ‘kinds’ described in the Bible - but cladistic classification based on hypothetical ‘lines of descent’ is deeply flawed and should be rejected. Creationism helps us to understand the power, goodness and majesty of God and to see how everything is under his authority.
4)Schoolchildren are vulnerable and impressionable: if you teach them that Genesis is wrong, they may well believe you. This has implications for the possibility of bringing them up as believing Christians, which is of course the point of having faith schools in the first place, and what their parents must be presumed to want if they choose to send their children to faith schools. If a majority of Americans are creationists then the school curriculum should reflect this.
5)If we are allowed to teach religious studies, we should be allowed to teach all of the implications of religious belief. The idea that God created the world is central to Christian, Muslim and Jewish belief. If we allow faith schools in which children are taught about their religion from an explicitly committed perspective, if we allow (indeed encourage) religious worship in schools, it is bizarre to allow this to be contradicted in science lessons.
Cons:
1)Evolution is not a theory about the origins of life at all. It is a theory about the development of life. All scientific theories are necessarily unproven - that’s what ‘theory’ means. If we only taught those areas of science which were entirely ‘proved’ there would be little or no science teaching at all. The theory of evolution is, however, supported by overwhelming evidence, and is therefore not a ‘faith-position’ whereas the ‘evidence’ for creationism is discredited. The fact that much (not all - evolution is a continuing process) of the evidence relates to the past is not a problem: all sciences (and indeed history as an academic discipline) make what are, in effect, predictions about the past which are then confirmed or disconfirmed by evidence such as, in this case, the fossil record.
2)Creationism is not science. It takes the Genesis account (actually there are two Genesis accounts, in Gen 1.1-2.3 and Gen 2.4-3.24, but let’s not get into that) as true in every particular, and bends the evidence to fit that so-called ‘hypothesis’ - in fact it is not a hypothesis at all, since it is in principle unalterable for the creationists. Meanwhile, evolutionists come up with hypotheses which they test, modify and, where necessary, abandon as appropriate.
3)Evolution should be a central part of the science curriculum, because the rest of biology is dependent on it. Understanding how and why different organisms work as they do requires a knowledge of mutation, natural selection and adaptation, which are rejected by creationism. For creationism, the classification of living things based on lines of descent and chronological speciation makes no sense. Furthermore, understanding how evolution works as a theory helps teach students about the nature of scientific method - a matter on which creationists are notoriously shaky.
4)Schoolchildren are vulnerable and impressionable: if you teach them the literal truth of Genesis as science, they may well believe you. Since you are wrong, this is not to be welcomed, particularly since what your teaching involves is a wilful misunderstanding of the nature of scientific method, with implications for their understanding of science in general for the rest of their lives. The fact that more than half of all Americans believe that the world was created by God in seven days is a testament to political pressure from Christians to water down the science curriculum, and it is harmful - because it is wrong. We may allow children to be sent to faith schools, but we do not allow those schools to teach them whatever they like.
5)The belief that God creates and sustains the world is not the same as the belief that God created the world in seven days a few thousand years ago. The former is a theological position which implies the goodness and sovereignty of God, and his continuing involvement with his creation, not a scientific claim. The latter is an empirically testable claim which has been empirically tested and found to be false. We should not allow schools to teach our children things that are just plain wrong, and known to be wrong. This is distinct from allowing the teaching of religion, which is culturally and historically significant and which involves beliefs which are in principle distinct from science.
Thease are only some of the pros and cons of that list, if you want i will post up the rest but for now that will do, I havent gotten to read through them yet but let me know what you think!
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Well arnt we all having fun?
Ok we're going to switch things up a little. My administrators and I had a meeting on monday and decided on the following...
1)The administrators will no longer be called that. as of now I will refer to them as members of the team.
2) The members will also each get their own account on wich to comment from. So that I will be the only one who comments under Timothy. They will still have the same authority and are aloud to tell you when you are getting out of hand. They also have my permission to get back on to Timothy and post up new blogs and topics as they feel needs to be discussed.
3)some of the members on the team have ben unable to get on to the site, i will be looking for possable replacements. If and When we do find good replacements I will post the list of the official members so you know.
NOW... this week were going to slow things down. I dont have a topic planned for this week. concidering Everyone is starting to get a bit overheated. So lets just take it slow until friday when i post somthing new. Tell me how your weeks been guys, lets try to talk like humans for once rather then christians and athiests...we can all agree im sure that we all follow under the catigory of human right? Tell me whats been up Lately?
1)The administrators will no longer be called that. as of now I will refer to them as members of the team.
2) The members will also each get their own account on wich to comment from. So that I will be the only one who comments under Timothy. They will still have the same authority and are aloud to tell you when you are getting out of hand. They also have my permission to get back on to Timothy and post up new blogs and topics as they feel needs to be discussed.
3)some of the members on the team have ben unable to get on to the site, i will be looking for possable replacements. If and When we do find good replacements I will post the list of the official members so you know.
NOW... this week were going to slow things down. I dont have a topic planned for this week. concidering Everyone is starting to get a bit overheated. So lets just take it slow until friday when i post somthing new. Tell me how your weeks been guys, lets try to talk like humans for once rather then christians and athiests...we can all agree im sure that we all follow under the catigory of human right? Tell me whats been up Lately?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
