If creationism is put into classes....

[Dannager]

I can use the Bible all I want to use the Bible.
What are you going to try to do, burn all the Bibles in the world?
You can try but you will just end up making the Bible all the more popular.
The more you persecute the Church, the stronger it is going to get.

Abongil means that you can't use the Bible as a teaching aid for science. Which is correct.

 

[Dannager]

I use to collect my final payment when the job was 100% finished. Would you pay me if I was not 100% done with what I had said I would do? In fact I use to go over what we agreed on so there was no question about it. I would go the second mile and give more then 100%. I even had people throw me off the job because they did not like that I was doing work they had not paid me to do.

So?

 

[JohnR7]

So?

The question had to do with if 100% can be obtained. I showed that I went beyond 100%. I would give 110% of what we had agreed on.

 

[JohnR7]

Abongil means that you can't use the Bible as a teaching aid for science. Which is correct.

You can use the Bible, you just can not teach Intelligent design as an alternative belief with evolution.

"Teaching students about religion's role in world history and culture is proper, but disguising a particular religious belief as science is not," said ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director Witold Walczak. "Intelligent design is a Trojan Horse for bringing religious creationism back into public school science classes.

The lawsuit also states that teaching students that there are "gaps" in the scientific theory of evolution while not presenting any such gaps with "intelligent design" would lead students to believe that the theory of evolution is false and that the truth lies in the religious beliefs advocated through "intelligent design."
"http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16372prs20041214.html

 

[Jase]

You can use the Bible, you just can not teach Intelligent design as an alternative belief with evolution.

You can teach the Bible as a piece of literature. You can not teach the stories of the Bible, like the creation story on a factual basis. For example, you can't push Christian creationism into a science classroom and use Genesis as support. That is establishing and favoring one religion over another.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You can use the Bible, you just can not teach Intelligent design as an alternative belief with evolution.

And since Creationism and intelligent design are the same thing, that rules out creationism.

 

[Beastt]

I use to collect my final payment when the job was 100% finished. Would you pay me if I was not 100% done with what I had said I would do? In fact I use to go over what we agreed on so there was no question about it. I would go the second mile and give more then 100%. I even had people throw me off the job because they did not like that I was doing work they had not paid me to do.

You do realize, don't you, that having 100% knowledge is entirely dissimilar to 100% completion of a task?

 

[Beastt]

The question had to do with if 100% can be obtained. I showed that I went beyond 100%. I would give 110% of what we had agreed on.

Which is, of course, entirely impossible. You can't give more than all.

 

[JohnR7]

Which is, of course, entirely impossible. You can't give more than all.

You can give more then you agree to give. If I agree to give you a dollar and I give you a dollar and ten cents, then I have given you more then what we agreed on.

If the teacher says you have to turn in a report that is at least two pages and you turn in a three page report, then you have gone beyond what was required. You have given more then 100% of what was asked of you.

 

[joey444]

I can use the Bible all I want to use the Bible.
What are you going to try to do, burn all the Bibles in the world?
You can try but you will just end up making the Bible all the more popular.
The more you persecute the Church, the stronger it is going to get.

Read the first post. ID is claiming not to be religious, so you can't use religious text.

 

[JesusWalks78]

Is there 100% knowledge of anything?

Science simply doesn't work that way.

Exactly.

 

[JesusWalks78]

Please answer my questions. A simple yes or no would suffice. Is the mere possibility of something reason enough to teach and accept that it is in fact true? Do you think people who present ideas which might be possible are obligated to provide evidence to accompany their assertions?

Yes as long as we believce it is "pretty darn close" as atheists BEastt in particular have already said

Is there 100% knowledge of anything?

Science simply doesn't work that way.

 

[truthmonger89]

Yes as long as we believce it is "pretty darn close" as atheists BEastt in particular have already said

Is there 100% knowledge of anything?

Science simply doesn't work that way.

Pretty darn close to what? The truth? Is it pretty darn close to the truth that space aliens created earth? How would you know if such an idea was close to the truth or was in fact the truth or was as far away from the truth as you can get? Is the mere possibility of something reason enough to teach and accept it as fact? To use your own words, "it is a simple yes or no." Yes or no?

 

[And-U-Say]

The Science book and the Bible are both important in how we live this life. The Bible talks about "eternity" and how we can live forever or throughout all the ages. Science knows a little bit about some of the different ages, so science can help us to understand that.

If the bible is so important, how come there are whole geographices and cultures on this earth that get along just fine without it? I don't think ditching the bible would make much of a difference at all.

 

[JohnR7]

If the bible is so important, how come there are whole geographices and cultures on this earth that get along just fine without it?

None that I know about. Just about anywhere you go there are going to be 1/3 christian.
Some people are just more verbal about it than others.

So why do you hate christians? What did they ever do to you?

 

[Loudmouth]

Right I never said [matter/energy] didnt exist...but how come it has just always existed?

Let's start right there. From the standpoint of research and science, which is the better answer: "I don't know" or "God did it". If we go with "God Did It" then why spend any time looking for a natural cause. We can stop all research looking into the origination of matter and energy. If we go with "I don't know" then there is every reason to go look for an answer and increase our knowledge of the universe we live in. Creationism is not only non-scientific, it is also anti-knowledge.

So what evidence is there that matter energy always existed? What was the control that showed that matter energy cannot simply exist?

From what I have read, matter/energy (since they are the same thing) has always existed in our universe. It existed before our universe had time.

Seems to me like it is taken on evidence that "points" towards a particular theory being correct as there is no certain way of knowing.

The goal of many scientists is to look for evidence that points away from particular theories, and then look for better theories that explain all of the evidence. This is how scientists become famous. For instance, Einstein was able to demonstrate that Newton's Laws were not accurate at all velocities. He also won a Nobel Prize for demonstrating that photons acted like particles, completely contrary to the popular thought that photons always acted as waves.

 

[AngryWomble]

They didn't plan that far ahead. That's where Flying Spaghetti Monster comes in.

Yarrr......

They would teach whatever science they have that shows the Bible is true. For example, the Bible says "In the Beginning" Science also says there is a beginning. So they would teach what science says about a beginning. The Bible talks about "heaven and earth" So in a science class they can talk about what science has to say about a heaven and earth. The first three heavens is the atmosphere around the earth. Science has a lot to say about our atmosphere and science has a lot to say about the earth we live on.

Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

"Without form and void" means desolate and empty". According to GAP this means that disaster is upon the earth and there is a destruction. The study of volcanos and esp super volcanos is a good example of how there can be "darkness" upon the earth.

This verse could also be used to describe when the what they call the snowball earth. In that case the ocean would be covered with water.

So you could talk about how the ice began to melt and how land and water began to form under the ice or snow.

We know and understand more about creation and science can be used to help us to better understand our Bible.

In fact in Bible school they teach us some different ways to use science to help us to teach the Bible. For example the Bible talks about how we can be pure before God. Science has a lot to say about purity. The Bible talks about how fire can be used to purify. Science talks about how you can purify metal in fire.

The Bible talks about cleaning your garment. Science can show us about garments and how to clean them. So science can be used in a lot of different ways to teach the Bible.

Repeat after me:

The bible is not a scientific text book...

I dont see a problem shouldnt we try and teach every viewpoint to our children?

.......something being someones 'viewpoint' does NOT make it science.

Lets continue here........do you believe that tiny organisms cause diseases? Why?

All the evidence points to micro-organisms being behind a fair number of illnesses/diseases.

there is evidence that suggests, no proof as yet.

If you want proof and/or truth go find a philosophy board, science deals in evidence.

Did I say i didnt believe it?

Your happy to accept one part of science but not another, even though both where put together using the same method. We don't get to pick and choose what theories are correct you know.

I can use the Bible all I want to use the Bible.
What are you going to try to do, burn all the Bibles in the world?
You can try but you will just end up making the Bible all the more popular.
The more you persecute the Church, the stronger it is going to get.

Once more with feeling....

The bible is not a scientific text book.

And for those up in the cheap seats:

The bible is not a scientific text book.

 

[Veinor]

Just about anywhere you go there are going to be 1/3 christian.

Japan is 0.7% Christian.
China is less than 10% Christian.
The Middle East obviously has a small Christian population.

Congratulations, you just ignored like 1/6th of the world's population.

 

[Beastt]

Repeat after me:

The bible is not a scientific text book...

Though I certainly agree with the vast majority of your post and strongly support you on nearly every word, I think it just as appropriate to point out that no document need be a scientific textbook in order to present a credible account of a supposed event of reality.

Fictional novels are produced everyday which present credible stories, as fiction, but containing valid and believable sequences of events. One might expect the Bible, as the supposed word of the creator of our reality, to understand that reality well enough to not butcher it in documenting the account of how that reality supposedly came to be.

 

[Abongil]

Japan is 0.7% Christian.
China is less than 10% Christian.
The Middle East obviously has a small Christian population.

Congratulations, you just ignored like 1/6th of the world's population.

china alone has 1/6th the worlds population, and christianity is outlawed there.