Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which "creation" theory would we teach, there are many? All? And why? What purpose would teaching the THOUGHT of creation do for children that their own imaginations don't already take care of?
We already teach the fact that we don't know, could be aliens from another galaxy. We already teach its purely speculation. I think we just stick to the science we know, or at least the science that has proven or with the ability to unprove it. There is no substance to the thought of a creator. It's just hear say. Like aliens or the spirit Gods. It's just what we like to imagine. How does that benefit children academically?
No it did not, you have tried this before and it not work. It is in fact the exact opposite. Stuff folk did not understand was ascribed to gods. As man evolved mentally, better answers were sought and here we are knowing epilepsy is not caused by demons.
Quote:
which at that time was our reality. The "Nature" "Universe" Multi-verse" labels have been created by science specifically to exclude God and avoid the religious persecution it was once under.
Assigning god labels to nature get no one anywhere
Quote:
The idea of a generic God as the basis for our entire reality is not archaic . . . just out of favor with scientists because of the taint of religious persecution.
There is no evidence for any gods, gods are based on conjecture, gods do not even come close to a valid hypothesis as nothing pertaining to gods are testable or repeatable.
Quote:
But it is taught indirectly and by implication routinely in science classes on evolution . . . but it should not be. Since randomness and emergence are euphemisms for our ignorance of causal chains . . . they should not be presented as scientific explanations of anything . . . as they currently are.
No it is not taught indirectly, I have already refuted this.
Quote:
God is an equally valid explanation and has as much actual knowledge behind it.
You keep saying this and fail to assert how.
Quote:
There you go again . . . assertion without justification. Why is our entire reality NOT God?
There is zero proof of any god or gods. All that exists is tradition. Science is not based on tradition as it is self correcting.
Quote:
Switching the topic to religion is sidestepping the issue of the existence of God. Religions are sets of BELIEFS ABOUT God, period. They stand or fall on their own merits.
I said a comparative study of myths not religions. Were kids exposed to this, then they would see that xian claims are no more valid than other discarded myths.
Quote:
The existence of God is a separate matter and it IS amenable to science . . . given the Godly things we already know about our reality.
How and what are these godly things.
Quote:
Atheists refuse to deal with the existence issue separately because they prefer to castigate and ridicule the many absurd beliefs ABOUT God in religions . . . such as the Omni's, supernatural and magical thinking, miracles, etc. etc. These are NOT amenable to science and are rightly excluded. BUT the existence of God, generically, cannot be ruled out scientifically because of what we know and don't know about our reality. Too much of what we know is God-like, period.
Word salad, no substance, why am I not surprised?
Quote:
There is no shifting of the burden involved. Science cannot simply assert that there is a low to no probability of the existence of God without providing the basis on which those probabilities were calculated. No one has shown me those calculations.
Where has science ever stated there is no god? Oh I know, nowhere.
Quote:
Preposterous. It simply requires absolute honesty and not injecting atheist preferences into the discussions. Whenever an aspect cannot actually be explained without using euphemisms for ignorance about what is observed . . . it should explicitly be left unexplained.
Still arguing with your strawman I see? Tell us exactly how the atheist preference is injected? Unanswerable questions have the "we don't know" or "we are not sure". Inserting a godunnit label is no answer at all, it is based only on conjecture.
An parallel analogy here would be akin to telling kids to ask their parents wrt sex ed questions. (leaving questions stuff unexplained)
Quote:
Our ability to mathematically model the ignorance or uncertainty in our observations are useful and valuable. But they should NOT be presented as explanations of them. Mathematically modeled ignorance should not be presented as scientific fact or understanding.
What is ignorant about it? You type many words w/o saying anything of substance to support your premise. If this were a court case, you would be held in contempt and in all likelihood, the case dismissed.
The last time I entertained your ramblings we eventually got back to the bible and you lost then and if this goes on you will lose again. Outside of the bible and anecdotal "evidence", there is ZERO proof of your god.
Quote:
As to your rant about adding religion to curricula . . . that is not remotely part of what I am advocating . . . just removing anti-God inferences and implications as if they were scientific facts.
Why not add religious studies as an elective? No one would object to that but I suspect as it was when I went to school, that subject would not be covered by the tax payers.
As for your anti god inferences, you still have not shown after three pages what these actually are.
We all know you only believe in guided evolution with a prime cause which is called theistic evolution and that is accepted as a pseudo science. You are in fact no better than a YEC with your lame rebuttals and arguments.
It is a common theist trick that we are well used to around here to say things like "If there is no god then how do you explain......" with something following that.
The fact is that even if we can not explain such things at this time, that is in NO WAY evidence for a god and in NO WAY makes the claim that there is a god more credible or useful.
Take this analogy of two children talking about where babies come from:
Child1: Where do babies come from?
Child2: The stork brings them in a cloth sack.
Child1: Are you sure, how do you know this?
Child2: Well can YOU explain it?
Child1: No.
Child2: Aha! See? The stork brings them!
Peoples inability to explain something in NO WAY supports something you just pull our of thin air and assert to be true. So beware this tactic in theists. And beware ever allowing yourself to engage in it.
That said however:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P
the remarkable continuity and similarity of psychedelic and "religious" (which are probably naturally induced psychedelic) experiences?
We are all human and essentially biologically the same. So why you feel human experiences should be dissimilar is beyond me. If there was a remarkable DIScontinuity and variation in such experiences then THAT would require explaining. That they are mostly the same seems natural to me.
Why for example do most reports of Alien Abduction (usually with anal probing) describe the aliens as looking pretty much the same. Explain the "remarkable continuity and similarity of" these experiences. It is easy. It is a combination of human nature and culture that leads to people forming images in their heads that are the same. One of the main explanations for the similarity in such UFO experiences can be laid firmly at the feet of Stephen Spielberg.
Similarly with religious experiences we have an underlying culture which feeds into those claims and results in them being similar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P
I'm going to agree with mysticPHD here. Evolution neither points to divine creation or non-divine creation.
Then you would be just as wrong as he because Evolution Theory firmly points to a process that requires no mind. No plan. No design. No intentionality. Nothing. It leaves the idea of natural mindless processes firmly substantiated. It leaves the idea of an intelligent intentional creator not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated. Which "points" very strongly indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P
Premise: we have seen no evidence of a divine being
Conclusion: there is no divine being
That is your conclusion. I find it simply enough to point out that the claim that there is such an entity is therefore ENTIRELY unsubstantiated and claims that asserted without any evidence can be dismissed without any evidence. If there is simply no reason whatsoever to think there is a god then we would do well to proceed on that premise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P
Another question, has evolution demonstrated itself to be random?
It does not claim to be. It is a process with "random" elements. Though with an application of extreme pedantry one can of course equivocate over the exact meaning of "random". And there is no shortage of such pedantry around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P
Well, you guys still haven't answered my psychedelic question.
I have now. If you have more questions simply ask.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P
And how are these universal symbols evolutionary advantageous?
Why would they have to be? Not every biological trait exists because it is "evolutionary advantageous". Nor does anything in Evolution Theory suggest it should be.
Premise: we have seen no evidence of a divine being
Conclusion: there is no divine being
I don't think this argument looks at the issue completely. What if there is a divine being(s) which has not interacted with the physical world?
If your idea is true, you've just disproved a creator.
What good is a divine being that by definition can't interact with us in any way? There's absolutely no difference between this situation and the divine being not existing at all.
You repeatedly assert this nonsense . . . so I can only assume you have not read or do not understand the field theories of consciousness. They alone constitute "evidence or reason to believe" that the universal field COULD BE a consciousness field.
Ahh, I see your problem here. Making up an idea isn't evidence for that idea.
Well, you guys still haven't answered my psychedelic question. It is reasonable to assume that most religions have their roots in someone's description of an altered state of conscious. In these psychedelically altered states of conscious, people by and large the same or similar beings and things. Now, where do these universal visions come from?
What universal visions? There are thousands of religions out there, most of which contradict each other. If there's something real which is producing the source of the religions, it's not particularly consistent.
Now granted, there are probably neurological components to hallucinations which cause some bits of commonality - e.g. oxygen deprivation producing tunnel vision and so on - but to pretend that there's some sort of absolute consistency in these hallucinations is pretty weird given the reality of number of different religious views out there.
What universal visions? There are thousands of religions out there, most of which contradict each other. If there's something real which is producing the source of the religions, it's not particularly consistent.
Now granted, there are probably neurological components to hallucinations which cause some bits of commonality - e.g. oxygen deprivation producing tunnel vision and so on - but to pretend that there's some sort of absolute consistency in these hallucinations is pretty weird given the reality of number of different religious views out there.
Graham Hancock - Cave painting artists were shamans - YouTube
Well, this kind of explains my question a little clearer. But all true religions include life after death, divine beings, examining your ethical self, and places outside of earth. These same topics are routinely seen in heavier psychedelic trips, which are by and large similar. Especially accounts of DMT. People seeing the same beings in the same room at the same time with no prior knowledge of them or communication between each other. Read my DMT inspired prophets thread for more evidence on this.
Anyways, like I said before, absence of evidence for a physical phenomenon does not imply metaphysical cause. So, just because we don't know physically what happened doesn't mean it was divinely caused. But, according to the box you guys put it in, divine cause could only be supported if an event directly disobeyed every natural law. BUT, what if there is divine motive working through the workings of the natural laws. That is what you guys are missing.
Creation and Evolution are two distinctive and mutually exclusive concepts.
Creation says God created everything good and by Man DEATH came into the World through disobedience to our Creator.
Evolution says by DEATH Man came into the World through a series of random accidents that eventually became the Man that you see today.
"Theistic Evolution" adds a FORCE (never observed in our Science) and call it "god", but it is NOT the God that is revealed in Creation through Scripture.
It is a "god" that requires multiple times to get it right over a period of billions of speculated years to finally get to this mess we call Man today. It is a god that is not worthy of Worship.
YHVH God created all GOOD as He intended, and by Man disobeying His command resulted in the FALLEN CURSED world we see today.
Man is devolving not evolving... The King of the Mountain philosophy of evolution has resulted in GENOCIDE of millions of people.
Fallen Man left to our own selves would end up destroying one another.
All evidence points to Creation not Evolution.. and the TRUTH will be revealed in due time.
Best accept and receive God's Gift of Pardon through His Son Jesus Christ or be sentenced to the JUST sentence for our rebellion against Him.
We have been offered to have the JUSTICE that WE DESERVE for our rebellion JUDGED on that Cross on Calvary, and we would be a FOOL to not accept God's provision for our sin.
Creation and Evolution are two distinctive and mutually exclusive concepts.
Creation says God created everything good and by Man DEATH came into the World through disobedience to our Creator.
Evolution says by DEATH Man came into the World through a series of random accidents that eventually became the Man that you see today.
"Theistic Evolution" adds a FORCE (never observed in our Science) and call it "god", but it is NOT the God that is revealed in Creation through Scripture.
It is a "god" that requires multiple times to get it right over a period of billions of speculated years to finally get to this mess we call Man today. It is a god that is not worthy of Worship.
YHVH God created all GOOD as He intended, and by Man disobeying His command resulted in the FALLEN CURSED world we see today.
Man is devolving not evolving... The King of the Mountain philosophy of evolution has resulted in GENOCIDE of millions of people.
Fallen Man left to our own selves would end up destroying one another.
All evidence points to Creation not Evolution.. and the TRUTH will be revealed in due time.
Best accept and receive God's Gift of Pardon through His Son Jesus Christ or be sentenced to the JUST sentence for our rebellion against Him.
We have been offered to have the JUSTICE that WE DESERVE for our rebellion JUDGED on that Cross on Calvary, and we would be a FOOL to not accept God's provision for our sin.
There's more just plain wrongness in this post than perhaps any other I've had the misfortune to read on this forum.
Creation and Evolution are two distinctive and mutually exclusive concepts.
Creation says God created everything good and by Man DEATH came into the World through disobedience to our Creator.
Evolution says by DEATH Man came into the World through a series of random accidents that eventually became the Man that you see today.
"Theistic Evolution" adds a FORCE (never observed in our Science) and call it "god", but it is NOT the God that is revealed in Creation through Scripture.
It is a "god" that requires multiple times to get it right over a period of billions of speculated years to finally get to this mess we call Man today. It is a god that is not worthy of Worship.
YHVH God created all GOOD as He intended, and by Man disobeying His command resulted in the FALLEN CURSED world we see today.
Man is devolving not evolving... The King of the Mountain philosophy of evolution has resulted in GENOCIDE of millions of people.
Fallen Man left to our own selves would end up destroying one another.
All evidence points to Creation not Evolution.. and the TRUTH will be revealed in due time.
Best accept and receive God's Gift of Pardon through His Son Jesus Christ or be sentenced to the JUST sentence for our rebellion against Him.
We have been offered to have the JUSTICE that WE DESERVE for our rebellion JUDGED on that Cross on Calvary, and we would be a FOOL to not accept God's provision for our sin.
Hard to just ignore all those mass extinctions, before man came on the scene.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
