Thread: Sixteen Common Myths About Atheists

Yes, and somehow you avoid or miss my point. Let me rephrase. You are for the teaching of the Jewish, the Islamic, and the Christian bible in class. Now, does that advance religion? YES IT STILL DOES. Besides, are they really multiple views, or do all three religions believe in the same story?

I'm sorry, I looked up lemon text on Google and found nothing relevent. I was not trying to nitpick. I did not know what the Lemon Test was either. I'm not familiar with politics. Nevertheless, creationism still advances religion.

Christmas songs teach nothing. What was the court's reasoning behind their decision? Furthermore, Christmas songs have no relationship to teaching creationism in science class alongside evolution. Creationism is not a science. Teaching it in science class would advance religion by pretending it has a scientific basis, where it has none.

Originally Posted by cronik

Yes, and somehow you avoid or miss my point. Let me rephrase. You are for the teaching of the Jewish, the Islamic, and the Christian bible in class. Now, does that advance religion? YES IT STILL DOES. Besides, are they really multiple views, or do all three religions believe in the same story?

did babbo say just three religions? Did you even bother checking the link babbo put in there? And for your information Jews and Muslims don't read the Bible. Babbo was only using them as an incredibly recognizalbe example of other religions that have creationist beliefs (they do make up over 50% of the world population along with Christians after all). And again, it's just pointing out another theory on the idea of how the wrld came to be as it is <_<

I'm sorry, I looked up lemon text on Google and found nothing relevent. I was not trying to nitpick. I did not know what the Lemon Test was either. I'm not familiar with politics. Nevertheless, creationism still advances religion.

but babbo quoted it, it right after he said it @_@

Christmas songs teach nothing. Furthermore, they have no relationship to teaching creationism in science class alongside evolution. Creationism is not a science. Teaching it in science class would advance religion by pretending it has a scientific basis, where it has none.

Of course they do, have you ever read the text from silent night? that's an incredibly religious song and yet babbo's seen sung in schools before. And saying that songs have no potential to teach or influence people has to be about the most perposterous thing babbo's ever heard o_O;;

Again you're missing the point, in that evolution being taught can inhibit religous practise (basically saying religions == wrong) it's only right that it be taught alongside creationist views, just like christmas songs only should be sung at school along with secular ones >.>

Originally Posted by Babbo

Still as far as teaching creationist theory the lemon text (babbo actually did recognize that from govt and law class in high school) pretty much lets it by if it's taught along with evolution >_>

Does teaching multiple creationist theories along side evolution serve a religious purpose? Nope seeing as it's set along side evolution and it only teaches theory.

From this, I'm getting you are either stupid, or do not read what others write. This has been said before.

Creationism is not a scientific theory.
Evolution is a scientific theory.

Modern day theory is not the same as science theory.

Unless you are saying that creationsim is a scientific law (another word for scientific theory), in which case you are simply hopeless.

Originally Posted by Babbo

did babbo say just three religions? Did you even bother checking the link babbo put in there? And for your information Jews and Muslims don't read the Bible. Babbo was only using them as an incredibly recognizalbe example of other religions that have creationist beliefs (they do make up over 50% of the world population along with Christians after all). And again, it's just pointing out another theory on the idea of how the wrld came to be as it is <_<

Oh, so you plan on turning science class into a forum for religious ideas as to how the world was created?

Originally Posted by Babbo

Of course they do, have you ever read the text from silent night? that's an incredibly religious song and yet babbo's seen sung in schools before. And saying that songs have no potential to teach or influence people has to be about the most perposterous thing babbo's ever heard o_O;;

When you sing something, do you sing the truth as you know it? Songs are songs. Teaching material is teaching material. As far as I know, we do not teach science by singing songs. I don't think anyone has converted to Christianity by singing Christmas songs. I might be wrong, but Christmas songs just don't have that kind of effect on me.

Originally Posted by Babbo

Again you're missing the point, in that evolution being taught can inhibit religous practise (basically saying religions == wrong) it's only right that it be taught alongside creationist views, just like christmas songs only should be sung at school along with secular ones >.>

Okay. So evolution inhibits religious practice, and that is reason to say that you should teach religion in science class?

Originally Posted by kayangelus

From this, I'm getting you are either stupid, or do not read what others write. This has been said before.

Creationism is not a scientific theory.
Evolution is a scientific theory.

Modern day theory is not the same as science theory.

Unless you are saying that creationsim is a scientific law (another word for scientific theory), in which case you are simply hopeless.

on the other hand you my friend are giving babbo the impression that theory is a word that is only used in science o_O;;

And actually a scietific law and scientific theory are two entirely seperate things (you learn that elementary school -_-;; )

theory is also generally something that is as of yet unproven, seeing as when it would be taught with evolution it wouldn't be taught as an absolute truth, but as something that is widely accepted but not yet proven or disproven >_>

Originally Posted by cronik

Oh, so you plan on turning science class into a forum for religious ideas as to how the world was created?

asshat go back and read

When you sing something, do you sing the truth as you know it? Songs are songs. Teaching material is teaching material. As far as I know, we do not teach science by singing songs. I don't think anyone has converted to Christianity by singing Christmas songs. I might be wrong, but Christmas songs just don't have that kind of effect on me.

Songs are songs? Come on now any part of popular culture can influence how people think, again, you are saying something that is incredibly preposterous >_>

And stop twising babbo's wrods moron. Does babbo have to spell it out for you? The court ruled that christmas songs could only be sung in school as long as secular songs were sung alongside. If the court decided that people don't want to be influenced by religion but the court decided to allow it along with secularism, then why shouldn't people who don't want to have their religion influenced be given the same fair treatment?

lol so are you the posterboy for how songs affect people? One person does not define a common trend >_>

Okay. So evolution inhibits religious practice, and that is reason to say that you should teach religion in science class?

again it's not teaching religion in class, they're religious view points, and in topic that takes a couple weeks of class at the most >_>

And did you bother reading the first ammendment or the lemon test yet?

Or any of the links posted so far?

Originally Posted by Babbo

And actually a scietific law and scientific theory are two entirely seperate things (you learn that elementary school -_-;; )

Not really, all "laws" are just theories that have been accepted to be correct because they can be used to correctly predict future events. These laws are not inherently correct, they can be proven wrong, in fact many have been proven to be incorrect.

One of the best examples of this, in my opinion, is Newton's second law of motion, which is:

F=ma

Due to certain effects of relativity this law is never true except when the force and acceleration is 0 (and the error increases at greater accelerations or forces). You might notice that this is still taught in schools to this day. Why would it be taught if it's incorrect? This is because this former "law" is still useful and applicable in the real world, at the speeds that most things move on Earth this "law" can be used to obtain relatively accurate results, for example a 1kg object acted on by a 1N force will have a 1m/s^2 acceleration (or close enough for practical use at least).

Let's just make this clear to everyone.

Theory

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts, in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

The Lemon Test

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
If any of these three prongs is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The act stipulated that "eligible teachers must teach only courses offered in the public schools, using only materials used in the public schools, and must agree not to teach courses in religion." Still, a three-judge panel found 25% of the State's elementary students attended nonpublic schools, about 95% of the these attended Roman Catholic schools, and the sole beneficiaries under the act were 250 teachers at Roman Catholic schools.

None of which support teaching creationism in class.

Furthermore, the push for teaching creationism in class is solely from the Christian side, I believe. I have not heard of any other religions supporting the creationist movement, nor supporting the teaching of it in class.

Originally Posted by cronik

Radioactive dating blah blah blah... It certainly has errors, but it will not make such a grevious error as mistaking a 10 year old animal remain for a 2.8 million year old remain.

Radioactive did mistaken the rock to be wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too old.

I presented to you a fact. Don't try to deny it with ridiculous reasoning.

Originally Posted by cronik

Well, if God created the human genome, why is it so full of errors? Why do we have genetic defects? Why are there unused sequences with no meaning at all?

When God was done, he said "All was good." Everything used to be perfect till Abraham sinned. That's when everything started to become imperfect. Disasters. "The fall of mankind."

Originally Posted by cronik

Evolution explains this as part of a means of differentiating the species to increase survivability. Yet, it is imperfect, because there are generations of genetic failures, and although some defects survive, the person can be crippled or impaired. Evolution's theory of survivability is evident in these crippled beings. They maybe seem defective, but they survive. But overall, survivability is not by chance. Sure, mutations occur by chance. But the organisms that survive, survive because they have a body that lasts long enough to reproduce, and to reproduce effectively, so that their descendants inherit their cell material and their genetic code. If the organism carries a mutation, as long as it can survive long enough to reproduce, then the mutation will carry on.

I've heard that before.

I do understand how people can get minor differences in species such as longer beak for a bird.

There are also too many variables involved to have any significant impact on a species to involve into another species. Enviromental changes. Diet changes. Predators change.

It's nonsense to say that a whole entire new species evolved from that. With a lack of fossil proof to show these "missing links," it is easily questionable. (By the way, usually full fossils are extremely rare so scientists grab artists to paint in the missing wholes. I'm sure you know that when you look at a dinosaur's skeleton in the local museum that probably only one bone is real. Majority is just imagination.)

***************

Originally Posted by cronik

You may not be able to imagine it, nor believe it, but that is randomness for you. Following the theory's reasoning of the current nature of evolution, then the beginning of life would be a random occurrance of self-propagating molecules.

This is what I never understand...

how the hell did humans get here based on evolution?

]



*********************
Evolution says things get better and better through the generation because time is the master time piece.

Right?

However, that makes no sence in other sences. You do know that all things go to more disorder with time unless if an acting force is placed into the picture. (Remember 2nd law of thermodynamics?)

For example,

You + 50 years = worse.

Bad back
Goodbye hair
memory goes
pain, cramps, more frequent.

Ect. Ect.

Time is not the healer of anything. As life goes on, things get more disordered.

Look, anything can be debatable. Nothing is universally accepted. I don't know what book you're pulling this shit out of, but it would be nice to see what led to the author's opinion. I'm curious to know whether he took a look at the evidence. I'm curious to know whether you took a look at the evidence.

Yes, he did.

And.. .. mind you, but you're using wikipedia which is just written by underscholared people. I mean, seriously, anyone can write one-- like me.

You should rethink your scenario. I am being nitpicky because that is what you need to be able to do a scientific analysis of the situation. If you just guess at the cause of death, you are not getting closer to the truth. In which case, with what little evidence of the situation you provided, there can be no unassailable conclusion to the cause of death.

Shesh.

The point of the analogy...

is not to guess. It's to come up with a conclusion based on the facts you know.

Pretend she is young first.

then, pretend she is old.

You can see that the conclusions are different even if the facts are the same.

You are obviously no victim. You believe wholeheartedly in creationism, despite what evidence has been provided to you, whereas creationism has none. You, my friend, are one orney bastard.

Let's try not to insult anymore. okayz? Cause, that'll take away from the fun of debating. =P

Actually.. I was talking to someone else today. I think it'd be cooler to take evolution out of science and place it in a social studies class. It's more of a-----belief. You have faith that everything worked out perfectly. You have faith that something started the trigger. =D

Originally Posted by Issalroc

Evolution doesn't take out the existence of a god, it just doesn't need any divine intervention to work, if god exists it doesn't necessarilly means he would go messing up with everything. Evolution isn't against god, it's against creationism, as I said before, we can't prove or disprove god, but since there isn't any scientifical proof of divine intervention scientists just can't take such things in account.

That's ... doesn't make sence.

No. Evolution IS AGAINST GOD.

Creationism is the idea that GOD made everything. By believing in evolution, you belittle God's power.

****************************

And another point I like to make:

God said "let there be trees.. plants... animals... man"
Not "seeds... eggies.. babbies"

Thus, if you think about it. He could make a tree (that looks like an age of 70) that really is only a day old. He could make full grown animals (that look like an age of 20) that really is a day old. He could make man (that looks like the age of 30) and it could really be only a day old. =D

Yay! Another creationism vs. evolution thread.

Jakko would be pleased.

CPR, I'm impressed at your biblical understanding.
We shall tagteam in this thread.

Awesome Mojo. ^________^

This thread is awesome.. it's gonna help me ace my A in my Science & Religion course I'm taking in college...

hehehehe... I'm the only Creationist in class... [I think the rest of my class is Catholic too which kind of scares me...]