Endless debate over teaching of Creationism in schools resolves issue

by Abaddon 59 Replies latest members adult

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    flying, you disagree with;

    This is impossible. As there is no direct evidence for an intelligent designer, such theories are based upon unsubstantiated belief with presuppostitions.

    Flying, you're disagreeing with a substansiatable logical sentence; unless you can prove there is direct evidence for an inteligent designer, you cannot disagree with this statement and remain logical.

    As for religion being necessary to teach creation, I disagree with that, too.

    Again, you can disagree all you like, but if ID has the same foundation of belief as religion, it's beliefs function as a religion whether you or its adherents like to admit it or not.

    I look at this way: someone or something much more intelligent and powerful than man or woman designed the material universe

    And provided you don't lapse into Big C Creationism, this is an unfalsifiable (i.e., unscientific) claim, but one that cannot be disproved. Not that there is anything clever about a theory that cannot be disproved; I have an invisable purple kangaroo sitting on my shoulder, for example.

    Qcmbr

    learnt about ... homosexual sex (I was already having nightmares about the fact my parents did it!!)

    LOL. Your parents were VERY liberal. I thought I was a liberal, but I've NEVER had homosexual sex with my partner ;0)

    Just to say, I understand your deep seated beliefs. However, they don't stand up logically. Holland for example; despite your scorn for the age of consent here (which you only partially stated; someone of 16 or below can have sex with someone of 12 or above. Someone of above 16 can go to jail if they have sex with a 12 year old and a complaint is made - just like the UK), the average age of first intercourse is HIGHER than the UK, and the rate of teen pregnancy is some five times LOWER.

    However, as your beliefs are based on unsubstansiated convictions and opinions, the fact that a very secular society with liberal attitudes towards sex can work better than a society with less liberal attitudes towards sex will mean nothing.

    Although this totally invalidates your opinions, it won't change them, as your opinions are not based on facts.

    Evil Force

    these kids are really thinking outside the box.

    I'm sure you meant that to be as funny as it was... sure you meant thinking... damn, and I have to do a presentation to a client *snigger*

  • EvilForce
    EvilForce

    Yes it was meant to be dripping with sarcasm.

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    ... dripping with something...

  • Qcmbr
    Qcmbr

    Well I think you've just proved to me why you lot should never ever be in charge of kids sexual education. You are so blinded by your desire to justify yourselves that you wish to spread your kind of knowledge by utter garbage arguements. Such ideas that abstinence teaching leads to sexual behaviour is just ridiculous. I can give you over 100 young people of whom I am personally aquainted who have practised abstinence until marriage and managed to do it without giving each other sexual favours. Of those a handful made mistakes at which point my community (that you so obviously disdain) rallied round, protected , supported and helped out.

    In comparison out of my school friends who were not brought up in an environment where they were taught to wait, have respect for each others bodies etc.. several left school to be parents - single parents, several turned to drugs and ruined their education (can only hope they made it over that blip), one went on to create such shows as Big Brother (that moral beacon!)

    Sorry guys but you really are bonkers - a feeling that you undoubtbly attribute to me -my bonkers though ends up promoting families, sexual health, integrity and true choice while the opposite ,'try this but stick this on your willy approach' is just as dangerous as it gets.

    You'll soon find you run out of arguements to stop things even you find extreme because your arguements will be used against you. In the meantime you'll I hope you wont be pleased by the decline in: traditional families, innocence of our youth, the value and cherishing of the married state; increases in: abortion, stds, the spread of aids, prostitution, the now $50 billion porn industry and other such 'desirable' outcomes of sexual liberalism.

    Hedonism which is the ntural fruit of sexual liberlism and the removal of religious / societal barriers comes at a high cost surely you can see that!.

    Of those who will flame me to death for standing up for this how many of you actually have kids and worry about them in this scenario?

  • doogie
    doogie

    i thought this thread was about whther creationism should be taught in schools?...

    whatever...carry on.

  • EvilForce
    EvilForce

    Well Q, if you would take your self righteous attitude out of one of your orifices for just a moment...

    I have never in ANY of my posts said that I think teaching to wait until marriage to have sex is wrong. I certainly believe you should tell them to wait until they are old enough to deal with the emotional, physical, and mental responsibilities about sex. HOWEVER, what you have clearly missed, is that teaching abstinence ONLY is retarded and DOES NOT work. I gave you an example of what REALLY happens in the REAL world with sex. I could post two or three other studies sponsered by the CDC, AMA and such, but you are clearly not interested in reality.

    If you are so naive to believe that out of the 100 couples they all waited for marriage except for a tiny handul you are truly delusional. I'm sure most of these couples felt it was none of your business and told you what you wanted to hear. As for your wonderful group of enlightened Mormons I have seen the devestation heaped upon them by your cult. I have a good friend who runs an Ex Mormon board. Perhaps you should spend more time there so you can see the damage your own beliefs cause people. Mormons are similar to the Dubs in that they keep their kids so sexually starved they marry the first thing that walks by and get hitched at 18. What makes your cult even worse is the constant encouragement to "have babies", "have babies", "have babies", when these kids are babies themselves. So the Dubs try and keep their flock distracted by preaching.... Mormons keep them distracted by kids. Do we need to go into the Mormon practice of shunning? So HOW EXACTLY did you rally around them and HELP them?

    You mention that all the kids in your school who weren't taught to wait...blah, blah, blah. But you were taught the same sex ed as they were no? So WHY did you turn out sooo GOOD? Could it be that your PARENTS took the responsibility to teach you about morality...about sexual relationships? Home and church is where morality teachings belong.... SCHOOL is to teach facts and scientific therories. So what you are raliling against is you want SCHOOL to teach your brand of morality because you don't like the other parent's view on morality. Funny how all you fundies want government off the backs of people until it comes to what goes on in the bedroom Q.

    "increases in: abortion, stds, the spread of aids, prostitution, the now $50 billion porn industry and other such 'desirable' outcomes of sexual liberalism. "

    In America the rates for abortion is actually on a downward trend. Has been since about 1998 or so. But you mention a good point about STD', & HIV... teaching abstinence only does nothing to teach kids how to avoid these getting STD's.

    I would also hazzard a guess that the average porn buyer is "White, married, 30 to 50 years old, with kids". What does the size of the porn industry have to do with the price of rice in China,,,, I mean high school sex ed.

    I could go on and on with the weaknesses in your position but we are intractably apart on the issues. You view your Mormonism and morality as dogmatic as I hold my Progressive Enlightenment which you have clearly shown your distain for.

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Qcmbr

    Well I think you've just proved to me why you lot should never ever be in charge of kids sexual education.

    You are so blinded by your desire to justify yourselves that you wish to spread your kind of knowledge by utter garbage arguements.

    Qcmbr, you are the one with garbage arguments. Your arguments have no facts to back them up. You might notice other people here are backing up their arguments with facts. You are so blinded by your desire to justify yourself you will insist you are right even if you have no evidence to support your claim, and even claim you are right if there is evidence contradicting your claim.

    Such ideas that abstinence teaching leads to sexual behaviour is just ridiculous.

    Unfortunately the facts, as in the statistics quoted, show that the idea is not ridiculous. It is a fact with evidnece behind it. You might not like it, but it is still a fact.

    I can give you over 100 young people of whom I am personally aquainted who have practised abstinence until marriage and managed to do it without giving each other sexual favours.

    This means nothing. It is anecdotal evidence, even if you are right. However, you assume that they would tell you, which is a false assumption on your part. For example, no JW will willingly admit to pre-martital sex. But some JW's have pre-martial sex.

    Of those a handful made mistakes at which point my community (that you so obviously disdain)

    Qcmbr, could you please try not to be such a hypocrite? You have disdain for modern society and are two-faced enough to complain about your own behaviour if you think others apply it to you.

    several left school to be parents - single parents, several turned to drugs and ruined their education (can only hope they made it over that blip),

    And as it suits your argument you fail to mention the majority of your school friends are probably in good realtionships with their partners (even if its not their first partner) and have good realtionships with their kids, pretty good incomes, and are quite happy with life.

    one went on to create such shows as Big Brother (that moral beacon!)

    Judge judge judge judge judge judge. Read the book of James lately? Oh, and unless he's Dutch and works for Endemon Productions, I doubt if he created Big Brother; it's a Dutch concept.

    Sorry guys but you really are bonkers - a feeling that you undoubtbly attribute to me -my bonkers though ends up promoting families, sexual health, integrity and true choice while the opposite ,'try this but stick this on your willy approach' is just as dangerous as it gets.

    Qcmbr, you might want to deny the facts, but the facts are there. To repeat; a country with (in comparison to the UK) a far more liberal attitude towards sex, early, comprehensive sex education, free access to contraception and abortion AND decriminalised cannabis has (in comparison to the UK)

    A higher age of first sexual intercourse
    A 5 x lower rate of teen pregnancy
    A lower rate of teen STD infection
    A lower percentage of cannabis users

    ... so all your contentions about liberal attitudes in such areas are disproved.

    You can ignore the facts, but that doesn't stop them being facts.

    You'll soon find you run out of arguements to stop things even you find extreme because your arguements will be used against you.

    How can 'do what thou wilt but do no harm' and 'respect the freedom of others as long as their claimed freedoms do not infringe on the freedom of others' be used against me?

    In the meantime you'll I hope you wont be pleased by the decline in: traditional families,

    Like an unhappy marriage where the woman can be beaten by a man who keeps a mistress or visits child prostitutes? That was fairly traditonal for a Victorian family; or did the massive numbers of child prostitutes in Victorian London only sleep with atheists? Your traditonal family never existed, it's just a right-wing fantasy set in a Utopian 1950 that never was.

    innocence of our youth,

    I see education as more improtant for youth than ignorance. Keep your kids 'innocent' if you like. They'll just pick up bad info from the school yard and thus be put at risk.

    the value and cherishing of the married state

    No, you mean YOUR definiton of the married states and YOUR claimed right to deny others the same state. All about you, isn't it?

    increases in: abortion, stds, the spread of aids,

    As I have proved, it is early comprehensive sex education that can reduce these

    prostitution,

    Overall, levels of prostitution in the UK are lower than periods you would cite as being examples of periods when the 'traditonal family' held sway. This is another example of your argument being based on fantasy, not fact.

    the now $50 billion porn industry

    Qcmbr, you owe the Internet to the Porn industry. What is wrong with it anyway? Please try to use the Bible to back your opinion up.

    Hedonism which is the ntural fruit of sexual liberlism and the removal of religious / societal barriers comes at a high cost surely you can see that!.

    Religious/societal barriers have a high cost in themselves, namely the loss of freedom to lawful people who do not agree with the commonly accepted religious/societal barriers.

    Of those who will flame me to death for standing up for this how many of you actually have kids and worry about them in this scenario?

    I have kids and I am glad they will be taught what they need to protect them from the world, not what my beliefs make me feel is appropriate for them to learn or think. And you are standing up for your own unfounded opinions. You are wrong about something, have been shown by facts to be wrong about something, but still insist you are right. Standing up in a situation like that is not something to be proud of. You're not standing up for anything you can prove right, just for your own opinion.

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    Forscher:

    The problem is that the fossil record can only be interpreted. interpret it from the materialist point of view, and it say one thing. Interpret it from a non-materialist point of view and it says another. Which is correct?

    I concede that there's really no way of knowing for sure, so in a very narrow sense you're right. Despite the fact that the fossil record appears in every measurable and testable way to show gradual evolution, and multiple mass extinctions, it is always possible - once you allow a supernatural explanation - that this evidence was faked by the Designer for reasons of his own.

    Since neither of our views can be verified in a strict scientific sense, I am afraid that I can never present evidence in a manner in which we can come to an agreement.

    Well, in "a strict scientific sense", the supernatural argument has to be thrown out as it is unfalsifiable. However, despite mountains (literally) of evidence in favour of evolution, as well as direct observations, a supernatural "explanation" can never be completely ruled out. Perhaps at the start of every science class (not just biloogy) the teachers should include a caveat that what they are presenting is the way the universe appears to be when rigorously tested, but that unknown supernatural entities could be falsifying the results for their own purposes. I'm sure this would satisfy everybody.

    seattleniceguy:

    For years scientists have wondered whether pandas are bears, raccoons, or in a group all their own. Through studying the genetic code (DNA) in pandas? cells, scientists have confirmed the panda's relationship with bears. Giant pandas are similar to other bears in their general looks, the way they walk and climb, and their skull characteristics. It's important to know that pandas are bears, because the more we know about pandas, the better we can help them reproduce and survive .

    I find this fascinating, as for years I thought that pandas were more closely related to raccoons than to true bears. Interestingly, for Creationists, this is a completely meaningless discovery. Pandas are bears because they look like bears. Taxonomic distinctions are meaningless to Creationists. Animals can be grouped together for convenience, but nothing can be learned about them that way. Dolphins might as well be grouped with fish, and bats with birds. There's no real point arguing that dolphins and bats are mammals, because to Creationists, "mammal" is merely a descriptive term, not one indicative of ancestry. What a horrible and backward view of the world that is.

  • seattleniceguy
    seattleniceguy

    funkyderek,

    Taxonomic distinctions are meaningless to Creationists. Animals can be grouped together for convenience, but nothing can be learned about them that way. Dolphins might as well be grouped with fish, and bats with birds.

    Reminds me of a scripture...

    Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
    But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
    And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
    And every raven after his kind,
    And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
    The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
    And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
    And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
    -- Deut 14:11 - 18

    SNG

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    seattleniceguy:

    Reminds me of a scripture...

    I know that scripture is often used to show the inaccuracy of the Bible, but I don't believe it does so. It's possible (and defensible) to divide creatures by their function into broad categories like bird, beast or fish (where bird means "any flying animal", beast means "any land animal" and fish means "any water-dwelling animal"). In this scenario, a bat would be a bird, a penguin would be a beast, and a dolphin would be a fish.

    Of course, the reason modern biologists don't do this, and classify bats and dolphins as mammals, and penguins as birds is because they use terms like "bird" to mean a particular group of creatures which share a common ancestor not shared by non-birds. There is no particular reason Creationists would do this, they might as well group animals together by superficial morphology, or even by such attributes as size or colour.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit