Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Neanderthals

Originally posted by SalKhan:

---

Originally posted by Corbett:

---

They are not the same. God has a son, his name is Jesus.

---

I rest my case.

All I'm gonna say is when I have a problem, I'd go straight to the father, why deal with the son?

---

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

Originally posted by Corbett:

---

You are talking about Allah, not God. He may be your god but he is not THE God. They are not the same.

---

Then what about Allah and God both being defined be each popular branch of Islam and Christianity as "The God of Abraham"?

---

Originally posted by SleeperZ:

---

Originally posted by Woodencross:

---

Originally posted by JEDsContour:

---

Loud and Ignorant - the usual response.

---

Bring it on then....give me "proof."

---

So if there is an all powerful being that created everything, then which religion is right?
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.
And thats just covering the main religions.
We could dive deeper to witches, pagans, pantheists, scientologists, satanists, etc.
Everyone with a different look at religion and following a differet story and having a different god.
AMny its the same god, and hes just having some fun giving people different beliefs and watching them collide.

I'm just guessing here, but you are probably catholic. So I guess the rest of the religions are wrong because you have a book (written by man) that says so.
And not only is that book written by man, its translated by man, from another book written by a man.
And its passed through a few different languages, some of which that are not directly translatable.
Ever play the game "telephone" in school.
How something starts is never the way it ends up.

As for proof of science, DNA.

---

Bad choices dude! The Catholic community has actually opened its mind about evolutionary theory...or at least until Pope Benedict XVI got elected. Currently there are Jesuit monks and others who are now allowed to discuss and write about the "what ifs" of evolution. Modern Catholics are more open minded than you think.
I used to be a baptist, If I were a betting man I'd say he was from one of the protestant religions such as baptist.

By the way, here is an important point:
Evolution doesn't say anything about the way things are created or who did it. It says nothing against God as an all powerfull, always existing entity. It DOES however postulate a survival and adaptation mechanism.

If I designed something like a living creature I wouldn't want it to get killed by the first disease or bad weather that comes along in my beautifully created world. I would design that creature with what it took to survive.
Then I could be free to step back and watch them all as they struggle through their lives trying to find the right answer rather than step in and help them out. I'm sure God would create such a self sustainment system.

Therefore there is no disagreement in my mind between Religion(creationism) and Evolution. How can there be a conflict? One does not exclude the other.

Either way you look at it, Darwin was a staunch Christian. So was his father. Darwin participated in his church.
All he is guilty of (and hated for) is observing nature and drawing some conclusions. He is not the only one to have independently come to these conclusions either.
Anyway, it was some other source, the media tabloids if I remember correctly that first penned man-from-monkey and from there people who never looked at his work made up distorted opinions and lies.
You see, their descendents still live....they must have evolved to stay alive in this modern world where Genetics help millions to live longer, allowing them to pray and donate more moeny to those churches. Funny how Genetics are the biggest piece of corrobarating evidence for evolution since they are the mechanism by which changes occur.

I'm sure he won't have a problem going to a doctor. I'm sure if someone told him his child was genetically proven 99.9% NOT His, then he'd have some doubts in his mind...


This is the hypocricy we live in.

Originally posted by Corbett:

---

Viss, I thought you said you were a Christian? The Bible says we should all be hardcore Christians (Rev 3:16).

---

Originally posted by t-red2000se:

---

Originally posted by SalKhan:

---

No. I'm a muslim.

---

How do you reconcile the fact that your holy book tells you to kill me?

---

Originally posted by sigma:

---

Originally posted by Antonio Wright:

---

Originally posted by sigma:

---

Originally posted by Corbett:

---

Originally posted by Antonio Wright:

---

I am going to have to disagree. I personally believe that both should taught in the classroom because both are theories. It is not fair to only hear one side of the argument.

---

Awesome Ant! I totally agree about equal time in public schools.

---

Simple fact is that if students had to be taught every side of every argument, no one would ever leave school. If we make it so that you have to give equal time to both those theories I want you to give equal time to my theory too, and some other kid's parents will want you to give equal time to their belief. And then I want you to do it for every single subject you cover. It'd make for a GREAT education, but an endless one. You could go on forever on a single subject.

School curiculum is focused on teaching the leading belief of the expert community on the subject at that time. As soon as a majority of the scientific community subscribes to Creationism then we can require that it be taught in school. Granted, that's a Catch-22, getting a significant number of scientists to subscribe to a theological theory, but you have to set up some sort of standards for curriculum if you're going to start requiring things like equal time for alternative theories.

For the record, I don't necessarily have a problem with it being taught as an alternative theory, just not a required one, and a teacher who chooses to fit it into their lesson plan should be prepared to deal with the flak they'll get)

---

It would not take a whole school year. The teacher could just say that not every believes in evolution and present the other theory. I see nothing wrong or even hard to do.

---

There's lots of "other" theories regarding how we got here. Where do you stop? You want to stop at the point where you're satisfied. What about other people who believe other things? What about other subjects? If we require equal time to alternative theories on creation then we should equally require the same thing for why World War 2 began, or what the Battle at the Alamo really was about.

In grade school you simply get the prevailing scientific theory of the time. Whatever it may be. In later years you teach alternate theories when you can take an entire course on that one subject. It's be great if we had all the time in the world to do that early on, but we don't. We used to teach kids the Four Food Groups, then we taught them the Food Pyramid, now we teach them the new Food Pyramid; but we leave the nuances of nutrition for later years in education when you can take an entire course just devoted to nothing but that.

For example, I hope everyone in here could tell me that 2+2=4. We were all taught that, right? But you probably weren't taught that 2+2 is also equal to 100, 11, and 10. Or that the solution to 19+5 is 24, 22, 20, 1B, 14, 120, or 11000, among several other answers. Those are all correct answers. 19+5 has at least 18 solutions actually, we only teach children one of them. But 19+5=24, a base-10 standard, is the prevailing scientific thought on what grade-school students should learn in school. When you get older you might learn the other ways. Base-10 caught on for everyday use because it's really easy to use your fingers to count. Should we require that all students learn all the other ways too? It's only fair to give equal time to all possible answers, right?

---

Originally posted by Antonio Wright:

---

Originally posted by t-red2000se:

---

Originally posted by SalKhan:

---

No. I'm a muslim.

---

How do you reconcile the fact that your holy book tells you to kill me?

---

Okay, this post was out of line. If you want to start a flame war, then create another thread.

---

Originally posted by t-red2000se:

---

Originally posted by SalKhan:

---

No. I'm a muslim.

---

How do you reconcile the fact that your holy book tells you to kill me?

---

..how do you reconcile the fact that the bible promotes murder and torture of those who don't agree with christian principles.. (moses..red sea..plague..etc)

Originally posted by Antonio Wright:

---

Originally posted by sigma:

---

Originally posted by Antonio Wright:

---

Originally posted by sigma:

---

Originally posted by Corbett:

---

Originally posted by Antonio Wright:

---

I am going to have to disagree. I personally believe that both should taught in the classroom because both are theories. It is not fair to only hear one side of the argument.

---

Awesome Ant! I totally agree about equal time in public schools.

---

Simple fact is that if students had to be taught every side of every argument, no one would ever leave school. If we make it so that you have to give equal time to both those theories I want you to give equal time to my theory too, and some other kid's parents will want you to give equal time to their belief. And then I want you to do it for every single subject you cover. It'd make for a GREAT education, but an endless one. You could go on forever on a single subject.

School curiculum is focused on teaching the leading belief of the expert community on the subject at that time. As soon as a majority of the scientific community subscribes to Creationism then we can require that it be taught in school. Granted, that's a Catch-22, getting a significant number of scientists to subscribe to a theological theory, but you have to set up some sort of standards for curriculum if you're going to start requiring things like equal time for alternative theories.

For the record, I don't necessarily have a problem with it being taught as an alternative theory, just not a required one, and a teacher who chooses to fit it into their lesson plan should be prepared to deal with the flak they'll get)

---

It would not take a whole school year. The teacher could just say that not every believes in evolution and present the other theory. I see nothing wrong or even hard to do.

---

There's lots of "other" theories regarding how we got here. Where do you stop? You want to stop at the point where you're satisfied. What about other people who believe other things? What about other subjects? If we require equal time to alternative theories on creation then we should equally require the same thing for why World War 2 began, or what the Battle at the Alamo really was about.

In grade school you simply get the prevailing scientific theory of the time. Whatever it may be. In later years you teach alternate theories when you can take an entire course on that one subject. It's be great if we had all the time in the world to do that early on, but we don't. We used to teach kids the Four Food Groups, then we taught them the Food Pyramid, now we teach them the new Food Pyramid; but we leave the nuances of nutrition for later years in education when you can take an entire course just devoted to nothing but that.

For example, I hope everyone in here could tell me that 2+2=4. We were all taught that, right? But you probably weren't taught that 2+2 is also equal to 100, 11, and 10. Or that the solution to 19+5 is 24, 22, 20, 1B, 14, 120, or 11000, among several other answers. Those are all correct answers. 19+5 has at least 18 solutions actually, we only teach children one of them. But 19+5=24, a base-10 standard, is the prevailing scientific thought on what grade-school students should learn in school. When you get older you might learn the other ways. Base-10 caught on for everyday use because it's really easy to use your fingers to count. Should we require that all students learn all the other ways too? It's only fair to give equal time to all possible answers, right?

---

The flaw in your reasoning is that we all know math is factual. You can't teach evolution as being FACT, I am sorry but it is not a fact. So, you need to present the most popular theories at the time. I still don't see what is so hard with that.

---