I suppose it is a conversation about both.
I suppose it is a conversation about both.
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER
This kind of reminds me of that south park episode about the true thanksgiving... i mean, there's certainly no proof that aliens weren't at the first thanksgiving...
- "He's kinda awesome..."
I have not seen that episode of South Park.
How does this thread remind you of it?
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER
Would people please stop abusing the term "Theory". An idea with no factual backing is not a theory.
@lastunicorn - Religious discussions are still subject to logic. Things can not be "created old". If something is created today, by that very fact, it can not be 10,000 years old. It breaks logical laws which is something that most agree even God can not do.
Unfortunately the vast majority of religous people do not particularly care about what is logical.
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER
That's just untrue. There's just as many illogical athiests out there.
Slight difference between not caring to be logical and being illogical, the later one can just be a sign of stupidity
ABS vs Rangers
@Palem It is not untrue, yet i agree - there are many illogical humans of all descriptions, including both religious and non religious people.
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER
hmmmm
Hitler had a theory about the Aryan race being superior and the jews, gypsees, etc were inferior. He didn't have any proof or facts to support it, he just hated the jews and invented his own theory. I guess the term 'theory' can be used in many ways.
But as you say, scientific theories need some basis in SCIENCE and are based on a hypothesis, so I think we agree on that at least. Some theories are stronger than others. The Big Bang is considered a theory because we weren't there when it happened. Everything indicates that everything in the Universe expands from one location and moves as if a Big Bang happened. It's a very strong theory, but I'd still call it a theory, a theory I believe in because the facts and scientific research we have today support it.
ABS vs Rangers
I never mentioned the word theory other than to compare the teaching of christianity to the teaching ofthe aboriginal rainbow serpent theory as to the origins of earth and life.
I never put down a definition of the word Palem. My previous comment was about your own comment regarding illogical athiests.
Do people here thing it is wrong to teach creationism in schools? To teach it as if it were maths or geography?
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER
Only if it's a religious class. Otherwise they have no right to teach something with no scientific backing.
But what about a child born into a religious family and sent to religious school? Isn't it wrong to teach a child that the earth was in 'fact' created in seven days and God was responsible and he died for our sins and blah blah blah... is that not wrong for that child to be taught wild beleifs as facts?
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER
I would consider that the choice of the one being educated (or parents), and anyone should have the freedom to learn that which they want to.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)