Creationism in schools

Well of course I agree with them... especially the one regarding the uncertainty issue. Just that one statement tell the whole story about science. BTW: I answered your questions.

 

Good. So here's my final question: where does belief come into the picture?

 

Well I would sure hate to know that we have scientists out there playing with all sorts of deadly things and that those scientists don't have any faith in what they are doing or in the laws that they are using; or simply if they did not believe in what they were doing. (believe means to have confidence in something .... belief is the mental act of believing)

 

There is a difference between believing in something without experience and expecting that something will occur based on repeated observations. The sun rises from the East and sets in the West. Is that a dogma?

 

It can be and used to be. The Egyptians and their sun god Ra. Remember that one? Then when looking at that subject, there are still 'sun worshipers' around today. So, I would have to conclude that; Yes, it is a dogma for some people today.

 

That isn't what I asked you. Is the observation that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West dogma?

 

And I previously answered but will now clarify to help you comprehend.

The sun worshipers of today have learned that their god wakes from sleep everyday and gets out of his bed from the same side everyday. The sun worshipers of today have also learned that their god retires for sleep and goes to bed at the same side everyday. Those sides of the analogous bed have been dubbed east for the morning rising of their god and west for the evening when their god retires for sleep. So, yes, it is still dogma.

To further help you understand, I will once again point out the definitions of dogma:
"dog·ma (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln)."

 

Scientist have unearth many ancient artefacts that they believe show sign that ancient people were practising a form of religion now remember this are claims made by the scientific community why would they research about religious practices if religion is not significant to human civilization?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_religion
Religious behaviour is thought to have emerged by the Upper Paleolithic, before 30,000 years ago at the latest,[1] but behavioral patterns such as burial rites that one might characterize as religious - or as ancestral to religious behaviour - reach back into the Middle Paleolithic, as early as 300,000 years ago, coinciding with the first appearance of Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens. Religious behaviour may combine (for example) ritual, spirituality, mythology and magical thinking or animism - aspects that may have had separate histories of development during the Middle Paleolithic before combining into "religion proper" of behavioral modernity.
There are suggestions for the first appearance of religious or spiritual experience in the Lower Paleolithic (significantly earlier than 300,000 years ago, pre-Homo sapiens), but these remain controversial and have limited support.[2]

The Middle Paleolithic spans the period from 300,000 to 50,000 years ago. Some of the earliest significant evidence of religious practices dates from this period. Intentional burial, particularly with grave goods may be one of the earliest detectable forms of religious practice since, as Philip Lieberman suggests, it may signify a "concern for the dead that transcends daily life."[3]
Though disputed, evidence suggests that the Neanderthals were the first humans to intentionally bury the dead, doing so in shallow graves along with stone tools and animal bones.[4] Exemplary sites include Shanidar in Iraq, Kebara Cave in Israel and Krapina in Croatia. Some scholars, however argue that these bodies may have been disposed of for secular reasons.[5] Cut marks on Neanderthal bones from various sites such as Combe-Grenal and Abri Moula in France may imply that the Neanderthals may have practiced excarnation.

 

Still no evidence that Incorporeal actually comprehends what he's fervently clacking upon his keyboard. He feels that simply because an idea was once accepted as religious dogma by some people, the idea is forever and irrecoverably linked to dogma, even if it is no longer accepted as a tenet of faith and is instead an idea that is supported by evidence and observation.

He also can't seem to think of, recognize, or even find a decent argument against why repeated observational data may not be true. For instance, if I were to argue against the idea that repeated observations yield reliable results, I'd use the problem of induction to assail the position, in which case one has to use Popper's philosophy of falsifiablity in order to counter the philosophically unassailable position of the problem of induction. But, not, Incorporeal instead plays silly and ultimately incorrect semantics games to try and create an air of respectability. As such, he's not even really interesting to try and debate. Unfortunately for everyone involved, he is spreading falsehoods, either willfully or in ignorance, which is a violation of YHWH's Mosaic commandments, which he claims to cleave to. So, he is a semantic nitpicker who is hypocritical and immoral according to his own religion.

 

"they believe"???? Interesting. Not conclusive proof, but just a matter of belief. Then on top of that, you admit that they were researching things of a 'religious' nature. Have they started researching the existence of Russel's Teapot as yet? How about the existence of the Easter Bunny? Well, I have noticed where members of a particular scientific community (meteorologists) have become quite familiar with the existence of Santa Claus and make a public display of their ability to track the whereabouts of Santa on that special evening each year. That scenario is a case showing where the Scientific community is engaged in deluding the minds of innocent children and promoting the belief in real existence of an otherwise globally known myth. Anyone want to go searching for the remains of that other mythical creature called Socrates?

 

Where specifically did I say that you tried to deny it, rather than just 'not be OK' with it?

 

Of course it is speculative but the fact that the bodies are specifically laid out in only two positions (extended or fetal position) seems to indicate special care was being taken. The bodies weren't just tossed into a pile. But there is a lot of speculation about neanderthals. They were relatively intelligent but we don't know if they had language for example. There are mammals with smaller relative brains that do communicate verbally with each other so logic would dictate that they probably did have a rundamentary language. If they could communicate then they could logically ask questions and two of the earliest questions we know of in recorded history is "Where did we come from and is there a purpose to life?" Those question alone lead ignorant people into inventing answers which was the foundation for hundreds of different religions being created worldwide.

We know how religions originated thousands of years ago because they are common to virtually all of mankind. Religions invented answers to questions where the answers were unknown. In most cases a new religion plagerized a prior religion because the inventors of the new religion didn't take the time to create all new answers to everything. Religions generally evolved from previous religious beliefs. We have an indication of this with the Hebrew religion which appears to plagerize parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh that predated it.

The study of the origins and evolution of religion is an interesting topic in it's own right and it also addresses the different stories of creation that are common in the hundreds of major religions that have existed historically. As I've noted there isn't one story of creation but instead hundreds of stories of creation and if we're going to teach "creationism" then we should teach about all of the historical stories of creation. As noted the Greek story of creation originated at virtually the same time as the Biblical story of creation so they are comparable historically. We can't teach one without addressing the other.

 

Is there a known burial of a sapiens sapiens that dates that far back?

 

That is why you need to attend schooling, and this is why schools should include Theology as a subject of learning.

 

You some how neglected to take your own advice about getting a bit of schooling.

 

Nope I did not neglected myself because I have proper schooling but thanks for admitting you have not.

 

If you had "proper schooling" why is it you cannot write even one complete, correct sentence? You made several mistakes in just that little you wrote.

You even got in at least two falsehoods, too. Quite a show!

Thanks for demonstrating that creationists are uneducated, and that creationists habitually spread falsehoods.

 

Why do you keep bringing up a strawman argument to debate against? I asked you whether a simple observation about what the sun does is dogma and not whether a group of people's beliefs about the sun being God is dogma.

 

Do you need special instrumentation to detect powerful waves of confusion?

 

It is implied in the message to which I had responded. Why else would you make the remark about double standard?

 

Well, I have a lot of schooling behind me. Including Electronics, theology, the construction trades, trucking, jurisprudence, and a couple of others.

I notice that the non-believers are not responding to my last post (the one to which you responded). I believe it is because they feel ashamed of the scientific community for allowing the peers of the scientific community to openly and publicly demonstrate how they can delude the minds of innocent children.

 

Are you suggesting that the sun worshipers are not aware of the rising and setting of the sun? Are you suggesting that they are not observers of that rising and setting of the sun? Without an observer, the sun for all intents and purposes neither rises or sets.

 

http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/santa/norad.asp

That, and most humans have this emotion called "mirth," which relates to whimsy, fantasy, and joy wherein sometimes people will tell "stories" to delight others, especially children, which adults are aware of the lack of literal truth but will still engage in for "fun".

It iis also notable that Santa is originally a Christian story, so it turns out Christians weree originally liars and thus, according to your logic, are forever and always liars.

 

Well, regardless of the origin of old saint nick,,, it certainly ain't American. That was the fault of those myth worshipers of Europe.

 

All versions of American Christianity that include Santa originate from Europe. Thus, all Christians are liars. Your logic regarding sun worship proves it beyond all doubt. Either all American Christians are liars or the idea of the apparent motion of sun being a reliable feature we can count on occurring is not dogma. Which is it?