Report: Ohio teacher burned cross on kids' arms

[Shogun]

I think it depends on whether one's beliefs, whether Jewish (it's Judaism, btw...) Chrisitan or Muslim, are fundamentalist beliefs. The vast majority of people subscribing to any religion probably don't think their holy book is a literal work. I know for certain most Jews think it's allegory.

perhaps thats the case for judism but I wouldn't make that same bet on christianity. The majority of christians iv'e encountered see the bible as a historic time line that depicts facts rather than mythical allegories meant to guide in the same fashion as greek and roman mythology.

 

[jillian]

perhaps thats the case for judism but I wouldn't make that same bet on christianity. The majority of christians iv'e encountered see the bible as a historic time line that depicts facts rather than mythical allegories meant to guide in the same fashion as greek and roman mythology.

Perhaps, but it also may be a geographic thing.

Me? I'm not quite sure how people buy the concept of the earth being 6,000 years old when we have evidence of cultures that are far older than that ... but, of course, ancient Egypt must have been a mirage.

Ancient Egypt was a civilization in eastern North Africa concentrated along the middle to lower reaches of the Nile River in what is now the modern nation of Egypt. The civilization began around 3150 BC[1] with the political unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under the first pharaoh, and it developed over the next three millennia

Ancient Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Shogun]

Perhaps it's a geography thing. Smack dab in the midwest I can tellya that people are much, MUCH more literal in their biblical interpretations.


I hear ya on the Egypt. Then again, the pyramids might be a tool of the devil meant to raise doubt in the bible, yo.


check this out.. cracked me up.

5 Superpowers From the Bible That Put Marvel and DC to Shame
5 Superpowers From the Bible That Put Marvel and DC to Shame | Cracked.com

 

[Gunny]

now, imagine if muslims had an origin theory that they insist be taught in the science class called Mohammed Design...

Now you're taking this somewhere else. I can respond in kind: Imagine them teaching in science class a theory they label as scientific but requires every bit as much belief as its basis, and no more actual evidence to support it as any religion?

 

[Shogun]

Now you're taking this somewhere else. I can respond in kind: Imagine them teaching in science class a theory they label as scientific but requires every bit as much belief as its basis, and no more actual evidence to support it as any religion?

EVERY BIT? I still have astronomy and the fossil record. what would you have?

 

[BrianH]

EVERY BIT? I still have astronomy and the fossil record. what would you have?

Honest question (not being sarcastic). How do fossils tell scientist whether or not we've evolved from them. All that it shows was that there were humans during that time that looked like what the fossils represent. It doesn't mean that humans (that looked like us) didn't exist. When you find an ancient ape fossil, that means it's an ape fossil, not human. I just have a problem believing we came from apes. Every civilization has different characteristics. Eastern Europeans often have bigger jaw definition that others. Some are taller. These skeletons that have been discovered could be mutated humans don't you think? Does that mean we evolved from them? Or could it mean that humans have always looked the same, but some of the one's we've found may have been genetically mutated. There are people today that look more like apes than humans. I'm just saying, couldn't it be a possiblity that the skeletal remains are genetic mutated humans, considering there was more (inter-family breeding going on?). Just an honest question to stimulate discussion.

 

[Shogun]

for one, the fossil record doesn't just include humans. THATS the great thing about evidence. There is plenty of available information out there for anyone actually interested in considering it. I could toss out numerous examples, from digits in whale flippers to blind cave tetras to animal husbandry to etc etc and i'd STILL have more evidence than a creationist.

for two, When you say "come from apes" you seriously fubar the ancestor of humanity. You cannot go to your local zoo and point at the ancestor of man in the monkey house. What you CAN do, however, is see physical evidence for human species that have been molded by both their environment and their genetics. Refusing to consider what really is this generations heliocentrism because of misguided non sequiters doesn't bode well for the reputation of christians in the field of science.

thirdly, If you can find a homo sapien skeleton riding a dinosaur then, by all means, offer it as evidence. The greatest misnomer about christian opinions is that they think attacking evolution will validate their theories. It doesn't. If they had their OWn evidence to provide then this would be a completely differnt debate. As it is, talking shit on copernicus didn't keep the sun from actually being the center of our solar system. if christians can provide even the slightest bit of non-conjecture bullshit then the science community would consider as much. THAT is what science does. But, in this vacuum of martyr routine bullshit we don't get anything more than "well, the bible is a historical document". Which, of course triggers the "so what" response. Can we turn a raptor into a chicken in a 5 hour lab session? no. does this reflect poorly on evolution? Not to those who comprehend the process beyond bullshit religious zealotry.

Fourth, again, I still have astronomy. It may be a funny jibe to offer on the pulpit by asking what happened before the big bang... but i'd challenge a christian to answer the same about who created THEIR origin archetect without falling back on the ole "he was just there, alpha and omega, blah blah blah".



Early Theories of Evolution: Evidence of Evolution

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution | Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

Evolution

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[My Winter Storm]

I disagree. Religion as a topic should be offered just as any other topic. It's rather ignorant and neglectful to censor something YOU disagree with personally when it has impacted mankind since Day One right through today.

It has its place. Science class is not it.

If that is the case, religion as a topic should NOT be mandatory. Students can choose whether they learn about it or not. It should not be forced up students, they should have the choice as to whether they learn it or not.

 

[jillian]

If that is the case, religion as a topic should NOT be mandatory. Students can choose whether they learn about it or not. It should not be forced up students, they should have the choice as to whether they learn it or not.

I disagree. I don't think there's anything wrong with kids having a comparative religion class that gives them a sense of what others believe. It adds a bit of understanding and presents the issue in a way that would, presumably, not be intended to proselytize for any particular faith.

It would only be wrong if it were taught as a "religion" class where the kids had a particular belief presented to them as if it were the only "legitimate" belief.