I don't care if Jesus or Adam and Eve were pearly white or black as the ace of spades or any other color, for that matter. Just don't start claiming that Santa Claus was black or I'll really get pissed off.

But wasn't Santa Clause black ?

I mean, if you spent a whole night sliding up and down all those filthy, sooty chimneys, you'd be pretty black as well ! Might take the rest of the year to wash yourself white again !

I don't care if Jesus or Adam and Eve were pearly white or black as the ace of spades or any other color, for that matter. Just don't start claiming that Santa Claus was black or I'll really get pissed off.

Race:A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

now do you get it? If by asking what race Adam and Eve were, we can tell what area of the world they cam from. I mean, if they were Asian, you would not expect them to be found in africa now would you?

Never in a milion years would I have imagined myself yearning for a political discussion. But . . . it's not to be. (Where the hel_l is Boonie and his dragoons when you need them????) So, since the alternative is either starting my own threads (which I've already done) or being faced with utter boredom then I'll force myself to jump into this one.

I certainly don't take the Bible literally and to those who do, well, bless you and have fun spending an eternity trying to achieve an impossible task. To me it's like trying to understand the origins of Hansel and Gretel in literal terms. On the other hand, I don't subscribe to evolutionary concepts as they are popularly understood, either. Needless to say I'm sitting on my own little fence.

One thing that has been evident to me long, long ago is that much of this world cannot be proven one way or another. Which means that the height of foolishness is to then engage in discussions with people who have already settled upon their convictions (which is why I particularly abhor politics). If ever there existed an immovable object it is the mind of someone who has conviction. The doors have long been shut and sealed while the windows provide only an extremely narrow view. For most people the only way out from this self-styled, self-imposed prison will be death.

In my opinion, the reason that much of this world cannot ever be proven is because it's source lays outside of this dimensional reality. Take a concept such as faith, for instance. You may believe in it's reality or not but I'll guarantee you there will never exist a scientific instrument which can measure it let alone detect it's substance. Physical apparatus can only be used on that which is physical. Which makes for huge limitations. Does love truly exist or is it another whimsical concoction of our imagination? And now that I mention imagination, what the heck is that???

Proof is an interesting concept. Many people are skeptical and so resist believing anything which can't be proven by science. Which then places them in an untenable position since they still need to conclude on a multitude of issues for which no prove exists. And while many things can never be proven in physical terms to thus satisfy the minds of others they can be proven to ones self. In which case save your breath and learn for yourself. No need to convince others of anything.

Here's another little theory which seems to be gaining quite a bit of popularity: The Universe As Idea Construction. If anyone cares to explore that concept the doors are there and they are open. Forgive me, but you'll have to find them for yourself since it's bad practice to give answers to questions which aren't asked. So I'll politely keep my mouth shut.

Anyway, I have little time for ranting and raving since I have just placed my soapbox up for sale on another thread. Very shortly (that is, if I find a buyer anytime soon) I will be limited to one-liners. I might stretch them into very long, one-sentence paragraphs once in awhile even though that may well be classed as poor writing style. But I'll do what I can if I can get away with it. I don't believe there are any forum rules regarding writing conventions (other than NOT USING CAPITAL LETTERS BECAUSE IT'S SO DAM_N ANNOYING FOR PEOPLE TO READ AND REMINDS ME OF SO MANY FRICKIN' LEGAL DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE PURPOSELY WRITTEN IN CAPS TO DISSUADE PEOPLE FROM READING THEM IN THEIR ENTIRETY).

I nominate the above for post of the month!

Excellent post Tippaporn, I really enjoyed it, nor would I call it a rant or rave!

I nominate the above for post of the month!

Excellent post Tippaporn, I really enjoyed it, nor would I call it a rant or rave!

With the current state of education in the US (high school grads who can barely read or write, or find their home state on a map), I don't think they should be adding more into the curriculum.

Instead they should be reducing it and emphasizing the basic skills people will need after they graduate.

What good is it churning out grads who are barely qualified to pump gas or bag groceries, but think that maybe there was some intelligence behind the creation of the universe ?

Maybe it will give them something to discuss with their fellow under-achievers while they are standing in the welfare lines ?

With the current state of education in the US (high school grads who can barely read or write, or find their home state on a map), I don't think they should be adding more into the curriculum.

Instead they should be reducing it and emphasizing the basic skills people will need after they graduate.

What good is it churning out grads who are barely qualified to pump gas or bag groceries, but think that maybe there was some intelligence behind the creation of the universe ?

Maybe it will give them something to discuss with their fellow under-achievers while they are standing in the welfare lines ?

I don't understand why people are continuously getting in to this....

Creationism is a belief... Evolution is a science.

Those are two very different things. Stop stressing yourselves

We are all here, aren't we... so <deleted> does it matter?

I agree. Religion should left in it's own little corner, away from politcs and science.

You sound a little more coherent on this thread, TBB. Unfortunately, the topic isn't.

Where the hel_l is Boonie and his dragoons when you need them?

They love you Boon!

Where the hel_l is Boonie and his dragoons when you need them?

They love you Boon!

Yes, we do!

A smack on the cheek and another upside the head!

Where the hel_l is Boonie and his dragoons when you need them?

They love you Boon!

Yes, we do!

A smack on the cheek and another upside the head!

Sheesh, get a room

(or start a separate Boon Mee appreciation thread, then take bets on how long before it gets hijacked and turned into a political debate)

start a separate Boon Mee appreciation thread, then take bets on how long before it gets hijacked and turned into a political debate)

Probably by Boon himself!

Probably by Boon himself!

I was going to suggest Butterfly

Creationism does not belong together with science. It's an entirely different subject.

In my homecountry, comparative religion is taught, i.e. the basic believes and histories of the major world religions. The US could certainly learn something from this, it would spare us a lot of uninformed gibberish in political discussions.

Science, as a belief-system, is examined within the subject of "philosophy".

Of course all this is a different approach from pushing for a curriculum which emphasises economic survival skills.

But one of (the many) values of a humanistic education is that it helps to prevent useless wars and social conflicts.

I though we were talking about Evolution theory and not about science itself.

Well IMHO I creationism and other theories should be taught when teaching Evolution theory. In order to be critical, you need to know different points of views on the subject so that your opinion will have strong grounds

if on the contrary only one side of the discussion is taught your opinion will be biased from the very beggining and will not be your own choice...

When doing my degree, genetic teachers taugh mostly the good sides of genetics and made little mention of bad side effects... of course most of them did not mention the social and economic problems that genetics is causing to some sector of society like little scale farmers and in some coutries like india, disrupting the endemic species of plant growth...blah,blah

Of course most of the 20 years old students thought that genetics were fantastic and helped to overcome the 3rd world hunger...so far from the truth IMHO

This example shows that information can manipulate people opinions...in order to have a fair opinion you need to know all sides of a matter.

Like I said in another thread, we can believe what we want, and I thank God for that freedom.

Best.oxymoron.ever.

I though we were talking about Evolution theory and not about science itself.

Well IMHO I creationism and other theories should be taught when teaching Evolution theory. In order to be critical, you need to know different points of views on the subject so that your opinion will have strong grounds

if on the contrary only one side of the discussion is taught your opinion will be biased from the very beggining and will not be your own choice...

Creationism is not a different point of view within the field of science, it's one of many belief-systems which seem to contradict science. What about teaching the holy Koran to get a different perspective? Do you think that would be a reasonable request? Perhaps the revelations of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" should be included as well as an alternative point of view to the theory of evolution?

When doing my degree, genetic teachers taugh mostly the good sides of genetics and made little mention of bad side effects... of course most of them did not mention the social and economic problems that genetics is causing to some sector of society like little scale farmers and in some coutries like india, disrupting the endemic species of plant growth...blah,blah

Of course most of the 20 years old students thought that genetics were fantastic and helped to overcome the 3rd world hunger...so far from the truth IMHO

This example shows that information can manipulate people opinions...in order to have a fair opinion you need to know all sides of a matter.

Yes, if the teachers only thaught the positive side of genetics, then other aspect of this subject have been omitted. You wouldn't expect the teachers to explain that the tooth-fairy throws a dice to determine the outcome, as an alternative point of view, would you???

You sound a little more coherent on this thread, TBB. Unfortunately, the topic isn't.

What are saying, Tip? Am I not always clear and concise in each one of my postings on TV?

You sound a little more coherent on this thread, TBB. Unfortunately, the topic isn't.

What are saying, Tip? Am I not always clear and concise in each one of my postings on TV?

Would you like to force a poll? Actually, I always thought you were too sane for Bedlam.

You sound a little more coherent on this thread, TBB. Unfortunately, the topic isn't.

What are saying, Tip? Am I not always clear and concise in each one of my postings on TV?

Would you like to force a poll? Actually, I always thought you were too sane for Bedlam.

I think you are right. I post here and then need a week break from it.

I though we were talking about Evolution theory and not about science itself.

Well IMHO I creationism and other theories should be taught when teaching Evolution theory. In order to be critical, you need to know different points of views on the subject so that your opinion will have strong grounds

if on the contrary only one side of the discussion is taught your opinion will be biased from the very beggining and will not be your own choice...

Creationism is not a different point of view within the field of science, it's one of many belief-systems which seem to contradict science. What about teaching the holy Koran to get a different perspective? Do you think that would be a reasonable request? Perhaps the revelations of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" should be included as well as an alternative point of view to the theory of evolution?

When doing my degree, genetic teachers taugh mostly the good sides of genetics and made little mention of bad side effects... of course most of them did not mention the social and economic problems that genetics is causing to some sector of society like little scale farmers and in some coutries like india, disrupting the endemic species of plant growth...blah,blah

Of course most of the 20 years old students thought that genetics were fantastic and helped to overcome the 3rd world hunger...so far from the truth IMHO

This example shows that information can manipulate people opinions...in order to have a fair opinion you need to know all sides of a matter.

Yes, if the teachers only thaught the positive side of genetics, then other aspect of this subject have been omitted. You wouldn't expect the teachers to explain that the tooth-fairy throws a dice to determine the outcome, as an alternative point of view, would you???

I know that creationism is not within the field of science...but it can be taugh as a different belief/view....for what are the origin of species and how they evolved...and that can be teach with evolution theories...but you don´t need to teach the whole Koran...

I studied evolution during my degree but we did not study the whole origin of species of Darwin or all the genetic theories or the complete works of authors like Mayr or Dawkins...we talked about evolution, natural selection, speciation, gene pool, mutations, genetic drift...While studying evolution theories, creationism was a word that appeared in many of the papers that i have to read...that´s why i had to find myself some information about what points of view they hold, if i wanted to understand what was the controversy between them (creationist vs evolution)

Well what i expect from a teacher is to teach me...that´s it give me the information about his/her subject nor his/her point of view...what i don´t expect from a teacher is that he or she just teach me what they want so that i have the same believes or points of views...if you cannot do that become a politician and stop being a teacher...

BTW it took me so long to reply you because i found your post insulting...i don´t need your sarcastic comments (and stupid i must add) about flying spaguetti monster...if you find my ideas to childish or inmature say it so but don´t make fun of them...This are my ideas...so you should respect them because they are as valid as yours...even if you disagree with me...have i made myself clear?

I really like this debate that´s why i have decided to reply you...

I though we were talking about Evolution theory and not about science itself.

Well IMHO I creationism and other theories should be taught when teaching Evolution theory. In order to be critical, you need to know different points of views on the subject so that your opinion will have strong grounds

if on the contrary only one side of the discussion is taught your opinion will be biased from the very beggining and will not be your own choice...

Creationism is not a different point of view within the field of science, it's one of many belief-systems which seem to contradict science. What about teaching the holy Koran to get a different perspective? Do you think that would be a reasonable request? Perhaps the revelations of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" should be included as well as an alternative point of view to the theory of evolution?

When doing my degree, genetic teachers taugh mostly the good sides of genetics and made little mention of bad side effects... of course most of them did not mention the social and economic problems that genetics is causing to some sector of society like little scale farmers and in some coutries like india, disrupting the endemic species of plant growth...blah,blah

Of course most of the 20 years old students thought that genetics were fantastic and helped to overcome the 3rd world hunger...so far from the truth IMHO

This example shows that information can manipulate people opinions...in order to have a fair opinion you need to know all sides of a matter.

Yes, if the teachers only thaught the positive side of genetics, then other aspect of this subject have been omitted. You wouldn't expect the teachers to explain that the tooth-fairy throws a dice to determine the outcome, as an alternative point of view, would you???

I know that creationism is not within the field of science...but it can be taugh as a different belief/view....for what are the origin of species and how they evolved...and that can be teach with evolution theories...but you don´t need to teach the whole Koran...

I studied evolution during my degree but we did not study the whole origin of species of Darwin or all the genetic theories or the complete works of authors like Mayr or Dawkins...we talked about evolution, natural selection, speciation, gene pool, mutations, genetic drift...While studying evolution theories, creationism was a word that appeared in many of the papers that i have to read...that´s why i had to find myself some information about what points of view they hold, if i wanted to understand what was the controversy between them (creationist vs evolution)

Well what i expect from a teacher is to teach me...that´s it give me the information about his/her subject nor his/her point of view...what i don´t expect from a teacher is that he or she just teach me what they want so that i have the same believes or points of views...if you cannot do that become a politician and stop being a teacher...A teacher in school has no business teaching religion, that is for teachers at church. A teacher teaching science needs to teach science, creationism is not science, therefore that teacher shouldn't teach it. Same as a sunday school teaching science when they are unqualified to do so.

BTW it took me so long to reply you because i found your post insulting...i don´t need your sarcastic comments (and stupid i must add) about flying spaguetti monster...if you find my ideas to childish or inmature say it so but don´t make fun of them...This are my ideas...so you should respect them because they are as valid as yours...even if you disagree with me...have i made myself clear?

I really like this debate that´s why i have decided to reply you...

I agree but i am not talking about the whole religion subject but the part related to evolution....so that we understand that different people hold different points of view. At the same time i think religious people should learn the evolution theories...to give them other point of view...

as i said before you need to learn different opinios, theories, believes in order to be critical.

I agree but i am not talking about the whole religion subject but the part related to evolution....so that we understand that different people hold different points of view. At the same time i think religious people should learn the evolution theories...to give them other point of view...

as i said before you need to learn different opinios, theories, believes in order to be critical.

Good on ya' Glauka, you are a voice of reason. Come over to the Den of iniquity and I'll pour you a drink. What are you having?

I agree but i am not talking about the whole religion subject but the part related to evolution....so that we understand that different people hold different points of view. At the same time i think religious people should learn the evolution theories...to give them other point of view...

as i said before you need to learn different opinios, theories, believes in order to be critical.

I am sorry but you just don't get it. Believeing that the world was created in seven days by a big comsic guy is religion. There is no physical evidence and nothing to debate over but words written by people who believed this to begin with.

The "Theory" of Evolution is something that has been formulated because of observations made in the phyical world, thus it is science. Theory means that it is widely excepted by the sciencific community as the standing paradigm i.e. it is steps away from being a law. Like the Law of Gravity. That means there is a wealth of physical evidence which suggests that this is the a truth. The main mystery isn't if, but how. That is what science is looking for. How does evolution occur? What are the mechanisms for the process? How does the physical body of the organism know that the evolutionary change should occur, and can it's rate be controlled? These are the questions that are brought up it debates by scienctist, while the lay people argue pointlessly over evoultion vs creationism. Apples and oranges really.

I agree but i am not talking about the whole religion subject but the part related to evolution....so that we understand that different people hold different points of view. At the same time i think religious people should learn the evolution theories...to give them other point of view...

as i said before you need to learn different opinios, theories, believes in order to be critical.

I am sorry but you just don't get it. Believeing that the world was created in seven days by a big comsic guy is religion. There is no physical evidence and nothing to debate over but words written by people who believed this to begin with.

The "Theory" of Evolution is something that has been formulated because of observations made in the phyical world, thus it is science. Theory means that it is widely excepted by the sciencific community as the standing paradigm i.e. it is steps away from being a law. Like the Law of Gravity. That means there is a wealth of physical evidence which suggests that this is the a truth. The main mystery isn't if, but how. That is what science is looking for. How does evolution occur? What are the mechanisms for the process? How does the physical body of the organism know that the evolutionary change should occur, and can it's rate be controlled? These are the questions that are brought up it debates by scienctist, while the lay people argue pointlessly over evoultion vs creationism. Apples and oranges really.

I think she got it perfectly! Imagine leaving school having only the knowlege of the theories of evolution. As soon as you heard anything else in opposition to it you'd be shocked! Knowledge that opposing views exist is the basis of good education. No judgement of how 'correct' or otherwise is necessary, just the knowledge of it's existance - that's education.

ps The problem would be teaching it as fact, and I feel the Christian fundamentalists have got it badly wrong on this score! For me It's a matter of faith.

Well Suegha that´s exactly what i mean but much better explained.

I agree but i am not talking about the whole religion subject but the part related to evolution....so that we understand that different people hold different points of view. At the same time i think religious people should learn the evolution theories...to give them other point of view...

as i said before you need to learn different opinios, theories, believes in order to be critical.

I am sorry but you just don't get it. Believeing that the world was created in seven days by a big comsic guy is religion. There is no physical evidence and nothing to debate over but words written by people who believed this to begin with.

The "Theory" of Evolution is something that has been formulated because of observations made in the phyical world, thus it is science. Theory means that it is widely excepted by the sciencific community as the standing paradigm i.e. it is steps away from being a law. Like the Law of Gravity. That means there is a wealth of physical evidence which suggests that this is the a truth. The main mystery isn't if, but how. That is what science is looking for. How does evolution occur? What are the mechanisms for the process? How does the physical body of the organism know that the evolutionary change should occur, and can it's rate be controlled? These are the questions that are brought up it debates by scienctist, while the lay people argue pointlessly over evoultion vs creationism. Apples and oranges really.

I think she got it perfectly! Imagine leaving school having only the knowlege of the theories of evolution. As soon as you heard anything else in opposition to it you'd be shocked! Knowledge that opposing views exist is the basis of good education. No judgement of how 'correct' or otherwise is necessary, just the knowledge of it's existance - that's education.

ps The problem would be teaching it as fact, and I feel the Christian fundamentalists have got it badly wrong on this score! For me It's a matter of faith.

I said that people could learn this creation idea in their churches. To think that people should get "all" their information in one place, school or not is just silly. The teacher needs to isolate the subject matter. Just because chemistry is a part of biology and physics doesn't mean you teach them all together and have them all taught by the same teacher.

In this case these are two subjects which have very little if any connection with each other. People only want to make a connection for their own purposes. Also, what about other ideas about how we got here. I hate to bring up another old arguement, but really, if a school is going to teach creationism what about the other faiths and mythologies that have been explainations for the orgin of the world? It would be unfair to teach just one. This is Glauka's agruement.

So, now we got got a science teacher trying to teach evolution, and all these other orgin ideas in the same class. What kind of education is that going to give people? A very confusiing one.

Well my degree is in environmental science...

I have study chemistry, physics, biology, evolutionary biology, genetics, philosophy of science and now i am study economics, politics...

I know about creationisms because in the evolutionary papers that i read i have come across to this term creationism...so i think there must be some connection when even evolutionary biologist name it.

when Darwin came with his origin of species theory he has to overcome church and a strong believe that was held by people for many centuries...this debate has been running for long time...that´s why i think is good to know both sides and that´s why i think is need to be taugh.

Well my degree is in environmental science...

I have study chemistry, physics, biology, evolutionary biology, genetics, philosophy of science and now i am study economics, politics...

I know about creationisms because in the evolutionary papers that i read i have come across to this term creationism...so i think there must be some connection when even evolutionary biologist name it.

when Darwin came with his origin of species theory he has to overcome church and a strong believe that was held by people for many centuries...this debate has been running for long time...that´s why i think is good to know both sides and that´s why i think is need to be taugh.

It's only a debate because people want to push their religion on others. There is no way one can have a debate over this, like I said it's apples and oranges. The fundamentalist try over and over to argue what science has come up with. So, what is the point of teaching both? So, that people know how both sides debate this dead end issue? The people who believe are going to believe and nothing short of God showing up and saying evolution is real is going to even convince them to listen. The miinute you introduce religion in to a science class it's no longer an education, it's politics.