2 of 4
2
"New laws are needed to prevent creationism ’indoctrination’ in independent schools, says top science educator"
Posted: 24 July 2015 01:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2225
Joined  2013-06-01

Changing the subject to creation. Several theories need to been proven before we have our correct history. One of the theories is that the Gods were a separate race and got wiped out by a plague. That idea is back in play now because they have found a third race of humans in Asia called the Denisovans, who were wiped out about the same time as the Neanderthals, which puts them in the correct timeline for creation. No real information on the Denisovan race at this time. Interesting stuff.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 July 2015 03:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2901
Joined  2007-04-26
MikeYohe - 24 July 2015 01:53 PM

Changing the subject to creation. Several theories need to been proven before we have our correct history. One of the theories is that the Gods were a separate race and got wiped out by a plague. That idea is back in play now because they have found a third race of humans in Asia called the Denisovans, who were wiped out about the same time as the Neanderthals, which puts them in the correct timeline for creation. No real information on the Denisovan race at this time. Interesting stuff.

This makes no sense. Denisovans co-inhabited the planet at the same time as homo sapiens they did not predate homo sapiens and they were not gods. They were simply another short branch of our family tree.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 July 2015 03:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4208
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 24 July 2015 01:38 PM

 
But to say creation is not true is to say the pre-history stories passed down by our ancestors are fiction.
 

The pre-history stories passed down by our ancestors ARE fiction. Why do you have a problem with that?

And I said you are an atheist who believes in god because you said it. You said, “as an atheist”... something something “the gods did” something.

Any other comments you have about me or my ability to understand Christianity or history really don’t mean much, so don’t bother, I’m not reading them.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 July 2015 08:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2225
Joined  2013-06-01
macgyver - 24 July 2015 03:50 PM
MikeYohe - 24 July 2015 01:53 PM

Changing the subject to creation. Several theories need to been proven before we have our correct history. One of the theories is that the Gods were a separate race and got wiped out by a plague. That idea is back in play now because they have found a third race of humans in Asia called the Denisovans, who were wiped out about the same time as the Neanderthals, which puts them in the correct timeline for creation. No real information on the Denisovan race at this time. Interesting stuff.

This makes no sense. Denisovans co-inhabited the planet at the same time as homo sapiens they did not predate homo sapiens and they were not gods. They were simply another short branch of our family tree.

I see where you are coming from. Of course the Homo sapiens would have had to be here. What, do you think they made man from clay? Creation is not magic, it is science. You take a wild grass seed and you create something that helps mankind, like wheat. Wheat is not for natural earth, it is for man. Evolution did not create wheat. Creation did. The dogs are a good example. Look at all the different types of dogs that were created from just two evolutional animals. Again the dogs are not for natural earth, they are for people.
 
Now Christian Creation is not evolution or science, it is a fairy tale. But it is pretty well understood why the people created the story. Juda was conquered by the Assyrians. The priests were taken to Babylon and told to write down their religion. The Genesis story that they used was mainly from the Babylon area religions. But the people of Juda were very much into the Egyptian religion. So the new Juda religious story had to please both the creation done by the “Word” (Egyptian) and work along the lines of the Babylon religions. They were able to do this because both religions evolved from the religions out of India and the people were able to recognize and accept the story.
 
Think of it this way, creation is like the new Climate Change. Climate Change is the effect of man on the climate. Creation is the effect of man on evolution. And you can’t have creation without evolution.
 

… they were not gods.” Yea, the Denisovans were most likely gone before the Age of Deities came about. But at the time of creation there were no gods in the way you are thinking of gods. God was a term that meant knowledge. So to say the Denisovans were without god. Is to say the Denisovans were without knowledge. And we don’t know that.
 
 
The Christian Creation movement won the battle between Creation vs. Evolution. Christians had to move to Intelligent Design, which made it look like they lost to the Evolutionist. But in reality the Christians were able to bury true Creation that was taught for who knowns how long, ten maybe fifteen thousand years or longer. 
 

Think of it this way. Before the Age of Deities, there was the Age of Domestication. Where the earth was created as a place for man by the knowledge of mankind. The Christians were able to bury a whole Age of mankind’s history. And why not, the weakest part of the Christian belief is the Christian Creation.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2015 12:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4332
Joined  2014-06-20
MikeYohe - 23 July 2015 09:24 PM
LoisL - 23 July 2015 08:58 PM

I’d be happy to see comparative religion taught in schools from a young age. It would not be indoctrination, but teaching about many religions and atheism. Let the kids learn that there are beliefs other than their own and how they differ. They may come to realize that their religion looks strange to other people and they may become more tolerant. Good educators could create good lesson plans. Lessons about separation of church and state could be included and what it means to be tolerant of others’ beliefs and lack of beliefs. The problem, pf purse, would be intolerant parents. They may protest as they have against sex education and demand their kids be excused from the class. Most would remain however and get a much better education.

Lois

Lois, I agreed with your thinking several years ago. But then as I learned more about religions. I found that there is a lot of sex in the older religions. Older religion is more about sex than any other subject. Probably not the best subject for young classrooms. If you get a chance, read The Lost Gospel. Jesus and Mary’s religion was built on religious sex. That’s why Jesus and Mary’s direct teachings never made Paul’s bible.

There would be no need to go into every detail of every religion to compare the basic tenets of the various faiths. There are plenty of sex topics throughout history, yet we don’t teach sex history to young kids. Why would the sexual aspects of religion have to be taught? All subjects are designed with consideration for the age of the child. To say that young children have to be taught about the sexual aspects of religion or not teach religion at all is as ridiculous as saying children must be taught the sexual aspects of history or not teach it at all.

[ Edited: 26 July 2015 12:41 PM by LoisL ]
 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2015 05:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2901
Joined  2007-04-26

I don’t get your point. Are you trying to suggest that one set of intelligent humans created the current species through selective breeding? ( hence your analogy to wheat and grass)

There is no evidence for such a thing. Since homo sapiens originated in different part of the world than other hominid species and seem to have existed in their current form before coming in contact with other species this idea appears to be nothing but fanciful thinking.

Its fine to make up arm chair hypothesis but without evidence to support those ideas they really have very little value. I could come up with a dozen equally likely theories that don’t fit the existing evidence.

[ Edited: 25 July 2015 05:23 AM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2015 07:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2225
Joined  2013-06-01
LoisL - 25 July 2015 12:11 AM
MikeYohe - 23 July 2015 09:24 PM
LoisL - 23 July 2015 08:58 PM

I’d be happy to see comparative religion taught in schools from a young age. It would not be indoctrination, but teaching about many religions and atheism. Let the kids learn that there are beliefs other than their own and how they differ. They may come to realize that their religion looks strange to other people and they may become more tolerant. Good educators could create good lesson plans. Lessons about separation of church and state could be included and what it means to be tolerant of others’ beliefs and lack of beliefs. The problem, pf purse, would be intolerant parents. They may protest as they have against sex education and demand their kids be excused from the class. Most would remain however and get a much better education.

Lois

Lois, I agreed with your thinking several years ago. But then as I learned more about religions. I found that there is a lot of sex in the older religions. Older religion is more about sex than any other subject. Probably not the best subject for young classrooms. If you get a chance, read The Lost Gospel. Jesus and Mary’s religion was built on religious sex. That’s why Jesus and Mary’s direct teachings never made Paul’s bible.

There would be no need to go into every detail of every religiomn to compare the basic tenets of the various faiths. There are plenty of sex topics throughout history, yet we don’t teach history to young kids. Why would the sexual aspects of religion have to be taught? all subjects are designed with consideration for the age of the child. To say that young children have to be taught about the sexual aspects of religion or not teach religion at all is as ridiculous as saying children must be taught the sexual aspects of history or not teach it at all.

I agree with you, the sex part can be taken out. And with the amount of history to be covered, one would not have time to get into any details.  I should have used a smiley, sorry. Have you heard the term, “sex sells” used in advertising? Well it must have also worked in religion.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2015 08:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2225
Joined  2013-06-01
macgyver - 25 July 2015 05:21 AM

I don’t get your point. Are you trying to suggest that one set of intelligent humans created the current species through selective breeding? ( hence your analogy to wheat and grass)

There is no evidence for such a thing. Since homo sapiens originated in different part of the world than other hominid species and seem to have existed in their current form before coming in contact with other species this idea appears to be nothing but fanciful thinking.

Its fine to make up arm chair hypothesis but without evidence to support those ideas they really have very little value. I could come up with a dozen equally likely theories that don’t fit the existing evidence.

Thanks for giving me the credit of coming up with the theory. But I can’t take credit. Genesis is the historical stories or fairy tales, passed down that talk about creation.  Now the story seems to be correct about the animals and food. So why would it not be worth looking into about the creation of man? Now that the accepted scientific theory has been disproven.  You know, a few months back the scientists also disproved the accepted theory that many of the breeds of dogs where created in Europe. It turn out that they were all created in Asia. So what we have here is the new DNA and other scientific processes that are making adjustments to our understanding of history. Which is very understandable. 
Working from a timeline and using the method that creation has to work along with evolution and only makes small minor changes to evolved species. We are not talking of a new species
 
How the Homo sapiens spread to all parts of the world is mostly agreed upon. But where they originated is very much in debate. A few years back, it was not a problem. Out of Africa was pretty much accepted. But with new studies and the use of DNA the out of Africa does not work for all the new data and the experts are having a little trouble making it all fit together. And that is more on the evolution side. Creation changes the little things like size, color, and other features. We have talked about this with the white skin that was accepted as part of evolution due to latitude in Europe. Now that cannot be proved by the latest studies. So the question on the table is, “Was white skin part of creation and not evolution?” Unless you know where white skin came from, this is a question to be answered. And the answer will be proven by genes.
 

What the experts are working on now is when in history did the first white skin people appear. The thinking is near the end of the agricultural revolution. Remember Genesis talked about needing to create man for building cannels use for farming in the same time period.
 

I guess the real task we have been talking about is “defining what creation is”. And like the meaning of god, it also has changed with time.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2015 08:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2901
Joined  2007-04-26

Mike with all due respect I disagree

What exactly are you referring to when you claim that

“the story seems to be correct about the animals and food”

And what do you base this comment on

“why would it not be worth looking into about the creation of man? Now that the accepted scientific theory has been disproven.

The out of Africa theory of mans evolution is not in dispute. The fossil evidence quite clearly shows that the oldest hominid fossils are from Africa. The only thing thats relatively new is that it appears humans migrated out of Africa twice. One emigration gave rise to Neandethals and other similar species and then homosapiens migrated out later commingling with neanderthals until the neaderthals went extinct.

No doubt this story will undergo some modification as we learn more but to suggest that there is anything here that implies a creator is a claim that is completely without any evidence.

You put far too much faith in a bunch of old fairy tales. There is no reason at all to suspect that they are an interpretation of real events.

Once again I see nothing about any creation theory that would qualify them as a scientific theory and as such they have no place in a science class.

[ Edited: 25 July 2015 08:29 AM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2015 10:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04

Mike, I respect your thinking skills, but your unconventional use of the word “creation”, I think, is a source of confusion in expressing your ideas.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2015 01:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2225
Joined  2013-06-01

Both macgyver & TimB,
Yes, Tim you are right, and that is one of the reasons I use this site, is to try and improve my communication skill. I think I have come a long way from when I first got on board. And I am having trouble right now in getting my thoughts to macgyver. I know it is my lack in language skills.
 
In reading past stories, especially stories that were told verbally for many generations, one has to use logic to try and come up with the thoughts being passed down. It was a problem in ancient time also. The Rig Vega was able to conquer this problem by making everything rhyme. If it didn’t rhyme then the story was wrong. When they were creating the Koran they tried to change the Vega stories to fit the Quran, but failed because when you break up rhymes you can end up with a mess. Not saying that many stories did not get changed, just that it doesn’t always work.
 
Looking at the creation story over the broad view. They are saying they created the animals and the plants. Now remember, this is before the Christian deity god. So the gods at this time were mostly animals. And we don’t know how far back in time these old genesis story go. But when the translators end up using words like mid-wife and creation. It most likely means that they were translating stories being told in another language, and were using the closest association of words to interpret. This matching of translation meanings of the past has now almost become a science in itself. For example, they now think that some of the people back then could not see the color blue, because they cannot fine it being used in any of the translations.
 
Myself I prefer the word “domestic” instead of “create”. Today the general public and this forum uses the term GMO for the creation of new plants. And that is where I am having trouble communicating my thoughts with Macgyver. GMO does not really create a new species plants. It makes changes to the plants that have evolved on earth. That said, there is one exception. Wheat was (created or GMO to the point of having its own DNA) but it still came from a branch of wild grass. With animals, use term Animal husbandry instead of creation.
 
As an atheist, I do not believe in magic or super powers. So creation to an atheist like me must have a different meaning than to a believer in deities. And to me the creation they must have been talking about in the old genesis stories has been continuing though out history and is really getting ramped up today. And in the next decade is going to explode in terms of GMO and Animal husbandry. Really kind of simple to follow stuff.
 
Now the point and problem, the way I see it. In this post, should we make laws to prevent the teaching of creationism? Is the fact that Atheism allows the discussions on this forum to take place that enforces the “Creationism” belief by allowing Christian beliefs to take over and control and change the meanings of words. So, what did man think genesis was saying before the Christian stories were around? Even in Egypt, RA was not around, there was only Nun. There were no gods with the power to create anything at that time in history.
 
Point being, we as atheists need to bring these points out and argue the facts. Just as the Catholic Church controlled Europe in the past. We are allowing the Christians to stain certain aspects of education in America today. We are allowing the Christian Creation to change the meaning of the Creation that mankind has pasted down us. I have no problem with the older genesis stories and can get the meaning of the word creation because I know the differences in meaning between Creation and Christian Creation.
 
What is cool about this topic is it brings up the big question. We know just about everything we eat except maybe fish has been GMO over time, RE: posting “Neil Young and Monsanto” in Politics and Social Issues.
So, we can now categorize plants and animals in two categories with the understanding that everything has been evolved, but not all evolved plants and animals have be domesticated. 
Example:
Elk, deer, lion are evolved.
Cow, horse, dog are domesticated (created, Animal husbandry)
Where would you put “Man”? Genesis is putting it in created.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2015 07:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04

Throughout most of the history of our species, I would say that we have evolved by virtue of the same kind of contingencies as undomesticated animals and other “wild” species of organisms.  i.e., the traits of any such organisms being passed on through survival to reproduction within the naturally occurring contingencies of their time.

At some point in our history we attained abilities that allowed us to directly and profoundly and regularly impact the naturally occurring contingencies effect on the evolution of organisms.  Hence we have, since, changed the contingencies for the evolution of certain plants and animals and for ourselves.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 July 2015 09:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2225
Joined  2013-06-01
TimB - 25 July 2015 07:47 PM

Throughout most of the history of our species, I would say that we have evolved by virtue of the same kind of contingencies as undomesticated animals and other “wild” species of organisms.  i.e., the traits of any such organisms being passed on through survival to reproduction within the naturally occurring contingencies of their time.

At some point in our history we attained abilities that allowed us to directly and profoundly and regularly impact the naturally occurring contingencies effect on the evolution of organisms.  Hence we have, since, changed the contingencies for the evolution of certain plants and animals and for ourselves.

  Thank you, you have stated what I have been trying to convey, thank you again. You are a skill word smith.
   
Hey, have you ever seen the belted cow. A pure black cow, with a two foot wide pure white strip around its mid-section. First ones I saw were in Nebraska and it stuck me how we were able not only to change the physical aspects but also the appearance of animals. The rancher I was with told me that he understood the cows were created in the past by some farmer in Scotland to be able to tell his cows from the neighbor’s cows.
 
This said, if today’s man was one of the animals that was altered in past history, and today’s DNA progress is opening an understanding of our past history. We may be only a year or so away from this topic hitting the public awareness. That would surly have a direct influence on what should be taught in schools on the subject of creation.

Just one more thought on the subject. I was hunting wild pigs in Northern California. The pigs were once tame pigs that were brought here from Russia, when the norther part of the state was part of Russia. These were very large farm pigs, except for the large tusks that farm pigs usually don’t have. These tusks were very large and used by the pig for rutting. I was told that once the pigs were in the wild, they reverted back to the wild state, and that included the bigger tusks wild pigs have. If that is true then the genes for the tusks were still with the pigs and the switches that controlled those genes were activated when the pigs were in the wild again.
 
If that is true then the belted cow put back into the wild will lose it belt. I understand that wheat cannot go back to the original grass because it has had to much change for too long of a period of time and it now has its own DNA.

You get the point I am trying to make. Is the evolution of plants and animals structured to handle the climate cycles and changes on earth by being able to change? And what creation is doing is playing with this part of evolution’s structure.

[ Edited: 26 July 2015 09:41 AM by MikeYohe ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 July 2015 11:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04

We have evolved to the point that we can thrive, at least for now and in recent history, despite the natural contingencies that tend to contain other organisms.  In fact we have thrived so successfully that we are “creating”, as you say, climate change.  We are “creating”, as you say, super-microorganisms that we may, eventually, have little defense against.  Will these sorts of activities result in our ultimate demise as a species?  Maybe.  But my guess it is more likely to ultimately just result in some level of setbacks (although potentially very profound setbacks for our species).


More to the point of this thread, I would bring up that 58% of Americans favor Creationism being taught in public schools.  That, IMO, is just plain crazy.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 July 2015 12:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4332
Joined  2014-06-20
MikeYohe - 25 July 2015 07:43 AM
LoisL - 25 July 2015 12:11 AM
MikeYohe - 23 July 2015 09:24 PM
LoisL - 23 July 2015 08:58 PM

I’d be happy to see comparative religion taught in schools from a young age. It would not be indoctrination, but teaching about many religions and atheism. Let the kids learn that there are beliefs other than their own and how they differ. They may come to realize that their religion looks strange to other people and they may become more tolerant. Good educators could create good lesson plans. Lessons about separation of church and state could be included and what it means to be tolerant of others’ beliefs and lack of beliefs. The problem, pf purse, would be intolerant parents. They may protest as they have against sex education and demand their kids be excused from the class. Most would remain however and get a much better education.

Lois

Lois, I agreed with your thinking several years ago. But then as I learned more about religions. I found that there is a lot of sex in the older religions. Older religion is more about sex than any other subject. Probably not the best subject for young classrooms. If you get a chance, read The Lost Gospel. Jesus and Mary’s religion was built on religious sex. That’s why Jesus and Mary’s direct teachings never made Paul’s bible.

There would be no need to go into every detail of every religiomn to compare the basic tenets of the various faiths. There are plenty of sex topics throughout history, yet we don’t teach history to young kids. Why would the sexual aspects of religion have to be taught? all subjects are designed with consideration for the age of the child. To say that young children have to be taught about the sexual aspects of religion or not teach religion at all is as ridiculous as saying children must be taught the sexual aspects of history or not teach it at all.

I agree with you, the sex part can be taken out. And with the amount of history to be covered, one would not have time to get into any details.  I should have used a smiley, sorry. Have you heard the term, “sex sells” used in advertising? Well it must have also worked in religion.

Of course. Religion is soaked in sex.they are two sides of the same coin.

Lois

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2