Spiritualism and/vs Christianity

[Antdog2181]

I get it. In a nutshell, I kinda like it.

[earthlyangel]

I am an earthly angel a born again Christian on a high spiritual plane . I see angels and know what will happen often b4 it does. WE are all given a gift by our heavenly Father. I see auras and have been given the Holy spirit to guide others. Always do good and it will return to you

[all_outta_angst]

I am an ex Christian and would like to extend a firm hand to a Born again Christian.  If I can say one thing it would be my favorite quote from Mother Teresa...(even though she was obsessed with suffering...look up Christopher Hitchens thoughts.)

“Let no one ever come to you without leaving better and happier."

[all_outta_angst]

Soooo....here's a thought.

If Creationism is to be taught in schools as one "alternative" In a science class...then can we not also teach a spiritualist mantra?  Buddhist?  Greek? etc of the origins of life?

And if we are to question the method of science in schools...than is this not becoming anti intellectual?
I just think there should be consistency of all other religions rather than what Creationists really want...they might as well stop hiding behind that curtain...we all know your Christians.  (i'm of course speaking from a LEGAL standpoint)  I don't think any bill can ascertain a Christian doctrine because it violates the separation of church and state...I think)

I'm from Canada, so I can only speak of what I know from a Canadian perspective.

[mslemon]

Personally, I can't believe teaching creationism is acceptable in public schools. I used to teach science in a parochial school. And that is just what it was, science. The other system was addressed in religion class - right where it belonged.

I do think it's biased. So then how about Native beliefs, or anything other than Christian? It's a slippery slope and I do feel it's a conflict of church and state. If you want Creationism taught in the schools to your child, then go to a school that teaches that (non-public) or home school.

[Advent]

I can’t see why children should miss out on a public education in order for them to be taught creationism. It would mean, only the ones that can afford a private education or have the right religious school near them, can be taught from a religious view point.
    I believe all beliefs should be taught, and allow children to make up their own minds with an informed decision. Both of my children are now in secondary school, and they have a subject called, open minds, which does exactly that. Science is a separate subject.
    But even science doesn’t have all the answers. Like the origins of the universe before the big bang, or the origins of life. If life was an accident like science suggests, how come, scientists and chemists, can’t created it in the laboratory on purpose. They have been trying for centenaries. Did you know that even bacteria, a single cell organism, have over one thousand genes, and each one having its own DNA sequence? What is the probability of that happening by accident?  To win the jackpot in the UK national lottery with just six numbers is about fourteen million to one.
 

[all_outta_angst]

That is the crux of the problem.  There are Creationists that want their views taught in a science classroom. 

Both of my children are now in secondary school, and they have a subject called, open minds, which does exactly that. Science is a separate subject.

I agree with this method.  In fact I would encourage it as a subject that kids can choose to take such as Industrial Arts or Mechanics etc...but to stay the hell away from what science is about.  Certainly science does not have all the answers and any responsible scientist would say the same.  The thing that I find encouraging about science, is that science books are constantly being revised with new editions to update new facts and findings we make over time about our understanding of the universe.  The bible can only be used as an example to understand social history and abstract ideas such as morality.

But even science doesn’t have all the answers. Like the origins of the universe before the big bang, or the origins of life.

I agree, but I have positive regards to it coming to a conclusion about how the universe started.  Let's look at things hypothetically.  Let's say science does figure out how the universe began and we can factually verify it.  MANY Christian thought's wouldn't change their mind one iota and simply use this explanation as they do now already.  "Well...that's the method God used to create the universe...therefore they have to compromise science with faith, or faith with science.  Young earth creationists tend to throw the baby out with the bath water.

If life was an accident like science suggests, how come, scientists and chemists, can’t created it in the laboratory on purpose. They have been trying for centenaries.

I could use the same logic that, how come a Christian can't pray for god to create a living cell organism using the same compounds in a christian laboratory?

Science actually doesn't suggest that the big bang was an accident.  They aren't trying to explain WHY it happened...but How.  That is a huge difference that doesn't necessarily involve or exclude God.  The rainbow is a good example.  The bible suggests that a rainbow was God's covenant to man that he won't ever drown his children again with a giant flood...but science says...wait a minute...we know how a rainbow works...it has nothing to do with a promise but light refraction.

Even if a single cell organism has over one thousand genes and "looks" complicated from a human perspective doesn't mean it can't happen.  It's counterproductive to assume, that just because something has the odds of 1 in a billionth doesn't make it impossible.  If you look at the universe in comparison with it's many many many millions of galaxies and millions and millions of planets within those millions and millions chances...the odds get smaller and smaller.  Life has to be even more prominent in other places than just earth.  We are not that special in our place with the universe.  That's vanity.

Humans need a purpose to exist.  Science suggests...we just simply exist.  Religion can try to explain our purpose, but so can many different philosophies.  If we were to take even those into account...how do Christian's or Muslims know their thoughts are the right one?  Are you playing the odds my friend? 

So what do I think?
Certainly, thoughts about religion could be taught in school...but it's unfortunate that church can't provide enough that they have to force their beliefs into a public place?
If that's the case...atheists should have a class to counter ALL forms of religious doctrine separate from a science class as well.  It's only fair if we all want to eat that delicious piece of cake....a vice we must all share.

[Advent]

I agree, science and religion should be taught as two separate classes in school. But in reality, science touches every other subject. There is no isolation. Looking at religion, let’s theoretically suppose that Jesus walked on water, and he turned water into wine. There would have to be a scientific explanation. The laws of physics would have to be obeyed, even though we don’t yet have any knowledge of those laws. Just like scientists are convinced there is such a thing as antigravity. They just haven’t found it yet.
      Uri Geller could bend spoons and stop watches with his mind. It seemingly defies explanation, but in order for it to happen, there’s got to be a scientific explanation some where. If we dismiss it as simply impossible, and Uri Geller had to be cheating just because we can’t find a scientific explanation, we would lose the evidence, which could have led to a scientific discovery.
   Or on the other hand, perhaps the paranormal will always be illusive, and can’t be properly observed and measured by scientific means, but it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.


Coming back on the subject of creationism Vs science, Professor David Dawkins had this to say on a television show called Dawkins Vs Lennox:

“It is not helpful to postulate a creator, because a creator is the very kind of thing that needs an explanation. Although it is difficult enough how to explain how a very simple origin of the universe came into being. How matter, energy, how one or two physical constants came into existence. Although it is difficult enough to think how simplicity came into existence. It is hell of a lot harder to think how something as complicated as a God came into existence”.

The main summery sentence being, “It is not helpful to postulate a creator, because a creator is the very kind of thing that needs an explanation”.

I have a theory that could explain how God could come into existence. If all constants in our universe weren’t precisely accurate, it would have been formless. There wouldn’t have been even matter. Could God have come into existence in such a universe? It could have been a past universe or parallel universe. A universe where physics is different, and the only life that this universe could support was intelligence it’s self. An intelligence that is limitless with no boundaries.
      This is only a thought, a theory, pure conjecture with no biblical reference.

[all_outta_angst]

...in reality, science touches every other subject. There is no isolation. Looking at religion, let’s theoretically suppose that Jesus walked on water, and he turned water into wine. There would have to be a scientific explanation.

I totally agree.  If this theory were to be tested, a Christian would have to keep their faith out of this theory to look at it purely objectively.  The faith would contradict the theory within a scientific process.  Why?  Because faith predisposes that they already have a product or "truth" (walking on water).  Science cannot conclude an end product (theory) before finding evidence to support it. 

From a Christian scientific point of view...there is zero scientific evidence other than allegorical evidence of it ever happening much like the healing of the sick, raising the dead, or dividing loaves of bread and fish to the hungry.  Science is trying to re create our understanding of the universe with the Hadron Collider.  Christian scientists need God to reveal how to divide fish for the hungry...we have children dying everyday that need medicine and food.  That would help a lot...I believe science has done more for mankind.  (my opinion)

This also extends to ghosts, spirits, demons etc.  I don't think paranormal investigators do proper scientific studies either.  Not one group I have ever come across has ever done proper science.  I am part of one, but I do not lead this group.  I have to put my belief of ghosts aside before concluding that ghosts are in fact real.  I cannot say that ghosts ARE real and then find evidence to support it.  I have to theorize that ghosts could exist.  why?  because biased research would not eliminate explainable non paranormal causes.  Ex: creaking pipes, settling house, ORBS is a big one for me...do not believe.  why?  NO CONTROL EXPERIMENTS WHATSOEVER.






“Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.”

[Advent]

Sorry, meant to get back to you, but my internet has been down all day. I need to spend time and research on this one.

[Antdog2181]

[all_outta_angst]

I'm not sure why this was posted without comments but when NBC aired this episode back in the mid 90's it apparently got a lot of flack. 
Me being a skeptic agree that science does have flaws.  One big argument for those seemingly against science itself is that opposing theories (scientific definition.) are usually considered quacks.  I agree. 
However, this is how science always has been.  Science has succeeded to adapt to new ideas in change of old ones all the time.  Ex: Oceanography and tectonic plates.  Truth usually succeeds. 

Usually when one argues that there is a huge cover up...it tends to lack in and ignore mountains of data to justify it's own theories.  It's pretty common.  You name it....Flat Earthers, Neo Nazi, 9/11 truthers, etc...
I agree that there should be questions that need to be asked all the time.  This is what keeps science self correcting consistently as new data grows. 

I have a problem with this program because in it's beginning it does not clarify that it has strong ties to the creationist movement.  I have no beefs with this, but it seemed rather covered up to make itself sound more scientific and had more credentials.

1. Carl Baugh is actually a fundamental minister, not an accredited archeologist.  His latest fraud could be attributed as recently as 2008 with the 'alvis delk cretaceous footprint'.

2. The stone tools found on table mountain were conclusively shown in creation/evolution magazine 1981 that the tools were placed there by a local shopkeeper and in fact were modern and not ancient artifacts.
"Talk origins archive - "www.talkorigins.org"

3. Dr. McIntyre actually continued to persue her career but did not achieve high degree of success or recognition.  She never lost her job.

4. Laurie Godfrey, John Cole, R. J. Hastings, J. D.  Schafersman, Jim Farlow, and Glen Kuban.  all recognized scientists that played a role in investigating the Paluxy formation were never mentioned by the producers for their work.

3.  "Fossilization preserves only hard parts, like bones, shells, and wood. The fleshy parts of an animal are never preserved as fossils, although a mold or imprint of soft parts are sometimes fossilized. The video displayed what is claimed to be a fossilized finger, whole and complete. A cat scan was shown of the "finger," revealing what appeared to be a core with two dark patches in locations roughly corresponding to finger joints. It was claimed that these shadows corresponded to the bones of the finger. It was also claimed that the cat scan revealed the ligaments of the finger, although they could not be seen by the viewer. The "finger" had been diagonally sectioned, and would have presumably revealed these structures if they were present. However,the section was never revealed; the two pieces were always held tightly together."  Frank Steiger

4.  My favorite was the carcass of what Childress claims was the photograph of a badly decomposed plesiosaur.  This was never proven and insinuated that it was.  In other words..the burden of proof was shifted subtly by Mr. Heston,

"Although its authenticity has never been disproven, skeptics claim that it's merely the body of a decomposing shark."

the list can go on and on, but I'm simply gonna state that yes, we don't have all of the answers.  I don't mean to say that creationists will always be wrong by default...but because this program was so lacking in facts and insinuations, it's hard to take into account what they are claiming.  I think there are better examples of creationist arguments than this link provided.  I would actually like to think that humans indeed walked among the great dinosaurs...but I would have to do two great things.

1. Ignore the mountain of evidence to refute creationist/conspiracy theorist/truthers claims
2. Agree that a massive conspiracy was needed to cover up this "truth" that (some) creationists claim to have."

If you want to imply that the fossil record has huge holes and gaps of transitional fossils, than this theory can fit through the huge gaping hole of a creation argument of man walking with dinosaurs.  There is absolutely no convincing evidence of this....but it is plausible if and when we find it.