Arkansas House passes unconstitutional bill putting creationism in schools (4/16/21)

[JasperL]

The question is what existed before the Big Bang? What created the universe? If you can measure, test or empirically study that and come up with an answer other than God? - God bless.

This is a good alternative. Can't wait to see this appear in Arkansas public schools!

Before there was soil, or sky, or any green thing, there was only the gaping abyss of Ginnungagap. This chaos of perfect silence and darkness lay between the homeland of elemental fire, Muspelheim, and the homeland of elemental ice, Niflheim.

Frost from Niflheim and billowing flames from Muspelheim crept toward each other until they met in Ginnungagap. Amid the hissing and sputtering, the fire melted the ice, and the drops formed themselves into Ymir (“Screamer”[1]), the first of the godlike but destructive giants. Ymir was a hermaphrodite and could reproduce asexually; when he slept, more giants leapt forth from his legs and from the sweat of his armpits.

As the frost continued to melt, a cow, Audhumla (“Abundance of Humming”[2]), emerged from it. She nourished Ymir with her milk, and she, in turn, was nourished by salt-licks in the ice. Her licks slowly uncovered Buri (“Progenitor”[3]), the first of the Aesir tribe of gods. Buri had a son named Bor (“Son”[4]), who married Bestla (perhaps “Wife”[5]), the daughter of the giant Bolthorn (“Baleful Thorn”[6]). The half-god, half-giant children of Bor and Bestla were Odin, who became the chief of the Aesir gods, and his two brothers, Vili and Ve.

Odin and his brothers slew Ymir and set about constructing the world from his corpse. They fashioned the oceans from his blood, the soil from his skin and muscles, vegetation from his hair, clouds from his brains, and the sky from his skull. Four dwarves, corresponding to the four cardinal points, held Ymir’s skull aloft above the earth.

The gods eventually formed the first man and woman, Ask and Embla, from two tree trunks, and built a fence around their dwelling-place, Midgard, to protect them from the giants.[7][8][9][10]

 

[ASHES]

Science is the state of knowing.

No it isn't, it's a methodology.

Atheists state that there is no God when they don't know that there is no God.

Some do, and they're free to. Nothing to do with science.

That is a direct violation of science.

What an atheist does or does not know, or what they claim to know, is completely unrelated to science.

The effect is that it helps marginalize religion and expand secularism.

Good.

 

[JasperL]

There is one huge problem with your “God created the universe” scenario, and that is that you first have to somehow show that there IS said “God”, and I have no idea how you could possibly do that.

Then if God created the universe, how did God come to be? What existed before God?

 

[Rawley]

Can you explain why you support the teaching of creationism in public schools. You say that you do, but I don't think that you have given an in-depth explanation of why.

Because science has not supplied an answer to this question. I see absolutely no harm in allowing teachers to teach this as a theory.

 

[Rawley]

Except for one problem: "God" is not an "answer". It is pure conjecture without an iota of evidence. We could just as easily surmise that wood fairies crated the universe, and it would have equal merit to your "God created the universe" claim. In other words, both WITHOUT any merit whatsoever. Imaginary beings can't "create" a universe.

Well, it's your "belief" that God does not exist, so what other answer could you possibly have?

 

[JasperL]

Because science has not supplied an answer to this question. I see absolutely no harm in allowing teachers to teach this as a theory.

Define "this" theory.

Is it the norse creation story? Should be fun when that's taught as the origin of earth! Can't wait till the kiddies get home and tell their parents that man and woman were created from two tree trunks and were named "Ask" and "Embla."

Teacher, where does the sky come from?
That's easy, students - the sky was formed from the skull of a slain giant and is held aloft by four dwarves!
SCIENCE!!!

 

[Rawley]

The correct answer is "we don't know" not "god did it until we find the real answer." It's also a fallacious question, since time as we know it was created in the big bang, there was no such thing as "before" the big bang.


Who said anything did? We don't know. We know the big bang is what initiated the current state of the universe. God isn't an answer to the big bang any more than it is an answer to "why does it rain?"

'The shit just happened?' Is that your answer? And you're mocking folks' belief in God?

 

[Rawley]

Define "this" theory.

That there was a creator.

Is it the norse creation story? Should be fun when that's taught as the origin of earth! Can't wait till the kiddies get home and tell their parents that man and woman were created from two tree trunks and were named "Ask" and "Embla."

Teacher, where does the sky come from?
That's easy, students - the sky was formed from the skull of a slain giant and is held aloft by four dwarves!
SCIENCE!!!

Preferable to being taught that the only purpose in life is to become worm food.

 

[Lisa]

The Bible is not God, Lisa.

What is it with you people and inanimate objects? lol

The bible is the only knowledge of the Abrahamic god because there is no objective evidence of a god that can be supported without faith or religious belief. If you take away the Bible the Christian faith would collapse.

'The shit just happened?' Is that your answer? And you're mocking folks' belief in God?

It might have always existed. Where is your proof that God-did-it? Your claim needs proof that you do not have.

Duh. Cracks me up that anyone finds it hard to believe a scientist can't believe in God.

Would you trust the research or the calculations of someone who cannot objectively question what they claim to believe and reject what they cannot 0bjectively support? I know that I do not because that person doesn't believe in science 100%.

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.

Scientists and Belief

When President Barack Obama announced on July 8, 2009, that he would nominate renowned geneticist Francis Collins to be the new director of the National

www.pewforum.org

That there was a creator.


Preferable to being taught that the only purpose in life is to become worm food.

Atheism or any other religion is not taught in public school science class. That would also be a First Amendment violation. Religious belief and non-belief of all manner are to be kept out of science classes.

 

[Rawley]

It might have always existed. Where is your proof that God-did-it? Your claim needs proof that you do not have.

The matter in the singularity.

You studied the Conservation of Matter. Matter is never created or destroyed. What created the matter in the singularity? It just always existed? And one day just decided to up and explode in the Big Bang?

 

[watsup]

Science is the state of knowing.

Atheists state that there is no God when they don't know that there is no God.

That is a direct violation of science.

The effect is that it helps marginalize religion and expand secularism.

What exactly is he problem with marginalizing religion and expanding secularism. Humanism has the answers.

 

[watsup]

Because science has not supplied an answer to this question. I see absolutely no harm in allowing teachers to teach this as a theory.

Except, as others have said, it's not a "theory". Science has "theories". Creationism is RELIGIOUS DOGMA and thus can't be taught in taxpayer financed public schools, And besides that, you can't even name the class in which it would be taught.

 

[watsup]

Well, it's your "belief" that God does not exist, so what other answer could you possibly have?

Do you have any evidence? No evidence, no God.

 

[watsup]

'The shit just happened?' Is that your answer? And you're mocking folks' belief in God?

It pretty much just happened. Can you show otherwise?

 

[JasperL]

That there was a creator.


Preferable to being taught that the only purpose in life is to become worm food.

That's not a scientific theory - it's at best 'unknown God of the gaps.' Who is this creator? How did he or she or it create the earth? What or who created the 'creator?'

As you state it, the theory is nothing more than those four words - "there is a 'creator.'
Class over.
Test tomorrow will be a single question. Who created the earth? Answer: "a creator!"
Well done students! SCIENCE!!

And you're giving the game away by assuming 'creationism' also teaches the purpose in life, presumably the Christian purpose. The origin of the universe has nothing at all to do with our purpose in this life. That's either personal or religious, having nothing whatsoever to do with any theory of the origin of life.

 

[Rawley]

What exactly is he problem with marginalizing religion and expanding secularism. Humanism has the answers.

Because it never ends well.

Soviet Union - 60 million dead
Stalin - 20 million dead
China - 20 million dead

 

[watsup]

Because science has not supplied an answer to this question. I see absolutely no harm in allowing teachers to teach this as a theory.

Or we could teach that wood fairies created the universe. What would be the difference?

 

[Rawley]

Do you have any evidence? No evidence, no God.

Do have any evidence of Love? How do you measure it, how do you quantify it? No evidence - no love.

 

[watsup]

Because it never ends well.

Soviet Union - 60 million dead
Stalin - 20 million dead
China - 20 million dead

That's communism. That's different.

 

[Rawley]

Or we could teach that wood fairies created the universe. What would be the difference?

Go for it. THe kids might giggle, but it will get them thinking and asking questions. Isn't that what school is about.

 

[watsup]

Do have any evidence of Love? How do you measure it, how do you quantify it? No evidence - no love.

So you are deflecting rather than providing evidence. That pretty much says it all. You don't have any evidence of your God.

 

[Rawley]

That's communism. That's different.

???? A core tenant if communism is "marginalizing religion and expanding secularism"

 

[watsup]

Go for it. THe kids might giggle, but it will get them thinking and asking questions. Isn't that what school is about.

School is about teaching kids that imaginary beings "created" the world? Really?

 

[watsup]

???? Ac ore tenant if communism is "marginalizing religion and expanding secularism"

Humanism is secularism. Humanism has the answers.

 

[Drowning Man]

I don't see this as unconstitutional. The law says "may"...not "must".

There is no mandate connected to the word "may".

There is no "may" in this at all.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."