| Author |
Message |
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
 Thu May 05, 2005 5:05 pm God Vs. Science in Kansas |
|
| Quote: | The evolution of a fight to the end
In Kansas, God and science
are going toe to toe again
By Alex Johnson
Reporter
MSNBC
Updated: 3:16 p.m. ET May 5, 2005
Hoping to avoid a bitter public showdown, defenders of the theory of evolution boycotted the first of four days of hearings Thursday over the science curriculum in Kansas, where members of the state Board of Education critical of the standard theory are considering changes to give more weight to creationist ideas.
advertisement
Mainstream science organizations spurned invitations to participate, dismissing the hearings in Topeka as an effort �to attack and undermine science,� in the view of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.
As a result, the only witnesses heard Thursday were advocates of a philosophy called �intelligent design,� critics of evolution or both. Pedro Irigonegaray, a Topeka lawyer representing what he called mainstream science, dismissed the event as a �kangaroo court.�
Related coverage
* Witnesses criticize teaching of evolution
* Live survey: What should be taught?
* Newsweek: Doubting Darwin
Spreading across the nation
The hearings, which run through Saturday and resume May 12, resemble a trial, as three school board members hear arguments from champions of both sides. The panelists � all three of them conservative Republicans who have questioned evolution � will report to the full school board, which is expected to approve new science standards next month.
Defenders of Charles Darwin�s theory of natural selection acknowledged that their boycott leaves opponents of evolution unchallenged, but they said they hoped to defuse the publicity that a media-saturated argument over science and the Bible could stir up.
Special Report
� What's next for humans?
� All hail King Rat
� Evolving with our stomachs
� New tack for creationists
� Darwin vs. Einstein
� FULL COVERAGE
Nonetheless, a showdown is inevitable. Efforts to compel schools to teach or, at least, give equal time to the purported errors of evolution are under way in nearly two dozen states, led by two groups of activists united by their belief in a supreme being who set history in motion.
One group is made up of religious conservatives who espouse the traditional biblical account in which God created the world in six days. The Supreme Court, however, barred the teaching of creationism in a 1987 decision striking down a Louisiana law that said evolution could be taught only if �creation science� was also taught. So today, the movement has shifted to the campaign by intellectual thinkers, some of them scientists, who argue that life on the planet is too complex to have come about by without some sort of guiding intelligence.
That supposition is called �intelligent design.� Its leaders say that as a matter of science their principles are not religious, but mainstream scientists have labeled them Creationism Lite, and Christian activists have latched onto them as an alternative stick with which to whack Darwin.
Publishers call the tune
For mainstream scientists, the Kansas debate is just a skirmish. The real battles will come in the next few years as schools adopt new textbooks.
Intelligent design campaigns are being pursued in California and Texas. Their school boards have long dictated the content of many of the nation�s textbooks because of the clout they have with publishers owing to their enormous student populations. Publishers routinely tailor their textbooks to the tastes of review boards in those states to avoid the devastating prospect that a multimillion-dollar new edition could be rejected.
�They call the tune, and the publishers dance,� Diane Ravitch, an assistant education secretary in the administration of former President George H.W. Bush, testified before Congress two years ago.
Fast Forward
Evolution in schools
The Kansas debate comes as many states are gearing up to accept bids on new science textbooks:
� 2005: Alabama, Florida, Illinois*, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, West Virginia
� 2006: Arkansas, California, Illinois*, Nevada, Utah*
� 2007: Georgia, Illinois*, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah*
(* Illinois and Utah review texts in most or all subjects annually.)
Source: Association of American Publishers
The result, Ravitch complained, was the creation of �a convenient bottleneck where pressure groups from across the political spectrum� � including opponents of evolution, she said � �can intimidate publishers and get them to revise their books.�
Ravitch�s testimony came as Texas was going through a wrenching review of its biology texts; those books were introduced into Texas classrooms this year. Mainstream scientists fought off major concessions on evolution this time, but the battle is being continued in the Legislature, where a bill is under consideration that would give the state Board of Education � which is dominated by Republican social conservatives � even more control over the content of texts.
In California, meanwhile, a case awaits in U.S. District Court filed by parents who claim that they were denied their civil rights when a school district near Sacramento rejected their proposal that schools should be required to teach the purported flaws of evolution.
While California�s textbook battles have usually been fought by groups pushing more traditionally liberal causes, such as gender equality and multicultural history, the lawsuit signals that the evolution dispute is likely to become a hot-button issue there, as well � just in time to begin picking up steam ahead of next year�s acceptance of bids for new science textbooks.
� 2005 MSNBC Interactive
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7736155/
|
Now I'm ok with teaching Evolution as the Theory it is, But I do not like Intellegent Design. It's basically Creationism with "scientific" backing. ((Notice that Scientific is in quotes.))
Looks like we're back to pushing religion on people.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 5:15 pm |
|
In the words of Ferris Bueller:
| Ferris Bueller wrote: | | -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, 'I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me.' Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus and I'd still have to bum rides off of people." |
Teach Intelligent Design if one must, but do not teach an -ism. 
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 6:29 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | Now I'm ok with teaching Evolution as the Theory it is, But I do not like Intellegent Design. It's basically Creationism with "scientific" backing. ((Notice that Scientific is in quotes.))
Looks like we're back to pushing religion on people. |
Wow how hypocritical. You don't want to learn about Intelligent Design but I have to learn your theory of Evolution. Looks like we're back to pushing athiesm on people.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 6:31 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | In the words of Ferris Bueller:
| Ferris Bueller wrote: | | -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, 'I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me.' Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus and I'd still have to bum rides off of people." |
Teach Intelligent Design if one must, but do not teach an -ism. |
lol. My opinion is that intelligent design qualifies as a scientific theory because it's basically just saying that SOMETHING designed the universe, but not quite more than that, when compared to creationism. I believe in intelligent design, but not creationism.
I think that ALL views should be REFERENCED, and that evolution and intelligent design should be taught TOGETHER.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 6:37 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | lol. My opinion is that intelligent design qualifies as a scientific theory because it's basically just saying that SOMETHING designed the universe, but not quite more than that, when compared to creationism. I believe in intelligent design, but not creationism.
I think that ALL views should be REFERENCED, and that evolution and intelligent design should be taught TOGETHER. |
Indeed, creationism is definitely not scientific approach to the creation of the world, it is philosophical (and hence should be taught in oh, say, philosophy).
I'm still leery that the idea of Intelligent Design is too philosophical rather than scientific, however. There is no scientific evidence for the necessity for a supreme being (whereas their is philosophical evidence, however arguable), because science can be resolved to be just an incredibly improbable set of random occurrences. And while the existence of an intelligent guiding force makes these occurrences slightly more probable, I still think Intelligent Design belongs as a philosophy subject.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 6:40 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | lol. My opinion is that intelligent design qualifies as a scientific theory because it's basically just saying that SOMETHING designed the universe, but not quite more than that, when compared to creationism. I believe in intelligent design, but not creationism.
I think that ALL views should be REFERENCED, and that evolution and intelligent design should be taught TOGETHER. |
Indeed, creationism is definitely not scientific approach to the creation of the world, it is philosophical (and hence should be taught in oh, say, philosophy).
I'm still leery that the idea of Intelligent Design is too philosophical rather than scientific, however. There is no scientific evidence for the necessity for a supreme being (whereas their is philosophical evidence, however arguable), because science can be resolved to be just an incredibly improbable set of random occurrences. And while the existence of an intelligent guiding force makes these occurrences slightly more probable, I still think Intelligent Design belongs as a philosophy subject. |
Actually, there is enough to say that Intelligent Design is worth studying AS WELL AS evolution. Science answers HOW things work, or so one could say, but it doesn't answer HOW. Intelligent design does, because look at nature. How could NOTHING have designed it?
And also, next year I have to take a biology course. In that we will learn about evolution, but I don't want the "theory" to be the only thing taught to me, and that belief forced upon me.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 7:06 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: |
Wow how hypocritical. You don't want to learn about Intelligent Design but I have to learn your theory of Evolution. Looks like we're back to pushing athiesm on people. |
When Intelligent Design is backed up with Scientific fact and proven in multiple tests like Evolution, then it can be taught in a class where SCIENCE is the main lesson.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 7:12 pm |
|
Who is to define science though? It has been wrong a number of times before, and had to be changed because it is theories. There is just as much support for some theories that are accepted as Intelligent Design.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 7:12 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | Founder wrote: |
Wow how hypocritical. You don't want to learn about Intelligent Design but I have to learn your theory of Evolution. Looks like we're back to pushing athiesm on people. |
When Intelligent Design is backed up with Scientific fact and proven in multiple tests like Evolution, then it can be taught in a class where SCIENCE is the main lesson. |
Thats not the point though. The class is teaching the origins of the Earth. It doesn't exactly have to be the SCIENCE version. Why is it we can't teach both? What? Are Aitheist scared to even mention Religion to kids in fear of *Gasps* making them Religious?
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 7:16 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | Thats not the point though. The class is teaching the origins of the Earth. It doesn't exactly have to be the SCIENCE version. Why is it we can't teach both? What? Are Aitheist scared to even mention Religion to kids in fear of *Gasps* making them Religious? |
It has to be the scientific version if it is in science class. Religion and science are not irreconcilable, but religion should not be taught in a science classroom.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 7:18 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | Founder wrote: |
Wow how hypocritical. You don't want to learn about Intelligent Design but I have to learn your theory of Evolution. Looks like we're back to pushing athiesm on people. |
When Intelligent Design is backed up with Scientific fact and proven in multiple tests like Evolution, then it can be taught in a class where SCIENCE is the main lesson. |
Thats not the point though. The class is teaching the origins of the Earth. It doesn't exactly have to be the SCIENCE version. Why is it we can't teach both? What? Are Aitheist scared to even mention Religion to kids in fear of *Gasps* making them Religious? |
You are right to the extent that WHAT'S THE HARM in letting other views that are not evolution be heard? It's RIDICULOUS not to allow it.
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Founder wrote: | | Thats not the point though. The class is teaching the origins of the Earth. It doesn't exactly have to be the SCIENCE version. Why is it we can't teach both? What? Are Aitheist scared to even mention Religion to kids in fear of *Gasps* making them Religious? |
It has to be the scientific version if it is in science class. Religion and science are not irreconcilable, but religion should not be taught in a science classroom. |
Religious ideas should be REFERENCED, at least, but not taught. However, intelligent design is NOT a religious belief 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 7:19 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Founder wrote: | | Thats not the point though. The class is teaching the origins of the Earth. It doesn't exactly have to be the SCIENCE version. Why is it we can't teach both? What? Are Aitheist scared to even mention Religion to kids in fear of *Gasps* making them Religious? |
It has to be the scientific version if it is in science class. Religion and science are not irreconcilable, but religion should not be taught in a science classroom. |
I believe that the main issue is that you are telling kids that this is the DEFINITE way that we are here on Earth. In fact this is almost like a subtle way to promote Athiesm. Many parents don't want this. They want their kids to grow up with Religion. I don't understand why its so difficult to mention Intelligent Design. Athiests are making it sound like we want the class to revolve around that teaching. We don't. We only want it acknowledged. This is discrimination.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 7:22 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | Hitchhiker wrote: | | Founder wrote: | | Thats not the point though. The class is teaching the origins of the Earth. It doesn't exactly have to be the SCIENCE version. Why is it we can't teach both? What? Are Aitheist scared to even mention Religion to kids in fear of *Gasps* making them Religious? |
It has to be the scientific version if it is in science class. Religion and science are not irreconcilable, but religion should not be taught in a science classroom. |
I believe that the main issue is that you are telling kids that this is the DEFINITE way that we are here on Earth. In fact this is almost like a subtle way to promote Athiesm. Many parents don't want this. They want their kids to grow up with Religion. I don't understand why its so difficult to mention Intelligent Design. Athiests are making it sound like we want the class to revolve around that teaching. We don't. We only want it acknowledged. This is discrimination. |
Exactly. This biology class that I'm going to have to take is REQUIRED. And yet, they teach evolution. Hmmm...a REQUIRED class pushing an agenda such as this? Good for the school system, and good for me! 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 8:00 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: |
I believe that the main issue is that you are telling kids that this is the DEFINITE way that we are here on Earth. In fact this is almost like a subtle way to promote Athiesm. Many parents don't want this. They want their kids to grow up with Religion. I don't understand why its so difficult to mention Intelligent Design. Athiests are making it sound like we want the class to revolve around that teaching. We don't. We only want it acknowledged. This is discrimination. |
Then Teach them religion at home. I dont want anyone's views pushed on me.
Evolution is SCIENCE FACT, unlike Intelligent Design and Creationism, so it should be taught in a SCIENCE class.
And it's no more discriminant then not letting gay and lesbain people have the right to marry.
|
|
|
zero
Rear Admiral
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4566
Location: Texas
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 8:02 pm |
|
^ I'm sure the required biology class teaches a lot more other than evolution. My biology class sure as hell did.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 8:06 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | Founder wrote: |
I believe that the main issue is that you are telling kids that this is the DEFINITE way that we are here on Earth. In fact this is almost like a subtle way to promote Athiesm. Many parents don't want this. They want their kids to grow up with Religion. I don't understand why its so difficult to mention Intelligent Design. Athiests are making it sound like we want the class to revolve around that teaching. We don't. We only want it acknowledged. This is discrimination. |
Then Teach them religion at home. I dont want anyone's views pushed on me.
Evolution is SCIENCE FACT, unlike Intelligent Design and Creationism, so it should be taught in a SCIENCE class.
And it's no more discriminant then not letting gay and lesbain people have the right to marry. |
Why don't you like answering the "Why can't we teach both?" question huh?
Wait a minute, teaching evolution is not pushing your views on me, but mentioning Intelligent Design is pusing views on you. That makes NO sense. You can teach both. If you don't like Intelligent Design, then TOO DAMN BAD. Cover you ears so the terrible G word doesn't infect your body.
This is why I support leaving Evolution out. Because Athiests won't try and comprimise. It has to be their way or no way. I offer teaching both and some people here refuse to agree to that. It can only be THEIR way. Oh yeah? You gonna pull that? Then screw learning evolution.
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 8:15 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: |
Why don't you like answering the "Why can't we teach both?" question huh?
Wait a minute, teaching evolution is not pushing your views on me, but mentioning Intelligent Design is pusing views on you. That makes NO sense. You can teach both. If you don't like Intelligent Design, then TOO DAMN BAD. Cover you ears so the terrible G word doesn't infect your body.
This is why I support leaving Evolution out. Because Athiests won't try and comprimise. It has to be their way or no way. I offer teaching both and some people here refuse to agree to that. It can only be THEIR way. |
Why cant we learn both? Because Scientists went through HELL trying to get Evolution taught in schools, We were blocked at every corner by religious advocates like these people. Now they want to dump it again. It's not going to happen. This will be fought at every corner until we prevail once again. Dont like it? Oh well, it's going to happen.
And you seem to forget that i'm Roman Catholic. 6 years of Catholic school teachings and another 4 of CCD drilled into you day after day.
| Quote: | | Oh yeah? You gonna pull that? Then screw learning evolution. |
Students have every right to say that and walk out. They'll fail, but oh well.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 8:22 pm |
|
I am amazed at this, Link. You claim to be Roman Catholic, and yet your Liberalism, especially on this issue, is not Catholic. I would expect a Catholic to want alternate ideas than just Evolution to be taught.
And to quote you:
| Quote: | | Evolution is SCIENCE FACT |
Last I checked, it was a THEORY.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 8:25 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Last I checked, it was a THEORY. |
That is correct. Very little in science is proven fact. Evolution is a theory, relativity is a theory.
As long as Intelligent Design is continually expressed as a means of quid pro quo, I will not support its introduction. A science course must be about science, not philosophy.
If someone submitted Intelligent Design as a valid scientific theory, that just happened to include the use of an intelligent entity involved in the origin of life, I would be more open-minded to it. Looking over information on the subject, it does have some merits to its theories--but only if they are discussed as scientific theories.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 8:27 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | Last I checked, it was a THEORY. |
That is correct. Very little in science is proven fact. Evolution is a theory, relativity is a theory.
As long as Intelligent Design is continually expressed as a means of quid pro quo, I will not support its introduction. A science course must be about science, not philosophy.
If someone submitted Intelligent Design as a valid scientific theory, that just happened to include the use of an intelligent entity involved in the origin of life, I would be more open-minded to it. Looking over information on the subject, it does have some merits to its theories--but only if they are discussed as scientific theories. |
And how could that be done? And what if you are REQUIRED, like me, to take that class, and evolution is pushed on you? Is that right? No, it is not.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 8:35 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | Founder wrote: |
Why don't you like answering the "Why can't we teach both?" question huh?
Wait a minute, teaching evolution is not pushing your views on me, but mentioning Intelligent Design is pusing views on you. That makes NO sense. You can teach both. If you don't like Intelligent Design, then TOO DAMN BAD. Cover you ears so the terrible G word doesn't infect your body.
This is why I support leaving Evolution out. Because Athiests won't try and comprimise. It has to be their way or no way. I offer teaching both and some people here refuse to agree to that. It can only be THEIR way. |
Why cant we learn both? Because Scientists went through HELL trying to get Evolution taught in schools, We were blocked at every corner by religious advocates like these people. Now they want to dump it again. It's not going to happen. This will be fought at every corner until we prevail once again. Dont like it? Oh well, it's going to happen.
And you seem to forget that i'm Roman Catholic. 6 years of Catholic school teachings and another 4 of CCD drilled into you day after day.
| Quote: | | Oh yeah? You gonna pull that? Then screw learning evolution. |
Students have every right to say that and walk out. They'll fail, but oh well. |
Let me get this straight. Because scientiests went through hell to get it taught in schools, only that theory can now be taught. That makes no sense. I'm saying that both should be taught. Not one or the other. Just Evolution or just Intelligent Design is not enough. It has to be both.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 8:36 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | And how could that be done? And what if you are REQUIRED, like me, to take that class, and evolution is pushed on you? Is that right? No, it is not. |
Then do something about it. However, discussing ID as if it is a way to get back at Evolution is not the right thing to do--it's bad public relations for ID. The mainstream scientific community will continue to say it is only the work of anti-evolution people who want more religion introduced to the school.
Regardless of one's reasons for wanting ID to be introduced to a school, the only valid way it should ever be added to the curriculum is as a scientific theory.
Take croquet, for example. One could argue that because croquet is ferociously under-represented in schools' physical education courses, it should be introduced. Just because the mainstream view does not support croquet as a physical education activity does not mean this "football" notion, with crazy use of hands, should be forced upon one.
Now, if one campaigned on those values, one would be not get a desired result--one would be met with hostility by football supporters in particular. If, however, one campaigned on the platform that croquet would present more benefits to a physical education student, then one might meet with more success.
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 8:37 pm |
|
It is a theory that has been proven over and over again in testing.
And my party affiliation has nothing to do with this, Leave it to you to bring Political parties into it. I'm a scientist. I do my own research to find if there is a god or not.
I do not believe something written years ago based off the ideas of a "Prophet" who was chastizing society in the name of god. Those who've studied should know him, His name is Zarathustra, but the Greeks and Romans called him Zoroaster.
Zoroastrianism is an outline for christianity. Ethical dualism (A side of good and Righeousness and a side of evil and darkness) was one of his ideas, as well as the thought that a Sarshyat (or savior) would be born of a virgin, ressurect the dead and judge the world at the end.
Sound Familier?
Oh, and Zarathustra lived in 600BC, about 150 years after Prophethic Judaism was started.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 8:53 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | It is a theory that has been proven over and over again in testing.
And my party affiliation has nothing to do with this, Leave it to you to bring Political parties into it. I'm a scientist. I do my own research to find if there is a god or not.
I do not believe something written years ago based off the ideas of a "Prophet" who was chastizing society in the name of god. Those who've studied should know him, His name is Zarathustra, but the Greeks and Romans called him Zoroaster.
Zoroastrianism is an outline for christianity. Ethical dualism (A side of good and Righeousness and a side of evil and darkness) was one of his ideas, as well as the thought that a Sarshyat (or savior) would be born of a virgin, ressurect the dead and judge the world at the end.
Sound Familier?
Oh, and Zarathustra lived in 600BC, about 150 years after Prophethic Judaism was started. |
If its been proven then why is it still a theory?
Where did I say that this has to do with your political affiliation? I haven't even mentioned Democrats or Liberals.
I love when Athiests try to use that stupid notion to try and prove thats the Jews simply stole the idea of Jesus from that and thats how the Religions were formed. That theory only furthers my belief. Every Religion in the World believes in the same God. Perhaps that prophet invisioned the birth of Jesus? Thus his vision came into fruition when Jesus was born. No, thats too hard to believe. No it can't be that. Not at all.
By the way? I don't care if you don't believe in something that "was written years ago". Thats not whats at stake here is it?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 9:08 pm |
|
I called him a Liberal. However, Link, Liberal is NOT a political party in this country. I was just showing my amazement about some of the things you believe, being that you are supposedly "Catholic," although I'm questioning that. Either way, I don't want to get in a fight with you, so I'll drop it. I don't want to be mean 
Otherwise, Founder, you are right. And I believe Judaism was started around 1,000 BC. Before 600 BC.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
