The Other Side of the COin: Truths About Creationism | Teen Ink

The Other Side of the COin: Truths About Creationism

January 20, 2010
By clumsy_one123 SILVER, Brentwood, Tennessee
clumsy_one123 SILVER, Brentwood, Tennessee
8 articles 1 photo 170 comments

Favorite Quote:
"All daring starts from within." -Eudora Welty


Try to imagine that, millions of years ago, small particles hit together and collided, spinning out of control, till BANG- they created multiple solar systems, stars, and planets. Does that sound reasonable? I think not. What kind of person would believe that? There are many scientists who devote their lives to trying to prove this so-called “fact”, but, of course, have not been able to. Even though there is no real proof, the Big Bang Theory has been taught in schools for quite along with evolution, which also has no solid proof. However, they are only telling one side of the story. In many schools today, evolution and the Big Bang Theory are taught to students, while Creationism is left for "church only". That is not fair. Creationism should be taught in public schools as well.

To begin with, if evolution and the Big Bang Theory can be taught, why not creationism? First, consider evolution. Scientifically speaking, simple life-forms cannot evolve into “more complex life-forms” (Problems), therefore, man could not have possibly come from apes. Also, if man came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Some evolutionists answer this question by saying “Survival of the fittest”. However, that does not account for the weaker apes that are still living on earth. If they were to follow this “survival of the fittest” theory, then they should have died long ago, when man first appeared. In Mark 10:6, the Bible says, “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female,” thus proving without a doubt that God created man.

Then, of course, there is the Big Bang Theory. There is not a single scientific law or demonstration that can be preformed that supports the “something from nothing” theory. How could two small particles hit together to create the universe and all the life in it, when, technically speaking, those two particles had not even been created yet? “Design demands a designer” (Wood), and it is as simple as that. Take for example the position of the earth. If it was just a little closer to the sun, everything on it would burn up. If it was just a little farther away, we would all freeze (Wood). Also, Earth is the only planet with free oxygen and water in its liquid form (Wood). In other words, our planet is the only one in our solar system capable of sustaining life. How could that have happened by chance? In Genesis 1:1, the Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” so, only God could have done so.

Also, creationism should be taught in public schools because, according to the Bible, God created the earth (Gen. 1:1). So, why would anyone teach anything else? Of course, there are those out there who question the fact that the Bible is God’s written word. They say that it is nothing but a book written by a bunch of different men. The Bible is made up of sixty six books- thirty nine in the Old Testament and twenty seven in the New- written over a time span of 2,000 years, on three different continents (Asia, Europe, and Africa), in three different languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic), however, there are no contradictions. This could only be the work of an all-powerful being. And so it was. II Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…”. So, basically, God told the writers what to say. He inspired them.

What proof is there that the Bible was inspired by God? To begin with, in Leviticus 17:11a, Moses said that, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood…”, yet this fact was unknown even in George Washington’s day (Thompson). People would use leeches to bleed out supposed ‘bad blood’ to help the sick get well. So, how did Moses know? Secondly, in Ecclesiastes 11:3a and Amos 9:6b, the writers both refer to rain falling from the clouds, but the water cycle was not completely accepted or understood until the 16th century. Pierre Perrault, Edme Marriot, and Edmund Halley all made discoveries on and added data to the idea of a complete water cycle. However, the Bible indicated a water cycle 2,000 years before their discoveries (Thompson). Next, in Job26:7, Job says that the Lord “hangs the earth on nothing.” Back in Job’s day, people had different beliefs on what kept the earth suspended in space, such as four elephants on a giant turtle, or the shoulders of an abnormally strong man. Job was way ahead of his time by suggesting that the earth “hung on nothing” (Thompson) (Job 26:7). How could he have known when everyone else was wrong? And finally, in I Corinthians 15:39, the apostle Paul says, “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds.” Paul is right! All four of these fleshes have a different biochemical makeup (Thompson). But how did he know? All of these situations point to one solution: God told the men what to write. Therefore, there is no possible way that the Bible could be made up by men because of the advanced sciences used in it. Given the sufficient evidence, Creationism should be presented alongside other theories of creation.

There are those in this world who say that allowing creationism to be taught in schools is a breech on their First Amendment rights. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”, however, this does not mean that it is against the law to say “One nation, under God,” in the Pledge of Allegiance, print, “In God we trust,” on money, or teach creationism to students in school. It merely is saying that the Government will not make an established religion. One can believe in and worship anything or anyone they want. But, men can preach and teach about their religion to others. It is only fair.

In addition, the First Amendment was added by the founding fathers to keep the church from controlling the government, and they had good reason to be fearful of this. “Early settlers” in America wanted religious liberty; however, they refused to grant it to others (Gay). They set up the Anglican Church as the main religion (Gay). Others set up their own churches, but, they still had to pay taxes for the maintenance of the Anglican Church, even though they did not attend there (Gay). Laws demanded people to attend church (Gay), and if they did not, they could be fined, and even imprisoned. Other rules covered clothing, business conduct, education, and recreation (Gay). “Only members of the… established religion were allowed to vote (Gay)”. It is no wonder James Madison was careful about how much control the church would receive. All in all, separation of church and state was established to keep government control in the proper hands, not to forbid the teaching of creationism.

In conclusion, creationism should be taught in public schools because, even though some say it cannot be proven, it is the most reasonable solution to the creation of the world, and, if evolution and the Big Bang Theory can be taught, why not creationism? It has not been proved either. If schools are going to teach unproven theories, then why not add creationism to the list? One might as well tell both sides of the story if they are going to tell it at all. Besides, if Evolutionists are so sure that man came from monkeys, then what are they afraid of?



















Bibliography
“Evolution.” The American Colledge Dictionary. 1964.
Gay, Kathlyn. CHurch and State. Brookfield: The Millbrook Press, 1992.
The History of Man. Sanford: Riebers.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version. Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1982.
Isaak, Mark. “Five major misconceptions about Evolution.” Talkorigins.org. 1 Oct. 2003. 18 Jan. 2009 <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html>.
McIntosh, Kenneth, and Marsha McIntosh. Issues of Church, State, and Religious Liberties. Broomal: Mason Crest Publishers, Inc., 2006.
“Problems for atheistic evolutionists.” Creationtips.com. 10 Nov. 2008. 18 Jan. 2009 <http://www.creationtips.com/evoluwrong.html>.
The Reality of God. Sanford: Riebers.
Roberts, Hill. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. 1986.
Suggs, Bill. “When did the U.S. Government pass a law dictating the separation of church and state? Where can this law be found?” Christiananswers.net. 18 Jan. 2009 <http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g004.html>.
Thompson, Bert. Scientific Evidences of the Bible’s Inspiration. Montgomery: Apologetics Press, Inc., 1981.
Wood, James. We Believe. 2005.





Works Cited
Gay, Kathlyn. CHurch and State. Brookfield: The Millbrook Press, 1992.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version. Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1982.
“Problems for atheistic evolutionists.” Creationtips.com. 10 Nov. 2008. 18 Jan. 2009 <http://www.creationtips.com/evoluwrong.html>.
Thompson, Bert. Scientific Evidences of the Bible’s Inspiration. Montgomery: Apologetics Press, Inc., 1981.
Wood, James. We Believe. 2005.



Similar Articles

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

This article has 347 comments.


on Apr. 3 2013 at 9:46 pm
monochromatic BRONZE, Alexandria, Virginia
3 articles 0 photos 84 comments

Favorite Quote:
Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.<br /> C. S. Lewis

I am curious as to why you would believe a theory that has, as you say, holes and parts that scientists are not sure about instead of the theory of creation and everything else in the Bible which can be proven scientifically and historically. you're right, morallity and belief in a religion are not synonymous, though most religions include morality in the practice of it. however, as far as the second law of thermodynamics, I still disagree. First of all, how would life come about in the first place if all the original space particles were following the law and tending toward disorder: randomly bouncing around in space instead of forming planets eventually. Assuming life did manage to evolve, how would it ever get better and more complex if, as you say, it creates more disorder then order. even if the entropy decreases, it will never be less then the order caused by the organisms existence. 

on Apr. 3 2013 at 9:23 am
Quantum1.0 BRONZE, Davidson, North Carolina
4 articles 0 photos 19 comments

Favorite Quote:
&quot;We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.&quot; - Stephen Hawking

   You make some good points, but you're still missing some of the science here. Firstly, some of your questions don't have answers right now - science is constantly evolving, but that doesn't mean the answer is outside of science. We have several theories for why the universe expanded rapidly, but we do have theories that are being tested. Also, just because we don't know why the bg bang occured doesn't mean it didn't happen - it clearly did happen. I might not be up to date I assume the discovery of the LHC creating new matter is refering to the Higgs Boson discovery last year (sorry if its not)? That wasn't the creation of new matter. It was the discovery of a previously undetected particle that proves that the Higgs field, which gives particles mass, exists. Next you say matter can neither be created or destroyed - yes, sort of. Energy and matter together cannot be created or destoyed, but they can be converted between one another. For example, in the atomic bomb all that energy came from small amounts of matter converting into large amounts of energy (E=mc^2). Lastly, the tendency of systems towards disorder is not opposite evolution. First, life creates more disorder by burning energy than it creates order by existing. Also, this tendency is a large scale, statistical thing. There will be fluctuations or periods where entropy (disorder) actually decreases.      Anyway, science aside, I agree there are things we don't know and holes in some theories and I think this is where we are in different places idealogically. I don't have a need, perhaps incorrectly, to fill those holes with God. I am okay with not knowing things. It is the attempt to fill in those holes with scientific proof that fascinates me. Before I am declared ammoral, I do believe in spirtuality and morality, but as products of evolution - those things made groups of people better at surviving, so they did.    Anyway, we clearly have different ways of dealing with the unknown, but in my mind that's perfectly okay. I appreciate your comment and you brought up some great points about the gaps in theories, even if we disagree regarding their implications.

on Apr. 3 2013 at 1:13 am
LiraDaeris PLATINUM, Tucson, Arizona
22 articles 0 photos 135 comments

Favorite Quote:
&ldquo;You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself any direction you choose. You&#039;re on your own. And you know what you know. And YOU are the one who&#039;ll decide where to go...&rdquo; <br /> ― Dr. Seuss, Oh, the Places You&#039;ll Go!

If something adheres to no religion, then it adheres to agnosticism, which is different from atheism. However, it is still a worldview. There is a difference in adhering to no religion and coinciding with all religion.

d124816d said...
on Apr. 1 2013 at 6:16 pm
Paraphrasing from Stephen Hawking, there was no time before the big bang. If there was no time before the big bang, then there was literally no time for god to exist to create the universe. Also, evolution suits a niche. If it works, it stays. If not, then extinction follows.

on Apr. 1 2013 at 1:12 am
monochromatic BRONZE, Alexandria, Virginia
3 articles 0 photos 84 comments

Favorite Quote:
Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.<br /> C. S. Lewis

ah, the inescapable question: did God come first or did random matter some first? How about: Which is more likely to have resulted in a highly complex universe? btw, you wrote that you believe it is safe to teach evolution in schools as long as it doesn't promote a specific religion over another. why is it safe? how would it be dangerous? would it be dangerous for kids to grow up learning that they're just intelligent animals? would that affect their view of life and life's purpose? would they value their life less if they believed that? why is the teaching of evolution in public schools considered in the first place?

on Apr. 1 2013 at 1:03 am
monochromatic BRONZE, Alexandria, Virginia
3 articles 0 photos 84 comments

Favorite Quote:
Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.<br /> C. S. Lewis

wait - so you beieve in evolution and the big bang, but you're not exactly sure how the big bang occured? thats problematic. ooh - extrapolate, quantum fluctuations - big words! why did the universe rapidly expand by the way? and the matter that composed the universe - where did that come from? of course, it couldn't have gotten there by chance - matter cannot be created or destroyed. and even the new 'discovery' about LHC 'creating' new matter doesn't answer this question, because there had to be matter in the first place. also, the scientific second law of thermodynamics stated that everything tends toward disorder. isn't that the opposite of evolution? whoa, whoa, whoa - and I quote: "scientists do not know right now what caused the Big Bang" and then later in your comment: "The Big Bang theory is solidly established beyong almost any doubt" What theory? the one they haven't figured out yet? am I missing something? And did you know that the guy who wrote the forword to Darwin's influential Origin of the Species said "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." I don't think he agrees with your statement about  the 'firmly established' Big band theory. But surely Charlie Darwin firmly believes in the theory he himself popularized. oh wait -two chapters of his book were about problems with the theory of evolution and imperfections in the 'geological record'. at least he knew the theory well enough to point out the faults.  

on Apr. 1 2013 at 12:19 am
monochromatic BRONZE, Alexandria, Virginia
3 articles 0 photos 84 comments

Favorite Quote:
Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.<br /> C. S. Lewis

erm - funny evolution would be in a biology book. I thought "Science requires evidence." How does "Freedom of religion" equal "Freedom from religion"? Sure, freedom from religion is included in that, but what it means is that anybody can believe in any religion they want without harming anyone elses rights. just wondering: what does the immune system have to do with evolution? also, blasphemy is generally defined as speaking against God, a god, or sacred things. how would teachinf religion in a science class fit the definition of blasphemy? and why did you use religion instead of creation? creation is not strictly 'religious'. it is the theory that a Divine being created the universe. why believe that? well, maybe because the universe is far to complex to ever stand a chance (ha ha - chance) in evolving. I left another comment on this page giving examples about how science disproves evolution, so I'm not going to go into detail here, but the most logical theory about the origins of everything that exists is creation. btw, the Bible was not passed by word of mouth, it was written directly - ot passed down as stories.

on Apr. 1 2013 at 12:03 am
monochromatic BRONZE, Alexandria, Virginia
3 articles 0 photos 84 comments

Favorite Quote:
Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.<br /> C. S. Lewis

sorry - I meant to reply to mozzie13   the article has several good points, but could expand a bit :)

on Apr. 1 2013 at 12:02 am
monochromatic BRONZE, Alexandria, Virginia
3 articles 0 photos 84 comments

Favorite Quote:
Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.<br /> C. S. Lewis

heh heh - very logical. however, it is based on false assumptions. evolution commonly is defined as the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of earth. I think it's brilliant. Science fiction would not be complete without the fascinating theory of evolution. Problem with it is that it's scientifically inaccurate. The second law of thermodynamics states that everything tends naturally toward disorder, or entropy. therefore, chance could not form a single cell or amino acid let alone you, a complex human being. Speaking of amino acids, they could not possibly form in the presence of oxygen or they would be corroded, and without oxegen, there would be no ozone layer to protect the evolving amino acids from the suns detrimental rays. Assuming they overcame this problem and stubbornly evolved anyways, they would then have to start randomly joining together to form proteins. No intelligence here - it's just completely random stuff going on. Connecting in the right order to form a protein would take a lot longer then billions of years, assuming that the conditions and the amino acids stuck around. Also, science is very organized, right? The universe itself down to every atom that you are composed of is very complex and organized. How does random chance explain that? Lets skip forward several billions of years to when animals are actually evolving. If survival of the fittest is true and it's also true that one organism can evolve into another completely different one, how on earth is that organism gonna be the fittest when it's in the middle of it's transformation between one functional organism like a fish into another functional organism like an amphibian? Or did they all just die for a billion years untill they were fully evolved? Instantaneous complexity means that all parts of an organism would have to be completely there at once, or else it goes bye-bye. Not even a chance to evolve. Irreducable complexity is, basically, all the organisms are so entwined that if a part of them were nonexistent, the rest would stop functioning, like removing part of a mouse trap. Also, considering how long evolution would have to take in order to be plausible, why isn't Earth's surface overwhelmed by the remains of billions of years worth of evolutionary transitions?  Science crushes evolution big time. true, quoting the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning, except for one thing: the Bible claims to be completely true, which means that it is either completely true, or completely false. After all, if the writing of the Bible was supervised by a liar, how could you believe any of it? and since all the historical and scietific parts of the Bible can be proven, I believe it's pretty safe to assume that the parts that need to be taken on faith are true as well.

mozzie13 said...
on Feb. 28 2013 at 7:33 pm
mozzie13, Hoover, Alabama
0 articles 0 photos 2 comments
  Okay honestly you did like no scientific research for this so let me clear things up: The big bang theory is not as simple as “millions of years ago, small particles hit together and collided, spinning out of control, till BANG- they created multiple solar systems, stars, and planets” We did not evolve directly from monkeys, we both have the same ancestors that we evolved from so we are like cousins Simple life forms can definitely evolve into more complex life forms. I.e. diseases, animals, etc. Just because the bible says so does not prove “without a doubt God created Man” that’s like saying that because fairies are real in a book they have to be real in real life. Also what exactly do you have for proof that creationism is real Design demands a designer and who exactly designed God? And do you realize that you are quoting the bible to prove the bible, that’s like saying something should be illegal because you’ll go to Jail Why would anyone teach anything else? Because Christianity is not the only religion that matters Actually there are quite a few contradictions in the bible http://www.project-reason.org/gallery3/image/105/ Oh and all those reasons that god “inspired” people to write the bible are observations that anyone could have made/guessed Oh yes, and who runs schools that’s right….the government There are more than 2 sides to the story I’m not even going to remark on your last line

cverson BRONZE said...
on Feb. 19 2013 at 2:25 pm
cverson BRONZE, Papillion, Nebraska
1 article 0 photos 1 comment
according to that, every biography is invalid, because it cites things that were said.

on Feb. 11 2013 at 7:02 pm
Mr.packerbear12 SILVER, Minnesota Lake, Minnesota
5 articles 0 photos 105 comments

Favorite Quote:
&quot;Judge lest not you be judged&quot;<br /> <br /> &quot;Take the plank out of your own eye before the speck out of your brother&#039;s&quot;<br /> <br /> &quot;live each day as if it&#039;s your last&quot;<br /> <br /> &quot;God doesn&#039;t give you what you can handle, He helps you handle what you are given&quot;

it sounds like you've been listening to Kent Hovind:) i like him too.

Keeper6 GOLD said...
on Jan. 2 2013 at 9:26 pm
Keeper6 GOLD, Buffalo, Minnesota
16 articles 0 photos 39 comments

Favorite Quote:
Giving up doesn&#039;t always mean you are weak, sometimes it just means you are strong enough to let go.

I agree. The Bible should not be cited as proof of arguments. The Bible was written after people spoke  these stories for generations. The stories could have gotten mixed up, and personally I wouldn't trust that as perfectly reliable information. If word of mouth is the only proof that all of the things in the Bible actually happened, I would treat it like a rumor (which is alike in essence) and NOT use it as a basis for my thinking.

Teily SILVER said...
on Dec. 10 2012 at 11:13 am
Teily SILVER, Woodbridge, Virginia
7 articles 0 photos 11 comments

Favorite Quote:
Why dwell in the past, when you could look brightly towards the future?<br /> ~Marteil

Personally, I like this essay very much. I too am a Christian and understand exactly what you're saying. As for those who claim the Bible isn't a reliable resource. I'd have to respond that the Bible has been written hundreds of years ago and there are hundreds of copies from that time period that say the same thing. So, in my opinion --I'm not trying to step on anyone toes-- it is a reliable source, considering how far back it was written and how constant it has remained since it was first written. Also, people today consider documents even older than the Bible to be reliable. So, I believe that the Bible be a sources that can be referenced in an essay. (I hope no one finds my comments offensive. I'm only trying to share my opinions.)

on Nov. 28 2012 at 5:37 pm
AHandfulOfDust BRONZE, San Antonio, Texas
1 article 0 photos 7 comments

Favorite Quote:
Reading is one form of escape. Running for your life is another.<br /> ~Lemony Snicket

  Let's just put all our theological differences aside for the moment. Let's ignore the poor understanding of the science you're trying to debunk. We need to focus on the most pressing issue with your essay:  You're citing the Bible as proof the Bible is correct. This is the equivalent of saying "I'm right because I'm right". This is not a valid argument, and renders roughly one-third of your essay indefensible.  I'm not even going to start on your understanding of evolution. Suffice it to say that man most definitely did not "come from apes", and that you really ought to do a closer reading of a biology textbook before writing your next piece. And in point of fact, you're right. The First Amendment requires freedom of religion - which by necessity requires freedom *from* religion. Teaching religion in a science class is blasphemy of the highest level. Science requires evidence. Evidence exists for evolution - unless you want to go around denying that people catch colds multiple times in their lives and that our immune systems don't exist. Therefore, evolution is acceptable in a science class. Creationism is religion and is based off of a few passages in Genesis, which no one can prove came from God - you certainly haven't, with your circular argument, covered above. Therefore, creationism is not acceptable material in science class, nor should it be allowed as teaching it would be forcing your religion down other people's throats - or have you forgotten the other religions of the world, as well as the atheists? In short, God gave you a brain. Use it to craft a better argument.

on Nov. 26 2012 at 6:29 pm
Quantum1.0 BRONZE, Davidson, North Carolina
4 articles 0 photos 19 comments

Favorite Quote:
&quot;We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.&quot; - Stephen Hawking

Pt. 2   Anyway, on to evolution, another controversial topic and another firmly established tenant of science. You argue that scientifically speaking, simple life-forms cannot evolve into more complex life forms. Actually, scientifically speaking, they can! Evolution is science and that's basically the whole idea. Next you say if man came from monkeys why are there still monkeys? Evolution doesn't occur on the individual scale. Animals don't "turn into" other animals. A small isolated group of one species in some new environment can evolve into a new species as a population over time in response to environmental pressures. Modern humans for example most likely developed most of our advanced skills like language, moral codes, and such because the early humans that worked together better survived passing on the genes that contribute to those behaviors. Plus, how do you explain fossils? The idea I have heard in some places about God putting them there to question our faith seems contrived. A God that tries to trick us in that way doesn't appeal to me.  Next you bring up "survival of the fittest", which as you say is the most common one phrase description of how evolution works. But in reality that's a little misleading. "Fit" in biology means having the most offspring, passing on the most of your genes. There is no "perfect" creature, no "goal" of evolution. Species evolve to be the best suited to their environment because those that are best suited have more offpsring (are fitter), passing on those beneficial genes. Thus not all hominids evolved the same way and some didn't evolve as much. The existence of monkeys today doesn't preclude evolution in the slightest.    Finally, I agree it is poor logic to use the Bible to justify the Bible's accuracy.     To conclude, I am not antireligious. I just feel that fundamentalist religion no longer stands on firm ground. You say creationism is an unproven theory. By placing it in this category you open it up to the way scientists treat theories and if a theory is not empirically provable it has no place as a theory. This is not to say scientists are immune to this sort of theory. It has been argued that the premier physics theory of today - string theory - is unprovable and is thus no more than philosophy.       But the main difference between science and religion is that scientists ask those questions. Scientists always look to move forward in their understanding as new information becomes available. It is hard to move on from strongly held beliefs, but scientists have done it. They finally realized Newton's Laws were not complete. Religion, which approaches the same universal questions from a different direction, should do the same thing. Perhaps the reason we have had no modern prophets is because as spirtual beings we are stuck in the past. Perhaps we should look more to the future. Thanks for reading and I appreciate everyone's thoughts. This is a difficult and controversial topic and its neat that we can all discuss it here.

on Nov. 26 2012 at 6:28 pm
Quantum1.0 BRONZE, Davidson, North Carolina
4 articles 0 photos 19 comments

Favorite Quote:
&quot;We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.&quot; - Stephen Hawking

Pt1 I know I'm not really going to convince anyone one way or the other on this topic. People are firmly set in their beliefs in regard to religion and science, but I would still like to make a few points. First, your understanding of the Big Bang is really limited. It happened billions, not millions of years ago. It was not caused by small particles hitting together, and while scientists do not know right now what caused the Big Bang (our current theories don't properly extrapolate back to the start of the Big Bang) it was certainly not due to small particles colliding and creating multiple solar systems, stars, and planets. You are right. That theory is not reasonable and it is not based in rational thought. I don't want to turn this into a physics lecture, but galaxies were created by small differences in the amount of matter at different points in the very early universe caused by quantum fluctuations. When the universe rapidly expanded these fluctuations were blown up and the small microscopic areas of greater density ended up bringing more and more matter togther to create the early galaxies. Stars were created by an entirely different process and planets yet another process.     What proof is there for these ideas? The Big Bang theory is solidly established beyond almost any doubt. First is the existence of cosmic background radiation (I won't go into the details here but Google it - its pretty neat and its discovery comes with a cool story). There's also our observations of the universe expanding through the observation of lightwaves from distant stars being stretched out (this is known as the Doppler effect).  So your arguments for "no solid proof" of this theory is bogus. It is firmly established by direct, rational observation. There is no "belief" here. The interpretation thereof may later change when we get more information, but the measurements do reveal unarguable facts about the universe.

on Nov. 15 2012 at 1:48 pm
EmoToboe BRONZE, Kemp, Texas
1 article 0 photos 42 comments

Favorite Quote:
When you&#039;ve lost it all.......That&#039;s when you finally realize.....That life is BEAUTIFUL

I must disagree with this article, evolution, in my opinion, is safe to teach in schools as it doesn't promote a specific religion over another. If you seek to learn of your religion's account of creation, you can always ask your family or who ever shares your faith. Also, if I may add two points you made that I found somewhat amusing. First, you criticized the theory of the big bang with this: "There is not a single scientific law or demonstration that can be preformed that supports the “something from nothing” theory." I feel the need to ask, if everything comes from something, then who created God? Also, the other point was how you tried to prove the validity of the bible, by using passages from the bible. I may be mistaken, but I don't find that convincing.

Esquire said...
on Nov. 13 2012 at 11:43 pm
Well, at least you provied a bibilography....  However, it seems that instead of taking from the facts and drawing conclusions, you are doing the reverse: creating a hypothesis and cherry-picking facts that support it.  The two biggest reasons creationism is not taught in schools: 1. It's not science. Period. End of story. You absolutely cannot apply the scientific method to it. And no, the Bible isn't science either, nor should you use it as a source...you will create a loop. 2. First Amendment. More specifically, its interpretation in Lemon vs Kurtzman:   The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

on Nov. 4 2012 at 1:48 pm
Wolf_Warriorz SILVER, Belgrade, Montana
5 articles 0 photos 15 comments
Your article has some serious, serious flaws. I'm not going to speak of my own beliefs, because they are irrelevant because no matter what my faith or lack thereof, these errors would still be errors. First... you cannot cite the bible as proof that the bible is true. That would be akin to writing an article about "Green Eggs and Ham" and saying that it is The Truth not because of any outside evidence but because what's written says that green eggs and ham do exist, and while this has not been and cannot be proven, its true because the author said so. That's the fatal flaw of your article. But don't worry, there's more. Secondly, I'd like to quote you: "Scientifically speaking, simple life-forms cannot evolve into 'more complex life-forms.' Um..what? If that's scientifically speaking, then why do scientists believe (and believe with evidence) that that is exactly what happens? So...where is your evidence and/or logic for that statement?? Seriously. Why couldn't they evolve into more complex life-forms? Just because you do not understand how this happens does not make it untrue. The same could be said for religion, but blanket-statement falsities just don't work. You know, ever.  Next, I'd like to quote you again. "Also, creationism should be taught  in public schools because, according to the Bible, God created the earth (Gen. 1:1). So, why would anyone teach anything else?" How about because not everyone believes that God created the earth? Even if they are wrong, why should their belief be dismissed? My public school teaches Evolution & Creationism as theories, because that is exactly what they are. And yes, this is a public school. We were allowed to calmly express our opinions on the matter, and the teacher never expressed a desire to change anyone's opinion. And this was sophomore year of high school in a required class (which includes both intelligent and less-intelligent, rational and irrational students). According to the media, we shouldn't have been mature enough to handle such a conversation, but you know what? We were. No one yelled. No one cried. No one came up to the others and tried to convert them. We respected that we didn't all believe the same things. That's why Creationism isn't taught exclusively in public schools. Because public schools don't exclusively believe in it. Moreover, your examples of proof that God told men what to write in the Bible are trite and a stretch of reality. When Paul said what he did about the flesh of the different kinds of organisms... Um... Have you felt the skin of birds? Felt that of fish? Felt that of humans? You can feel the difference with your hands. If God needed to tell you that, clearly there's a particular lack of intelligence going on. And no, I'm not saying you're stupid for believing in God. I don't believe that at all. I'm saying that that is really, really not a good example of proof that the Bible is true. Like, one of the worst possible examples you could possibly pull out of anywhere, ever.  Lastly.... In your second-to-last paragraph, you use the word "gay" a lot in parentheses. Not sure if you are referring to the statements as being ridiculous, or if you are implying they were put forth by homosexuals. The latter just doesn't make any sense, so I'll assume you are using it as a synonym for "stupid" or "ridiculous". Well 1) That really degrades the quality of your article because that is bad grammar, offensive, throws your credibility as a writer into the sewer. You think any professional would contest an argument by saying "Gay."?? Picture this - presidential debate. Candidate A talks about his detailed health care plan, how he is going to put it forth and how much it will cost and what the effects will be. When he finishes, Candidate B looks over and says "Gay." Guess how that would go over - he would offend a huge amount of people. He wouldn't have pointed out any flaws in the other candidate's plan. He would sound as though he couldn't come up with a real argument against this plan (validating it), so he just...pulled something out of his bum.  Alright. That's my opinion on your article. Your claims are unsupported. You make ridiculous & weak arguments and make yourself sound stupid over and over again. If I could give you negative stars, I would.