- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,716
- 52,525
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not all Christians believe in ID, that’s true. But of those who do, it’s only Christians. No one else.
Way to go, lamberth!Kinda gives the game away, doesn't it.
'Those of us who promote ID have no position as to who the designer is'.
'But...you're all Christians...'
crickets
I doubt if you do. If you did you would realize that you have to swear not to follow it at Answers in Genesis and other creationist sites.I already know what the scientific method is. Quit talking down or get lost.
Arab Phone, Chinese Whispers, Telephone Game, Grapevine ... take your pick.
Way to go, lamberth!
No, but I’m educated and know what I’m talking about.You love telling others why they believe what they do. You must be a little god who can read minds I guess.
God's glory isn't limited by the size of the trees. Do you live in a house with wood in the walls? Logging is about being able to make stuff from what God made.
... and in the lab, and on the farm, and in the forest, savanna, veldt, steppe, taiga, jungle, desert, tundra, etc etc etc....Only on paper.
not even remotely closeYup ... it's a game of connect-the-dots, isn't it?
Except that it doesnt.Kinda coincidental that it tends to negate every jot & tittle of the Bible that it "researches," isn't it?
Its a racist term used instead of another racist term for how information gets distorted as it in passed by word of mouth.I have no idea what that means...
Read what I said: ID doesn't really square with anybody's origins doctrine, not YECs, not mainline Protestants nor Traditional Christians.So if it's not creationism, there's no point to it?
Not really--that's why so many Christians reject it.Of course it squares with anyone who believes in a creator.
I talked to an old trapper from the adirondacks years ago. He said logging off the big timber was the best thing they ever did for wildlife. Now, I've studied it a bit and they almost decimated the forest's back in the day for bark tannerys. Conservation corps replanted and we have decent woodland in the east again. It's all a balance. Just like animals, we harvest some to keep the boom and bust cycles more even.God's glory is limited by the imaginations of the religious.
Logging is about making money.
Alas, the industry is dominated by companies that think no further ahead then the next quarter. They strip-mine the forest, and move on.
Loggers either obey, or they get blacklisted.
And so the plunder is indiscriminate, and destructive. Leaving no old growth to sustain a healthy forest.
Selective logging is a better way. But the big lumber companies was to maximize profits.
Selective logging, although profitable, and sustainable, does not maximize profits.
Don't speak for others. I'm a Christian and I reject ID (as embodied in the Intelligent Design movement and the Discovery Institute) because it's a mishmash of bad, misleading, and vacuous arguments dressed up as science.They reject it because it's not specifically Christian. It says nothing about whether evolution happened either.
But note that rejecting ID is not the same as rejecting God as author of our being. Likewise, accepting the theory of evolution--as a scientific theory--is not the same as rejecting God as the author of our being. If you want to argue for ID, go right ahead, but realize that it is not the same as arguing for the existence of God and those of us who argue against it are doing so not because it demonstrates the existence of God but because for theists and atheists it is bad science and for theists it is bad theology.They reject it because it's not specifically Christian. It says nothing about whether evolution happened either.
No, not really.So if it's not creationism, there's no point to it? Of course it squares with anyone who believes in a creator.
And scientific arguments begin with data. With empirically gathered facts.Logical arguments begin with axioms. If we can't agree that the sky is blue; no amount of logic, or theory, will explain why it is blue.
If you choose to believe what flies in the face of the empirical evidence; then I'll leave you to your own perception.
HB1701 - TO ALLOW CREATIONISM AS A THEORY OF HOW THE EARTH CAME TO EXIST TO BE TAUGHT IN KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE TWELVE CLASSES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND OPEN-ENROLLMENT PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS.
It now goes to the Senate.
Although the bill does not make creationism mandatory, it is still unconstitutional to teach creationism in science classes.
Arkansas should know this from McLean v. Arkansas and the more encompassing Edwards v. Aguillard.
Oh? How do you decide to yes or no evacuate? Tealeaves? Palmreading? Ornithomancy?Have you ever heard of these wind storms called hurricanes?
It's fun to follow their projected landfall with computer models; but I wouldn't bet my life on those models.
The courts have consistently disagreed with that. Teaching sectarian religious doctrine in the public schools is unconstitutional.It is false to say that it is unconstitutional to inform students about the Bible doctrine on origins and that only evolutionist doctrine on origins should be "allowed".
Rejecting the theory of evolution on scientific grounds is one thing. Rejecting it because it denies divine authorship of our being would be teaching lie. Make no mistake: the strongest objections to this bill will not come from atheists--there are hardly enough of them in Arkansas to make a difference--but from other Christians who have little difficulty reconciling the theory of evolution with their faith and don't want the public schools to be teaching their children Fundamentalist Bible doctrine..scientifically - it makes no sense at all to claim that dust, gas, rocks and sunlight will "turn into a horse over time".
It is much more logical to say that an infinitely capable Creator can do it - but not at all science fact that becoming a horse is an observed reproducible innate property of rocks themselves, given enough time and chance.
The same thing is true even at one of the smallest levels where one might 'imagine' a prokaryote "becoming" a eukaryote. That is not observable or reproducible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?