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.
It's your word--you can define it.As an atheist (which your profile says you are) do you define evolutionism as being "science" - do you read the rule as "you cannot call evolutionism a religion"???
The theory of evolution is science, thats a fact.
Your mischaracterisation only shows your ignorance.Is it reproducible? observable in terms of rocks turning into a horse over time - given enough time and chance? you know... actual science.
Evidence of those events can be examined and the observations are reproducible--the basis of actual science.Is it reproducible? observable in terms of rocks, dust, gas, sunlight turning into a horse over time - given enough time and chance? you know... the basics of actual science.
I completely and totally agree. Sky Woman and Turtle Island need to be taught in public schools along side Evolution.And yet - evolutionism is still taught in public schools. Given that they already have that breach - then find - creationism as well.
Teaching Creationism or, more precisely, teaching "Creation science" has been ruled unconstitutional in several courts, but teaching of the existence of some alternate theories concerning the origin of the universe--turtles included--is not. Many elementary and secondary schools teach about the culture of pre-Columbian peoples, for example.
Christianity does not in general equal science deniers. Its a very small subset.if you look closely at page 1 of this thread - you can see a hint of how Christianity is denigrated when the mere mention of equal footing is proposed for the two doctrines on origins.
the observations are reproducible
Christianity does not in general equal science deniers. Its a very small subset.
You don't have the authority to speak for Christianity as a whole in this context.if you look closely at page 1 of this thread - you can see a hint of how Christianity is denigrated when the mere mention of equal footing is proposed for the two doctrines on origins.
Your posts certainly deny science.objecting to the "thumb-on-the-scale" does not equal "science denier"
BobRyan said: ↑
if you look closely at page 1 of this thread - you can see a hint of how Christianity is denigrated when the mere mention of equal footing is proposed for the two doctrines on origins.
You don't have the authority to speak for Christianity as a whole in this context.
Your posts certainly deny science.
Observations of physical evidence and the results of experiments. The scientific method does not require that the events themselves being investigated be reproduced.Observations of what "are reproducible" .
I can look out my window and see a tree - and claim that my observation is reproducible but that does not mean "observed" or "reproduced" either the creation event or the much imagined evolution of life on Earth event from a lifeless rock.
And that means what? Should the ToE be taught?Not in real life - rather my posts appeal to science - I stated at the outset I would be fine with leaving religion out of the science class.
There is no general denigration of Christianity anywhere in this thread so far as I can see. Biblical creationists? That's a different story (unless you think that biblical creationists are the only "real" Christians...)And I don't need to -- the evidence on page one speaks for itself.
Where did you get your notion of what constitutes actual science? How many technical scientific papers have you written?Is it reproducible? observable in terms of rocks, dust, gas, sunlight turning into a horse over time - given enough time and chance? you know... the basics of actual science.
if you look closely at page 1 of this thread - you can see a hint of how Christianity is denigrated when the mere mention of equal footing is proposed for the two doctrines on origins.
What two doctrines on origins are you referring to? Presumably one is evolution, but evolution does not rule out divine creation as such so that can't be the other one. What is left but biblical creationism?if you look closely at page 1 of this thread - you can see a hint of how Christianity is denigrated when the mere mention of equal footing is proposed for the two doctrines on origins.
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?