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.
Look for one if you like, but after two days of discussion about religion not being allowed in public school, you'd think my statement would be obvious.
Nice try... my last statement?
Think 'I' know... 'everyone' knows. People don't need data or a study when they see the truth.If you already think you know, then fine. I'm interested in going where the data goes. That's why I like looking at things like surveys, studies, etc. It lets us separate our personal opinions from factual data.
Do you think that's a good bet or not?What statement?
You mean this: "I’ll bet Creationists have far more science education than Evolutionists have theology education."
What about it?
Think 'I' know... 'everyone' knows. People don't need data or a study when they see the truth.
If you're posing a question that can be measured objectively, then we look to objective data to answer it.
If you just want to believe whatever you want to believe, then why even ask? The answer appears to be irrelevant to you.
I honestly don't know. Like I said, I go where the data leads. I don't like guessing.
You don't need to play 'confused' and derail our discussion; it's not that difficult to follow.
You're the one having a problem understanding. Science is mandatory in public school; theology is not allowed. I suppose you had math.I'm not confused by what you posed. I'm answering it honestly: I don't know. I would need to look at the data before hazarding an answer.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
You're the one having a problem understanding. Science is mandatory in public school; theology is not allowed. I suppose you had math.
Do you really believe there is a chance that any of these statements (combined) would post numbers contrary to my statement?Your prior statement wasn't restricted to public school. You said, "would you say is likely more qualified and prepared through education (H.S., college, informal, seminary) to discuss the other’s belief intelligently? ".
The inclusion of informal education itself could speak to any number of different avenues for that education.
Second, theology studies are allowed in schools. The idea that theology isn't allowed in schools is a myth. What isn't allowed is the endorsement by public schools of specific religious beliefs (at least in the U.S.). Things like comparative religious studies courses are allowed.
Third, there are theological schools out there. For example, where I live there is a Catholic School Board that includes religious teachings in its curriculum.
Fourth, your question wasn't strictly restricted to simply looking at education. It was a question about who was better qualified and prepared to discuss the other's beliefs intelligently. Which implies more than strictly the amount of education, but rather who has better relative knowledge of the subjects.
Do you really believe there is a chance that any of these statements would post numbers contrary to my statement?
Maybe it would help you to read my post again?I don't know what you mean by "post numbers contrary to my statement". Are you talking about relative education or are you talking about relative knowledge?
You may wish to rephrase what you're trying to ask here to be more clear.
Maybe it would help you to read my post again?
“On average, which of the two, Creationists or Evolutionists, would you say is likely more qualified and prepared through education (H.S., college, informal, seminary) to discuss the other’s belief intelligently? I’ll bet Creationists have far more science education than Evolutionists have theology education.”
By all means, please do that, instead of continuing to try to cloud my post. Then let us know your answer.And finally I'd still look to the data. I'd hunt for surveys, studies, etc, to attempt to answer the question for me. Like I said previously, I don't like blindly guessing for an answer. I prefer to go with where the data leads.
Actually it wasn't the creationists who "picked the fight". Prior to 1925; creationism was the the only theory of origin of the universe taught in schools in America. The first case to challenge that was the Scopes trial in 1925.
Darwin didn't write "Origin of the Species" until 1859; and ideas of origin outside of a religious context didn't exist until the 1830's. In all the thousands of years of history prior to this; all questions of origin of life were always couched in a religious belief system.
By whom though?
You hate it when people tell the truth?
Both creationism and ID have been literally put on trial
Now I'll grant that there could be a case made for legitimate scientific inquiry into ID, but up until now (or at least up until Dover), ID was primarily a political/religious movement with the purpose to challenge science (e.g. evolution) that directly contradicted certain people's religious views (e.g. creationism).
All of this was laid bare in the Dover trial. ID proponents need to be well aware of the history of the modern ID movement. What we're seeing in this thread is exactly the type of thinking that led to the Dover trial in the first place.
Science + evolution is a political/anti-religious system created with the purpose to challenge religion.
I don't think science itself is a political system, I think your version of it is.
I believe micro-evolution is real and happens all the time, but macro-evolution is not real.
Science wasn't created with the purpose of challenging religion. Science was created as a methodology to understand the universe in which we live. And it seems to be a pretty good method of doing so.
That it results in findings that contradict previously held religious beliefs isn't the fault of science; it's the fault of reality not lining up with people's religious beliefs.
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?