What is the end goal for creationists these days?

[PsychoSarah]

Yes. It is a more profound understanding than you know. Do you care to learn?

-_- rocks don't have metabolisms, and thus do not meet the basic qualifications for being alive.

 

[TLK Valentine]

-_- rocks don't have metabolisms, and thus do not meet the basic qualifications for being alive.

Now, now... I asked him to explain it. Get your popcorn...

 

[juvenissun]

So no, you haven't read it, so you can't say what it says.

That makes your previous statement to the contrary pretty useless...

Yes, I can.
You have not read petrology. Can you say something about rocks?
You need to know how to learn.

 

[juvenissun]

Why do you say rocks are alive?

Because they change.

 

[juvenissun]

Edit: On reflection, how do you adopt the mind set of a tribal nomad from several millenia ago, in order not to put an anachronistic gloss on what you read in the original Hebrew? It must be quite a challenge.

I read the Word NOW. Whatever the Words say to me is what I understand. The Bible message is not limited to time. God uses the Bible to talk to me NOW.

 

[juvenissun]

-_- rocks don't have metabolisms, and thus do not meet the basic qualifications for being alive.

Rocks have their own mechanism of metabolism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because they change.

That is not the definition of life.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes, I can.
You have not read petrology. Can you say something about rocks?

I have, and I have.

Perhaps someday you will.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Because they change.

and...

 

[Ophiolite]

I read the Word NOW. Whatever the Words say to me is what I understand. The Bible message is not limited to time. God uses the Bible to talk to me NOW.

And just to confirm, you do read them in Hebrew and Greek? You understand it is relevant and a second failure to reply would look suspicious. You don't want to look suspicious do you?

 

[juvenissun]

and...

why?

 

[juvenissun]

And just to confirm, you do read them in Hebrew and Greek? You understand it is relevant and a second failure to reply would look suspicious. You don't want to look suspicious do you?

If needed, I read it in Russian.

 

[joshua 1 9]

A theocracy, contradicts free will.

It is the truth that sets us free.

 

[Astrophile]

I just think there's a difference between what we have proven and what we only theorize. We can proven gravity exists. But we can't prove that any animals have evolved from one species to another. We've seen animals adapt, but they've never changed into something else entirely. Micro-evolution: observed. Macro-evolution: not observed.

I think that, like many creationists, you are misunderstanding both the nature of a scientific theory and what is meant by proof. These matters have been explained many times on these forums, and it is a waste of time to go on chopping off the Hydra's heads.

The question you raised is how evolution should be taught. In my opinion, students should be taught the evidence for evolution (including, for example, the observed facts of genetics, anatomy, taxonomy, embryology, ecology, biogeography and palaeontology), and how the neo-Darwininan theory explains the observed facts better than other scientific theories, such as Lamarckism and mutationism.

As you say, 'we can't prove that any animals have evolved from one species to another.' However, so far as I understand it, there is a lot of evidence in favour of this hypothesis; more importantly, at the present time no alternative scientific hypothesis has been proposed that explains the observed facts of biology and the diversity of species.

It is important to understand first, that if the theory of evolution, or any other scientific theory, is false, it will have to be replaced by another scientific theory that explains the observed facts better than the present theory. The tentative nature of theories does not mean that a scientific theory that explains the observed facts in a naturalistic way and a religious doctrine that invokes miracles or direct divine intervention are equally plausible or equally well supported by evidence.

You said that 'We can proven (sic) gravity exists.' However, as has been explained many times, science does not deal in proofs; gravitation and general relativity are both theories, and both may eventually be replaced by better theories. Nonetheless, that does not mean that intelligent falling and angels pushing the planets around their orbits are as good ideas as the theory of gravitation.

 

[TLK Valentine]

why?

not why, what?

as in, what else ya got?

 

[Ophiolite]

If needed, I read it in Russian.

Do you have a Doctorate in equivocation? Do you or do you not read the Bible in the original languages in which it is written?

I also wonder if you realise the harm you are doing to your espoused religion by your approach on this forum. People are generaly not attracted to such a self satisfied one.

 

[bhsmte]

It is the truth that sets us free.

And the truth is, any theocracy, would limit free will and choice.

 

[bhsmte]

Rocks have their own mechanism of metabolism.

Which is, what exactly? And please, be specific.

 

[joshua 1 9]

And the truth is, any theocracy, would limit free will and choice.

I am not sure that word is in the Bible. I just repeated something I heard somewhere. It was a lot easier then to try to explain what the Bible says to people that do not seem to be interested in learning what the Bible teaches.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The question you raised is how evolution should be taught.

There is a lot of work that goes into text books. There is a lot of discussion about what should go into a text book. Perhaps you should get onto a board of education so you can be a part of that process if you have opinions on the subject. Knock on a few doors, talk to a few people. It should not be difficult to get the job if you feel qualified to do it.

Another option could be the parent teacher association. They like for parents to get involved in helping out at the schools. They also are sensitive to what the parents want in the text books and in the library.