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.
The degredation of American Schools.
Then the USA would no longer hold the forefront of scientific research in the worldWhat this would mean is setting the precedent of lying to kids in school on a massive scale. No good can come to any society when it teaches all kids a lie as though it is truth. Look at Nazi Germany teaching the lie of "Aryan Supremacy" or Communist Russia teaching the lie of Marxism.
It would be akin to replacing Astronomy with Astrology.
So, yes, it is better not to be associated with creationists. It's best to avoid that terrible theology.
Because science is man's fallible invention. We must look through God's, infallible Word, the Holy Bible. Yeck
Apparently these types of comments are okay on this forum, at least when directed against YEC's.
This official warning was posted on another thread.Official Reminder to All -
Your views and beliefs will be better recieved, appreciated, and respected, even by those who don't necissarily agree with you, if you stop treating those who disagree with you, like pieces of garbage worthy of disrespect. No one here is in any way superior to the next. We are all equals at this round table of discussion.
I have been quite lenient thus far. No one here has been issued any official warnings. (At least not by me.)
I will not tolerate ant further ad hominems, cheap shots or anything that shows disrespect towards other members. The knuckle dragging, club over the head method of discussion will cease. We are better than that. Any further such behavior, by any member, will result in official warnings.
I agree on the Medical School bit... I help run courses for schoolkids considering Medical School, and one one course, they were about 90% female! The Medical Students I teach (years 3-5) are between 60 and 70% female.lucaspa said:Yes, it is easy to tell by picture.But you are not that atypical as a surgeon. Sorry, but the programs I have been associated with -- both general surgery and orthopaedic surgery residencies -- have had several women in them.
And about 60% of the medical school classes for the last 15 years I've been teaching at medical schools have been female.
Micaiah said:Apparently these types of comments are okay on this forum, at least when directed against YEC's.
How about teaching alchemy as an alternative to chemistry
Micaiah, this is a Christian forum, so everyone here subscribes to what the Bible teaches!Micaiah said:Reading through this thread, I note there have been a number of sarcastic comments, comments intended to belittle those who subscribe to what the Bible teaches, and comments that are derogatory.
They are OK in any forum. If you feel any of the ideas expressed were in error, then discuss the idea. For instance, the statement was that, if creationism replaced evolution in science classes, then the US would lose its current status as a leader in science. Why isn't that true?Apparently these types of comments are okay on this forum, at least when directed against YEC's.
You're the only non-blonde? Boy, that ruins a lot of good dumb blonde jokes! In thinking about it, most of the female surgical residents have been non-blonde here. We have one now that can be described as a "dishwater" blonde, but not a real blonde! I can think of only one blonde female surgical resident. All the rest were some shade of brown or black.ej said:Surgery seems to be the last area of male-predomination here though, no femle Consultants, and training grades about 20% women, I'm the only non-blonde. Could be just that our city is old-fashioned in that respect!
lucaspa said:Micaiah, this is a Christian forum, so everyone here subscribes to what the Bible teaches!
Most of the comments you said were against an idea! Not a person or group of people. You must separate yourself from the idea. Ideas are independent of people. So, you can disagree with an idea, and even call the idea stupid, without calling the person "stupid".
The one possible exception is mine: "So, yes, it is better not to be associated with creationists. It's best to avoid that terrible theology."
I apologize. I should have said "creationism" instead of creationists. I slipped up. I meant creationism. Notice that the reason to avoid "creationists" is not because they are bad people, but because the theology of creationism is a terrible theology. Now, we can discuss my conclusion that the theology is terrible and the reasons behind it.
But if you argue that nothing "bad" can be said about an idea, then there is no discussion of anything.
What you are saying is that, unless we agree with you completely, then it is a personal insult. That isn't true.
They are OK in any forum. If you feel any of the ideas expressed were in error, then discuss the idea. For instance, the statement was that, if creationism replaced evolution in science classes, then the US would lose its current status as a leader in science. Why isn't that true?
Let me help you direct your response: in the last 100 years, what major scientific discovery has been due to creationism? Or, what has creationism predicted we should find in the universe and we have actually found it?
Moderators do not decide who is right and wrongDracil said:So, can we have a moderator here clear this up? Was Micaiah wrong, and the stuff we said acceptable, or was Micaiah right, in that the forum rules do differ slightly from other forums so this sort of thing is not allowed?
I've never gotten a warning from a moderator. I will continue to urge Micaiah not to identify himself, as a person, with the ideas he posts. There is only so far we can go with the kid gloves. If it is disrespectful to a person to disagree with the idea, then there is no discussion and no way to approach truth. Not all ideas are equally true.Dracil said:Hmm, ok, now I'm confused. What lucaspa said seems to make more sense and falls in line with policies on pretty much every single other forum I've been to. So, can we have a moderator here clear this up? Was Micaiah wrong, and the stuff we said acceptable, or was Micaiah right, in that the forum rules do differ slightly from other forums so this sort of thing is not allowed?
Micaiah, they are in line with the warning post. The OP asks a question about what would happen if we would substitute creation science for evolution in public schools. IOW, what are the consequences of that substitution.Micaiah said:It is clear however they are not in line with the requirements expressed in the warning post.
To marry evolution and Christianity a person must apply a mode of interpretation that is plainly wrong. Genesis is a historical record of the beginning. Much of the gospel has its origins in Genesis, and to undermine the truth of Genesis is to undermine the Gospel.
1. You have not demonstrated that a non-literal interpretation of the how of Creation is wrong.
2. Genesis cannot be a historical record because Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 plainly contradict on several key points. You can't have a contradictory history. You can, however, have a contradictory history when the objective is to tell two complementary, but different, theological points.
3. None of the gospel has its origins in Genesis. All of Genesis could drop right out of the Bible and not affect the Gospel at all. What you need to be true in the OT is the Exodus, not a literal Genesis 1-11. This is where creationism gets in real trouble: illogically tying the ultimate meaning of Jesus' life, death, and Resurrection to a testable, falsified literal reading of Genesis 1-11. It is as if creationists want Christianity to be shown to be wrong! Creationism goes out of its way here to try to make Christianity by wrong.
This is why theistic evolutionists end up defending Christianity from attacks by both sides. The last statement is actually one made by militant atheists! It is a militant atheist statement. Why do you want to do that?
That's a common belief amongst those who cannot see evidence for the case presented by biblical literalists, if a slightly harsh one. Many believe that Genesis was never meant to be interpreted literally, and that to do so takes credit from the beautiful world which we study in an attempt to understand it.Micaiah said:How about this bizarre posts that clearly labels those who believe in the plain teaching of Genesis as 'militant athiests'
We are here to discuss, not to slander.It appears to me there is plenty of scope to slander the other side, at least if you are a theistic evolutionist.
You have once again managed to completely miss the entire point of a post.Micaiah said:How about this bizarre posts that clearly labels those who believe in the plain teaching of Genesis as 'militant athiests'
It appears to me there is plenty of scope to slander the other side, at least if you are a theistic evolutionist.
Micaiah, look carefully at what I said:Micaiah said:How about this bizarre posts that clearly labels those who believe in the plain teaching of Genesis as 'militant athiests'
That's a common belief amongst those who cannot see evidence for the case presented by biblical literalists, if a slightly harsh one. Many believe that Genesis was never meant to be interpreted literally, and that to do so takes credit from the beautiful world which we study in an attempt to understand it.
I'm glad you pulled us up on this issue Dracil. Like you I have some
concerns about how we should interpret warnings such as those given above. It comes from the following link.
http://www.christianforums.com/t757...highlight=Creed
about post 27. When I compare some of the comments posted in this thread with those preceding this warning post, I am puzzled.
Perhaps our forum moderators could clarify the situation. In particular, I'd be interested to know what precipitated the warning post on that thread.
If comments such as those listed above really concerned me I wouldn't post on this forum. It is clear however they are not in line with the requirements expressed in the warning post.
Notice you are talking about the belief, not the believers. You can label it a "lie", but have given no reason why you do so or why you think it comes from Satan.Micaiah said:"That's a common belief amongst those who cannot see evidence for the case presented by biblical literalists, if a slightly harsh one. Many believe that Genesis was never meant to be interpreted literally, and that to do so takes credit from the beautiful world which we study in an attempt to understand it."
I think it is more appropriate to label it as a lie from the father of lies (satan).
See post 29.Micaiah said:I think it is more appropriate to label it as a lie from the father of lies (satan).
Can we please have moderators comment on the following:
Like Dracil, I felt very tentative about what could be posted after reading the warning it its context.
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?