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.
Excuse me, but Peoples Temple is not 'my brand of religion'.
Why stop there? What about the use of physics and chemistry to ritualistically shoot millions of Jews?
Arrogance is subjective, and for the record, if you want to go on a crusade against arrogance, I have a couple of referrals -- assuming you're not being selective.Whatever. It's the arrogance with which you dismiss every single viewpoint that's not exactly in line with yours - which isn't exactly rationally supported to begin with.
What do you want me to do? wash your feet first?Like I said, such behaviour doesn't exactly endear people, so you're hardly doing well by your commission.
First before answering the questions, do you realize that the wording you chose is slanted?My question for creationists in this forum is:
When I went through elementary and early years of high school, biology and science were taught without mingling evolutionism as a hypothesis or philosophy of origins. It wasn't needed to understand the body and how it works; neither was it needed to understand math or physics. Prior to evolutionism being taught in public schools, creation wasn't taught either. It was only after the insistence of the educational community that the philosophy of evolution be taught as science and as integral with biology that it became an issue and was pushed to be included.Do you believe that creationism should be taught either with or in place of evolution in public school science classes?
I have many friends and acquaintances who believe in theistic evolution - that there is a God, but that all here happened by matter and energy shaped by chance and that God is somehow behind the "chance." This is a religious belief that is supported in the schools if the schools teach the philosophy/hypothesis of evolution. And since it is a philosophy, or hypothesis at best, teaching evolution supports the religious belief that there is no Creator. In short, IMHO, to teach either one is to support one faith system of the other.it is possible for someone to have a particular religious belief, but not want it taught in public schools because they believe it is not the proper place to teach it.
I don't understand the point. Please define "bad" and what reference we have for determining something is bad as opposed to good. The philosophy of an ever-changing naturalistic universe of matter and energy shaped by chance argues against a "bad" and a "good" and only for a survival and adaptation environment where nothing is considered either bad or good; what survives survives.I think it is a very bad idea to teach a religious concept as if it was science and to force public school teachers and school districts to include creationism (either Scientific Creationism or I.D.) in their science curriculum.
Arrogance is subjective, and for the record, if you want to go on a crusade against arrogance, I have a couple of referrals -- assuming you're not being selective.
What do you want me to do? wash your feet first?
Your fake disdain against my 'arrogance' is plastic -- clean up your own roster first please.
My oldest son is a product of home schooling and Creation teaching and is currently working as a medical assistant at a hospital after 4 yrs while awaiting further med school. It has had no bad effect on him that he or we have been able to discern. And no one in the emergency room has yet asked him where we came from.
FYI, evolutionary principles are very important in medicine and are taught extensively in medical school. At my school, I know some pretty dang conservative Christians but they all accept the reality of evolution and it doesn't seem to harm them one bit.
If you son ends up in medical school, he'll be in for a rude awakening and a lot of confusion during his microbiology, oncology, embryology, and anatomy coursework for sure. So you've essentially ill-prepared him.
First before answering the questions, do you realize that the wording you chose is slanted?
Ex: evolution, creationism
When I went through elementary and early years of high school, biology and science were taught without mingling evolutionism as a hypothesis or philosophy of origins. It wasn't needed to understand the body and how it works; neither was it needed to understand math or physics. Prior to evolutionism being taught in public schools, creation wasn't taught either. It was only after the insistence of the educational community that the philosophy of evolution be taught as science and as integral with biology that it became an issue and was pushed to be included.
My answer, leave out both; neither are needed for a study of science or biology. One could argue the need for it in a study of archaeology, but even then the objective stance of science would argue for both hypotheses to be presented. For instance, it could be mentioned that C-14 which decays in about 1 million years to non-traceable levels, is nevertheless found in diamonds which are formed under tremendous pressure and then sit for the remainder of their life. This could be mentioned as a fact that doesn't line up with the hypothesis that diamonds were formed millions of years ago.
I have many friends and acquaintances who believe in theistic evolution - that there is a God, but that all here happened by matter and energy shaped by chance and that God is somehow behind the "chance." This is a religious belief that is supported in the schools if the schools teach the philosophy/hypothesis of evolution. And since it is a philosophy, or hypothesis at best, teaching evolution supports the religious belief that there is no Creator. In short, IMHO, to teach either one is to support one faith system of the other.
I don't understand the point. Please define "bad" and what reference we have for determining something is bad as opposed to good. The philosophy of an ever-changing naturalistic universe of matter and energy shaped by chance argues against a "bad" and a "good" and only for a survival and adaptation environment where nothing is considered either bad or good; what survives survives.
My oldest son is a product of home schooling and Creation teaching and is currently working as a medical assistant at a hospital after 4 yrs while awaiting further med school. It has had no bad effect on him that he or we have been able to discern. And no one in the emergency room has yet asked him where we came from.
I personally worked as a nuclear reactor operator for 20 years in nuclear reactor facilities, and never once did my belief in creation as opposed to the evolution of uranium ever affect my job or my ability to protect the health and safety of the general public. It could be argued, however, that the ethic that says lies and misrepresentations of the truth are ok because there are no moral absolutes may have had a detrimental effect in the plants in Japan.
My use of "evolutionism" and "creation" is not to be contrary, but merely to point out that there is bias also in the evolution community, even from the very foundation of the argument. Not from you, but from those who have termed it so.
Thanks,
H.
mingling evolutionism as a hypothesis or philosophy of origins.
Prior to evolutionism being taught in public schools,
And since it is a philosophy, or hypothesis at best, teaching evolution
For instance, it could be mentioned that C-14 which decays in about 1 million years to non-traceable levels, is nevertheless found in diamonds
I think you'll find that jettisoning macroevolution won't send us back to the Stone Age.Why are creationists hell bent on regressing the USA into the stone age?
I personally worked as a nuclear reactor operator for 20 years in nuclear reactor facilities, and never once did my belief in creation as opposed to the evolution of uranium ever affect my job or my ability to protect the health and safety of the general public.
It could be argued, however, that the ethic that says lies and misrepresentations of the truth are ok because there are no moral absolutes may have had a detrimental effect in the plants in Japan.
They both accurately and concisely convey the subject at hand: the former refers to a biological phenomenon called evolution, and more generally to the scientific theory of common descent. The latter, on the other hand, refers to a religious belief regarding a Creation event: God created the world, life, and/or humans.First before answering the questions, do you realize that the wording you chose is slanted?
Ex: evolution, creationism
As well it should be: the theory of common descent underpins all of biology, is universally and unanimously accepted by the tens of thousands of scientists who utilise it every day, and is supported by mountains of evidence (literally: the mountains themselves constitute and contain evidence).When I went through elementary and early years of high school, biology and science were taught without mingling evolutionism as a hypothesis or philosophy of origins. It wasn't needed to understand the body and how it works; neither was it needed to understand math or physics. Prior to evolutionism being taught in public schools, creation wasn't taught either. It was only after the insistence of the educational community that the philosophy of evolution be taught as science and as integral with biology that it became an issue and was pushed to be included.
C-14 decays into C-12, with a half-life of 5,400 years. Since there is no detectable traces of C-14 in allegedly old diamonds (as opposed to newer, or artificial diamonds), and since this is exactly what we'd expect if said diamonds really were millions of years old... I don't really see the problem.My answer, leave out both; neither are needed for a study of science or biology. One could argue the need for it in a study of archaeology, but even then the objective stance of science would argue for both hypotheses to be presented. For instance, it could be mentioned that C-14 which decays in about 1 million years to non-traceable levels, is found in diamonds which are formed under tremendous pressure. This could be mentioned as a fact that doesn't line up with the hypotheses that diamonds were formed millions of years ago.
Your logic is both invalid and unsound.I have many friends and acquaintances who believe in theistic evolution - that there is a God, but that all here happened by matter and energy shaped by chance and that God is somehow behind the "chance." This is a religious belief that is supported in the schools if the schools teach the philosophy/hypothesis of evolution. And since it is a philosophy, or hypothesis at best, teaching evolution supports the religious belief that there is no Creator. In short, IMHO, to teach either one is to support one faith system of the other.
Ex: evolution, creationism
I think you'll find that jettisoning macroevolution won't send us back to the Stone Age.
After all, it didn't get us out of the Stone Age, and it won't send us back.
What does this have to to with the Stone Age?If we draw lines in the sand that science cannot cross, then we do ourselves a disservice.
What does this have to to with the Stone Age?
And if we cross over lines we shouldn't cross over, what then? do people get blown up or something?
I am using the term that creationists themselves use. I don't see the problem in any case, since it is indeed, an "ism," or belief.First before answering the questions, do you realize that the wording you chose is slanted?
Ex: evolution, creationism
When I went through elementary and early years of high school, biology and science were taught without mingling evolutionism as a hypothesis or philosophy of origins. It wasn't needed to understand the body and how it works; neither was it needed to understand math or physics. Prior to evolutionism being taught in public schools, creation wasn't taught either. It was only after the insistence of the educational community that the philosophy of evolution be taught as science and as integral with biology that it became an issue and was pushed to be included.
Sorry but how can teaching the defining theory of modern biology not be necessary in a biology class? Oh, and you are wrong about carbon in diamonds, but that is not directly relevant to biology in any case.. that is geology.My answer, leave out both; neither are needed for a study of science or biology. One could argue the need for it in a study of archaeology, but even then the objective stance of science would argue for both hypotheses to be presented. For instance, it could be mentioned that C-14 which decays in about 1 million years to non-traceable levels, is nevertheless found in diamonds which are formed under tremendous pressure and then sit for the remainder of their life. This could be mentioned as a fact that doesn't line up with the hypothesis that diamonds were formed millions of years ago.
No religious beliefs should be taught in public schools. The courts have ruled that it is unconstitutional. Evolution is a scientific theory (yes, a theory, not an hypothesis) and says nothing about God. Therefore, there is no reason that it violates the Constitution. The fact that theistic evolutionists have managed to reconsile their religious beliefs with science and you haven't isn't anyone's problem but your own.I have many friends and acquaintances who believe in theistic evolution - that there is a God, but that all here happened by matter and energy shaped by chance and that God is somehow behind the "chance." This is a religious belief that is supported in the schools if the schools teach the philosophy/hypothesis of evolution. And since it is a philosophy, or hypothesis at best, teaching evolution supports the religious belief that there is no Creator. In short, IMHO, to teach either one is to support one faith system of the other.
I don't understand the point. Please define "bad" and what reference we have for determining something is bad as opposed to good. The philosophy of an ever-changing naturalistic universe of matter and energy shaped by chance argues against a "bad" and a "good" and only for a survival and adaptation environment where nothing is considered either bad or good; what survives survives.
That's as may be, but his religious beliefs will surely be in conflict with what he will learn in Med school. I guess as long as he does not allow his beliefs to interfer with learning his trade, it will not be a problem. Coming up with new ideas in medicine would likely be handicapped if he remained a creationist, however. This is a direction he may not decide to go.My oldest son is a product of home schooling and Creation teaching and is currently working as a medical assistant at a hospital after 4 yrs while awaiting further med school. It has had no bad effect on him that he or we have been able to discern. And no one in the emergency room has yet asked him where we came from.
What does that have to do with the theory of evolution? Why should a lack of moral absolutes be detrimental to following the cultural ethics of one's own society?I personally worked as a nuclear reactor operator for 20 years in nuclear reactor facilities, and never once did my belief in creation as opposed to the evolution of uranium ever affect my job or my ability to protect the health and safety of the general public. It could be argued, however, that the ethic that says lies and misrepresentations of the truth are ok because there are no moral absolutes may have had a detrimental effect in the plants in Japan.
Evolutionism is not a term I use, nor any one I know uses, other than some creationists like yourself.My use of "evolutionism" and "creation" is not to be contrary, but merely to point out that there is bias also in the evolution community, even from the very foundation of the argument. Not from you, but from those who have termed it so.
Thanks,
H.
What does this have to to with the Stone Age?
And if we cross over lines we shouldn't cross over, what then? do people get blown up or something?
Michael J. SmithWho's to say what lines we should or shouldn't cross?
Even if it goes up in smoke?What I'm saying is that we should follow the evidence wherever it goes.
Even if it goes up in smoke?
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?