Why teach creationism in public school science classes?

[AV1611VET]

It wasn't my idea to reject science. I just think that if you reject science then you really wouldn't mind passing it up. And if you really really HATE science or think science is the great Satan, then maybe you should get as far away from it as possible.

I guess Hovindists aren't actually willing to go that far for God. My bad.

And where would you put those who hold science up to a Higher Standard than even you do?

 

[sandwiches]

Does It now?

Well, it's really Christians trying to fit their interpretations of it to what is known to be true and all disagreeing on how far that should be taken.

 

[Hespera]

Hespera, you weren't supposed to point that out. Now I'll never talk them into it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, it's really Christians trying to fit their interpretations of it to what is known to be true and all disagreeing on how far that should be taken.

Then I'll assume your remark was asinine.

 

[Delphiki]

Ok then, how about a split down the middle. We get north and you get south, or we split it east and west or something. Either way, if you agree with realtruth101, then i don't see why you don't just secede from the country and start your own.

 

[Delphiki]

And where would you put those who hold science up to a Higher Standard than even you do?

I would be on the science side. Man, you're really taking this seriously and getting into it. Had I known the topic would warrant a discussion this much in depth, I'd have started a dedicated thread!

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok then, how about a split down the middle. We get north and you get south, or we split it east and west or something. Either way, if you agree with realtruth101, then i don't see why you don't just secede from the country and start your own.

Again, we were here before you -- feel free to accompany Miss Pi back to China if you want.

But we've got missionaries there too --

 

[AV1611VET]

Man, you're really taking this seriously and getting into it.

This is fun -- tragic, but fun.

 

[mzungu]

I agree with this 100%.

I think it's an excellent reflection of the difference between Truth and facts.

The boy in the second panel should reply, "Who cares?"

You should have completed the sentence; Here fixed it for you: "Who cares? God did it case closed"

 

[Delphiki]

In case you don't remember history class (or opted to rejected in favor of the bible), the United States was not founded as a Christian nation. In fact, half the reason we sought independence was to avoid religious persecution and tyranny - the other half being the Brit's imposed taxes. but that's a whole other thread entirely, and shoudl probably even belong in a politics section of the board.

 

[Hupomone10]

His master once said that he (his master) would be 'like the Most High'.

I can't prove it, but this is the story as I see it.

God creates the earth, but He turns it over to Adam, not Lucifer, for dominion.

This incenses Lucifer, who then rebels and publicly announces that he will usurp God from the throne and run the universe himself.

God, of course, won't allow this, and He continues to maintain the universe in a glorified state by supplying it with a type of energy called -- for lack of a better term -- Shekinah energy.

Later, when Adam turns the universe over to Lucifer, then God curses the universe by withdrawing this divine energy -- sort of like saying, "Okay, Lucifer, you wanted the universe, you got it. Let's see you maintain it now."

But Lucifer -- now Satan -- is not omnipotent and cannot generate this energy, and the universe under him is running down; or what we call the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

God is going to step in very soon to put an end to all this and restore the universe to its pristine, glorified condition before the Fall.

Again -- all this is speculation on my part.

That is very insightful and worthy of consideration.

Blessings, bro,
H.

 

[Delphiki]

So inventing a story from scratch and adding to the bible (which is also against what the bible teaches, btw) is more acceptable than just going on what the evidence and facts show you. Interesting.

 

[AV1611VET]

Man, oh, mamma-mia, man --

In case you don't remember history class (or opted to rejected in favor of the bible), the United States was not founded as a Christian nation. In fact, half the reason we sought independence was to avoid religious persecution and tyranny - the other half being the Brit's imposed taxes. but that's a whole other thread entirely, and shoudl probably even belong in a politics section of the board.

Here, let me fill in the blanks for you:

We born-again Christians, including my 56-year-old self, were here before you and Rocky, were.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is very insightful and worthy of consideration.

Blessings, bro,
H.

Thank you -- God bless!

 

[Delphiki]

Man, oh, mamma-mia, man --

Here, let me fill in the blanks for you:

We born-again Christians, including my 56-year-old self, were here before you and Rocky, were.

Ok, so you were born first and likely to die before I do. What's your point?

 

[AV1611VET]

So inventing a story from scratch and adding to the bible (which is also against what the bible teaches, btw) is more acceptable than just going on what the evidence and facts show you. Interesting.

And what does the evidence show us, regarding what I wrote?

That none of it happened?

I'll stick with my supposition.

 

[Hupomone10]

really stay where you are. a guy who 'argues' with nothing but sarcasm and falsehoods is not welcome.

Maybe you will also respond to others who have done the same, those of the evolutionary camp; but we both know that's not going to happen. I understand that because I'm perceived to be on the same side of the fence as AV that I am not welcome here by many. That's ok.

But let me give you a little revelation: you do not own this thread, and evolutionists do not own this sub-forum any more than creationists do. I've seen this type of arrogance in other sub-forums where I've been. There was one in the recent past where the hyper-calvinists felt they owned the sub-forum and it was their home-turf, merely because they had posted there more and some responded similarly to you. Those who disagreed were name-called and if they used even a little of the same humorous sarcasm used by the hypers, they were criticized and discouraged from staying there.

I am not here to try to convince anyone, but as I said before, to learn about people's responses on this, particularly how evolutionists respond.

I had decided last night that I would just look in on this one a little from here on out; but in retrospect, I think I will stay. I start with the philosophical perspective on this for reasons I've already covered regarding the evidence, that people view the evidence in the light of their already established world view. Therefore, it makes sense to start from there.

I checked, and I don't think I've responded to you on this thread, and in this response I've tried to be straight up with you and not sarcastic since you have not done so with me. I believe in sometimes reversing things and giving people what they dish out so they can see what it looks like and how it feels. Most of the time they miss it and merely see you as the bad guy. That's ok. We're in a spiritual battle here whether people realize it or not, and the battle is important.

God bless,
H.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

I like to think so too!

 

[Nathan Poe]

So inventing a story from scratch and adding to the bible (which is also against what the bible teaches, btw) is more acceptable than just going on what the evidence and facts show you. Interesting.

One of these methods empowers the storyteller -- the other one does not.

Which one did you think they'll choose every time? Truth that cannot be used to elevate the believer can always take a hike.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Man, oh, mamma-mia, man --

Here, let me fill in the blanks for you:

We born-again Christians, including my 56-year-old self, were here before you and Rocky, were.

So you're old and wrong -- an all-too-common combination.