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 poor hate the rich, the ugly hate the beautiful, and theres those who hate the educated.
Actually there is no science in creationism ...
Though in general they need faith, not evidence.
And some of the more astute realize there never will be any.
You should ask one yourself. I don't think AV knows or cares much about theology other than his own.
Why yes I do. Here is a list of edits of the book, clearly showing the word creationists was changed to cdesign proponentsists in a mangled cut-and-paste. What exactly is the big problem that you thought existed?
Intelligent Design can take a hike.
Cdesign Proponentsists got what they deserved.
Sure, AV. But sometimes it seems like I've been reading your posts for years.That's rich, coming from someone who just joined here.
I have 9414 times the number of posts you have, and you make this doosey of a statement.
Kinda quick on the draw, aren't you?
And some Christians are aware that there doesn't need to be any science in Creationism..
Sure, AV. But sometimes it seems like I've been reading your posts for years.
My understanding is science is Christian.
The search of the manuscripts (turned over in discovery) was to find evidence for court. Everyone in the anti-creationism movement already knew ID was hidden creationism, they knew the DI was religiously motivated, and the faction of the Dover school board that picked OP&P as a text weren't shy about their religion and motivations either.Sorry. I don't buy it. A woman is hired to meticulously scan over the book looking for evidence of religious agenda. Finds a word with a broad definition that had been changed to a term deemed more appropriate (a term that wasn't even used at the time of the original writing) to avoid confusion. And then claims it's smoking gun evidence.
What you can demonstrate and what you can prove in court are often different. For example, evidence that would normally work for non-court situations might be excluded by the judge.If it was so obvious it was religious in nature, why the need to hire a philo vigilante to place it under a microscope?
No, it was always a constitutional issue -- the impermissible injection of religion into schools under the false premise that it was "science". It's not really that hard to understand what the issue was.Thus the trial that was basically a circus. It's such a mess that the accusers are not sure if it's a constitutional issue, science issue, science class issue, or a public school issue in general.
My understanding is science is Christian.
Could you explain please?
The creationists were the ones who broughtThe search of the manuscripts (turned over in discovery) was to find evidence for court. Everyone in the anti-creationism movement already knew ID was hidden creationism, they knew the DI was religiously motivated, and the faction of the Dover school board that picked OP&P as a text weren't shy about their religion and motivations either.
What you can demonstrate and what you can prove in court are often different. For example, evidence that would normally work for non-court situations might be excluded by the judge.
No, it was always a constitutional issue -- the impermissible injection of religion into schools under the false premise that it was "science". It's not really that hard to understand what the issue was.
Science is agnostic.
No, science is neutral, as in non-judgemental.
Matthew 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
The creationists were the ones who brought their circus to town and forced the issue.
Yes, and agnostic is a neutral position. It makes no claims for or against God or any religious figure.
Science is neutral on Buddha, on Shiva, on Ame-no-Minakanushi, on the Flying Spaghetti Monster (food science might caution you about the right way to cook it).
Science just describes what is. And then you and your ilk take umbrage with it.
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?