|
Author
|
Topic: ICR Sues Texas
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Nor is it simply the secular world. The vast majority of Christians understand that Biblical Creationism is nothing but nonsense and "believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as one theory among others is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children." A direct quote from the Clergy Project Letter.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
I see others gave you the link.
archaeologist writes: it would surprise many secularists to know that their beloved science has its foundation in religion and bible believing people: Of course it would not surprise many people, secular or otherwise. Don't be silly. BUT that is only partially right. Religious people have always been involved in learning, including the science, but it was certainly not just Bible believing folk. Most of our mathematics came from the Hindu and Muslim cultures and it was the Muslims of Spain that keep the concept of science alive when the Bible believing Christians of the West turned their backs on knowledge and learning. That continues today. The originator of the Big Bang Theory was a Priest. The point is that your idea that an understanding and acceptance of Evolution is not compatible with Christianity or any other religion has been refuted, you are simply wrong.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
archaeologist writes: one of the things that bothers me is that the christian university/college/seminary does not need to be recognized by the secular world nor does it need to put itself under secular rules. by looking for accreditation or recognition by the secualr world then their curriculums are overseen by those who do not believe and it causes problems, as we can see by the lawsuits. christians, and by extension their educational institutions, are to be the light to the world thus they should set their own rules, and strive to teach the best material possible in the best way that is glorifying to Christ. we do not need our degrees rexcognized by harvard or secualr institutions for that is not our goal. our goal is to teach the truth, teach it correctly andprepare our youth for the spiritual war that they will face. That is called the tactic of avoidance and sadly the Christian Cult of Ignorance seems to be adopting it en masse. The problem is that the world actually exists and many kids can actually think and if you are not very, very careful those kids open their eyes and see that you have been teaching them nonsense. When that happens they no longer see as a child, think as a child, no longer see through a glass darkly. They realize that since you were wrong about the things that can be checked, not just some of the things that can be checked but all of the things that can be checked, you are likely wrong about everything else. The result is that the kids totally abandon Christianity. Too bad but I'm sure Satan really appreciates your efforts.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
archaeologist writes: it is morally wrong for any government to ignore the educational needs of its public by slanting the education towards the secular ideology. it is not correct, it leads believers to sin and it does not serve the community. Sins are between an individual and that individuals God. Sins are nobody's business but the sinner. It is not morally wrong to provide a secular education.
archaeologist writes: since the believer pays their fare share of taxes, they have the right to demand a non-secular education from their public school officials and from the public school teachers. if they refuse then they need to be removed from their jobs for deriliction of duty. Not true and in fact in the US it is illegal. Our Constitution makes a public religious school illegal. While a Christian public school would certainly be illegal I believe I could make a case for a Taoist public school. Would that satisfy you?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 73 of 549 (575641)
08-20-2010 4:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 72 by Taq
08-20-2010 4:33 PM
|
|
Taq writes: Also, I think the UK is allowed to spend tax dollars on religious education if you are interested in living on the other side of the pond. Ah, yes, the UK. Home of the Church of England. oooops...they accept and endorse and teach Evolution and oppose Biblical Creationism.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 72 by Taq, posted 08-20-2010 4:33 PM | | Taq has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
archaeologist writes: yes i know but i thinkit is worse to compell only one part of the population to pay more than the other for the education they want. if atheists want evolution then they should start their own private schools like christians and others are forced to do. First, the goal of education is not to teach the student what the student wants to know but what the student needs to know. Second, atheism has nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution is a fact regardless of whether someone believes there are gods or not. Edited by jar, : figx fumbl fingrs
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
There is no Theory of Creation
Dawn Bertot writes: I dont think you actually think about anythig before you spout off. If students needs to be taught what they need to know, then they need to be taught evolution has nothing to do with origins of things, while they are being taught it as a so-called fact. Guess what? They are taught that. Evolution has nothing to do with origins of life, only the origin of the diversity of life we seed. It is the science of Abiogenesis that studies the origin of life.
Dawn Bertot writes: They need to be taught in the classroom that there are only two logical possibilites as to how things are here to begin with, creation (evolution notwithstanding) as one of those possibilites. Uh, no, they do not need to be taught anything about creationism. It is one possibility under Abiogenesis but so far there is NO evidence that supports Special Creation and lots of evidence that supports physics and chemistry. If and when there is any evidence related to Special Creation then perhaps it might be worth including in a curriculum. Edited by jar, : fix subtitle
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: There is no Theory of Creation
Is design which carries as much weight as macro evolution, taught as a science in this arena Abiogenisis Huh? There is no evidence of either design or designer. Further, even if there was it is worthless, of no value. The issue would still be "How does the designer do things" and so far the only model that has any evidence in support of it is the Theory of Evolution. Of course design is not taught and cannot be taught until there is a Theory of Design that explains what is seem better than the Theory of Evolution does. In addition, Abiogenesis has nothing to do with design, it is simply searching for the ways that life might originate.
Uh, yes they do need to be taught about the creation theory, since design supports it and it falls well within the only two logical explanations of the origin of life in the first place There is no theory of Creation.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: There is no Theory of Creation
Evolution (in its entirity)is not a demonstratable fact, nor should it be taught as science. Bullshit. Sorry but that is simply crap and false. There is overwhelming evidence of Evolution.
Science should only include the immediate and the observable, evolution in its entirity is NEITHER, therfore not scientific Absolute nonsense. That has NOTHING to do with science. Evolution can be observed. We have tens of millions of fossils that show living critters have changed over time. Evolution is a fact.
Now you are starting to get the point, its not a matter of whether you believe there is EVIDENCE of design, its a matter of whether it should be taught as a fact or whether it could be demonstrated as a fact. As I pointed out above, even if there was evidence of design it is not worth teaching. Design and a designer, even ifg they were true tell us nothing of value. It would still be necessary for there to be a Theory of Design that explained how the designer did things. Until there is a Theory of Design that explains what is seen better than the Theory of Evolution explains what is seen there is simply nothing to be taught or included in a curriculum. And guess what. For there to be a Theory of Design it will have to get to teh same physical level involving chemistry that the Theory of Evolution already covers. Design cannot be taught as either fact or Theory but only as fantasy.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: There is no Theory of Creation
Now without getting emotional, try and stay logical and watch where the argument goes. I know you honestly believe youthink you can show me the entire process of evolution, simply putyou cannot. The fossil record while it shows change does not prove
macro evolution. Bullshit. It shows change over time, and that is the fact of evolution. Nor does the fact of Evolution have anything to do with any process. You really need to learn some of the very basics.
For myself design in things is as strong as your belief orobservtion in the natural world. There is overwhelmingevidence of design Belief is irrelevant. Reality and truth do not care what you believe. And as I pointed out above, even if there was design it is irrelevant, worthless, unimportant. I do not believe in Evolution, I accept it as a conclusion.
Sure there is, that it is a very real probabilty as to how life began, considering it has there ear marks of a designer. I'm sorry but that is just another of your content free statements, it has no meaning or relation to what I said or to the fact of Evolution There is no Theory of Creation or Theory of Design or evidence of a designer or evidence of design and your continued baseless assertions won't change those facts.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: There is no Theory of Creation
More word salad. There is no Theory of Design or Theory of Creationism. Until there is a model presented there is simply nothing that can be taught.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: There is no Theory of Creation
Its really very simple, its an observation of the natural order of chemical and biological processes working together and independently of each other to accomplish its desired and designed purpose, or appearent purpose Again, that is not a theory or even a hypothesis. It is also nothing there to teach that is not being taught now. We teach chemistry and biology. If they explain what we see then there is no need of throwing in some imaginary designer. If you want some designer included then you need to present the evidence showing how the designer controls or changes normal chemical and biological processes. So far you have failed to show either a model that includes those designer processes or even any evidence there is some designer. Bring the designer in and put it on the lab table or present a model that actually includes more than word salad and perhaps you may have something worth examining. The important thing is that "the Designer" is really unimportant. Once the methods and processes are understood the designer simply becomes a footnote. It does not matter who designed the first radio, the first internal combustion engine, the first airplane, the first bubblegum. What is important is understanding the process. Once we understand how a radio or internal combustion engine or airplane or bubblegum can be made, it is irrelevant who did it first. What should be taught is how those things can be made. And that is exactly what gets taught today. How evolution can create the diversity we see around us. Until you can show how the so called designer manipulates chemistry and physics there is no worth in the concept to teach. Even if there was a designer, once we understand the process used to control chemistry and physics, the designer gets relegated to footnote status and again, there is nothing to teach but the science, the process.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 135 of 549 (577640)
08-29-2010 9:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 133 by Buzsaw
08-29-2010 9:05 PM
|
|
Re: There is no Theory of Creation
That's because it's so logical and matter of fact according to real life. What is designed and created does not require elitist complicated mathmatical and theoretical concocted assumptions to explain. It is how observed things complex in real life come to be; by planning and intelligent design. More word salad. Please present the Theory of Creation or the Theory of Design and then we can see if it explains what is seen as well as the current theories. Present the method that is used by the asserted designer to control normal chemical and biological reactions. Once we know the method then we can assign a footnote to your designer.
Secularist minded science elitists tend to theorize their way around realism so as to avoid accountability to a higher power. Why do you keep repeating falsehoods, absurd ones at least. I am accountable to that higher authority so once again your point is refuted.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 133 by Buzsaw, posted 08-29-2010 9:05 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: There is no Theory of Creation
Dawn Bertot writes: the manipulation as you describe it is in its self sustaining, self supported, independent order that it adheres to in the first place. It carries out a preprogrammed set of laws and rules. Then the designer is irrelevant and unimportant. Throw the designer away as unneeded.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: There is no Theory of Creation
Please read what you write and are responding to. You even quoted it.
quote:
the manipulation as you describe it is in its self sustaining, self supported, independent order that it adheres to in the first place.
It carries out a preprogrammed set of laws and rules.
You talk about a set of laws and rules. Once those laws and rules are understood the designer becomes irrelevant, nothing more than a footnote, unimportant except is an accounting or historical sense.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
™ Version 4.2