AntiGod education should not be compulsary (even for non wealthy)

I repeated this to the guys in my office (all friends of mine and all three of them among the last four or five anti-evolution holdouts in our village till the last few months), and they all loved the way this was put.Unfortunately, 14gipper says he couldn't figure out what you were saying. He doesn't know what he's missing.EDIT: Shoot, moose, I'm sorry. I was mostly done with the second message when I saw your post. I tried to make sure the messages were not antagonistic, but I went ahead and finished it. I hope that's okay.[This message has been edited by truthlover, 02-11-2004]

The schools are trying to teach the truth.You've given us emotional and personal reasons that you don't want evolution taught in the schools. However, you have not given any reason for us to suppose that evolution is not true. This is not really the thread for that, but the answer can't be "we need to teach the truth," because more Americans believe evolution is the truth than believe it is not the truth. 49% of America is evolutionist. Only 10% is atheist. Assuming all the atheists believe in evolution, then 39% of America believes in evolution and believes in a god of some sort and therefore in the supernatural in some way. In fact, since 39 out of 49 evolutionists are not atheist, then 80% of evolutionists do believe in the supernatural in some form.Crashfrog, then, is in the minority. (Don't fret, crash, that should make you eligible for some sort of government funding, or at least a 10% leeway on bids for contract jobs with the government.)The statistics are different among scientists, where nearly 50% are atheists and over 90% believe in evolution. I remember it working out to 50/50 among scientists. Does America have a Christian majority? I'd be willing to bet that in a couple decades it won't. If it did not, then would you be okay with education being reflective of and servant to whoever was the majority? What if, say, it were Buddhist?

I see. So how come the fowl of the air are created out of the ground here, but they're created out of the water in the first chapter?

This is hilarious. This is supposed to be an answer to Trixie pointing out that Genesis Two says man was alone, so God made animals, which is an obvious contradiction of Genesis One, which says animals were already made?What an answer! "It was because of what he's talking about here...the reasons-fleshing it out."Do you want to try again?Also, there's another problem in that in Genesis one, God makes man "male and female" after the animals. Male and female at the same time. In Genesis Two, it's man all alone without animals or women, then animals made for man to have a companion, then a naked woman, as you put it, as a suitable companion.This is a contradiction, and "it was because of what he's talking about here...the reasons-fleshing it out," just isn't a sufficient answer.