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

You are right, of course, unfortunately. I just want this person to support how evolution is AntiGod. The rest I'm trying to ignore for now. It's diffcult.

It is YOUR claim, provide proof!

I think the evolution thing I outlined. And challenged someone to show how it isn't. Oldest book? Well, in the sense that God wrote it, and it covers things right up to the point where there is no such thing as PREhistoric! Dinosaurs, planets, you name it, man also! So, whether theres a parcment older than the first scripture writing He deliverd, is not a big issue for me. Like I said, if you know of one, share it. It really does not matter to me. So if you want to get hung up on it, that's your problem, besides, even if there was some pre flood writings of some kind, we don't know about them, so He simply made a copy of them, and included them in the latest delivery, so to speak! The fact that they go right to the beginning is what I was really trying to get at there.

Can I inject a small aside here? I apologise to the moderators if they feel this is off-topic, but I think this needs to be said. The ToE doesn't have to be anti-God and I don't feel it's ever been represented as such except by people who believe in the Genesis version of Creation. All the ToE does is provide evidence that is contrary to the Genesis version and in fact there is much evidence against it. However, that doesn't have to remove God as the Creator or say that God IS NOT the Creator. All it means is that it didn't happen the way Genesis describes it. Considering that Genesis gives TWO versions of Creation, one mutually exclusive of the other, I think that demonstrates that you can't take Genesis literally.Creation by God has been suggested to be the generation of the first self-replicating molecule, or the fundamental chemical properties of water, carbon and hydrogen and their interactions, or even the setting in place of the physical laws which govern the Universe. If God had a hand in the creation of any of there then he is still deemed the creator of life, since life would never have evolved given different conditions.14gipper, many scientists who find the ToE the best explanation so far are also believing and practicing Christians and I include myself here. I stated before on this forum that whether God created the world in six days or not doesn't change my view that He sent His Son to die for my sins and that's what being a Christian is all about ie a belief in Christ.I don't want my child taught religious doctrine in Science class because I want him to hear about religion from someone who knows something about religion. Same as I want science taught by someone who knows about science, French by someone who can at least get by in French and mathematics by someone who can properly explain mathematical principles to him. I could happily teach science, but I certainly could not teach religion - I am not an expert, or even moderately competent.

quote:

---

I think the evolution thing I outlined. And challenged someone to show how it isn't.

---

I challenge you to show that there are no invisible, intangible half-an-inch-tall baboons living inside your rectum.I say they're there. Prove they aren't.[EDIT: Sorry, folks. Trixie injected a little too much class into the proceedings, and someone had to balance things out.][This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 02-09-2004]

---

"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity."
-Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still

Note: Post 144 was written w/o prior knowledge of post 143.Let's go, gipper!

quote:

---

You have to believe it without 100% evidence! Either side can claim some, even a lot of evidence, but when you get down, you just gotta believe it.

---

You are forgetting that science is a process, an on-going process at that. As long as evidence is being gathered and reviewed scientifically, the process is still science. In science, we never say a theory is 100% accepted. It may be 99.9999999999% accepted, but an allowance for technological develop and revision exist in every scientific theory from big bang to quantum. Remember also that theories are explanations of facts/observations/experimentally collected data/supported hypotheses. They explain natural phenomena. Evolution, at its base definition, deals with changing genetic variations within a population over time. This has been observed in every living organism we have studied. This is a fact. Common ancestory should be considered a fact also, but the scientific community unceremoneously sticks to its over-inflated attention to procedure. (Those bastards!!!) The rates and the processes involved in evolution (natural selection/sexual selection/genetic drift/founder affect/speciation) are definitely, by definition, theories. They are also constantly being revised as more evidence becomes available. They are based on corroborating evidences that support hypotheses that have or are being peer reviewed. There are no sacred cows in science. More on that later.

quote:

---

I stated my opinion that it's got to be God or nothing, if it's mandatory. If newcomers, witches, or pagans, or ateists, or undecided joe citizen, can't have a system that reflects, not a religion (like evolution)or catholisism, etc.

---

Evolution, as stated above, is not religious. Religions are not based on an ever expanding knowledge of natural phenomena. Religions are created by humans for humans for many reasons--A need to know, Fear of death, A common bond with others, Control(usually for "your own good"), Distinction (goes along with common bond with others who are distinct like you). I am sure I missed a bunch, but those will do for now. As far as I can see it, religion contains beliefs, rituals, and ethics.Evolution as belief--saying you believe in evolution could mean many things to many people. When I say I believe you about something, I could be believing you b/c I trust you and have faith in you or b/c I actually have evidence that tells me what you did/said/etc. is true. If I say I have a belief, that belief could be based on actual or perceived or preconceived evidence. My dad/preacher/teacher/holy book told me so. That is the fallacy of an argument from authority. (You should be comfortable with that one.) However, in science, a belief is only as good as the evidence used to back it up. Robust theories, like evolution, don't need belief to prop them up. They stand on their own as good science.Evolution as ritual--unless the scientific method it considered ritual, this one has no bearing in reality what-so-ever! Religions, though, have rituals that strength the bonds and sense of identity within the religious community. They are based on past events or are calls for some service. Examples, praying for rain, Yom Kippur, Easter, Christmas, the Hage (sorry if I misspelled that), Ramadan, etc.Evolution as ethics--all of the major religions put forth a code of ethics for the followers of that religion to maintain if they still want to be considered part of that religion. Turn the other cheek is one from Christianity that seems to be forgotten among many Christians (notice that I did not say "all"). Evolution makes no claims on how anyone should act or which behaviors are appropriate or inappropriate. Science, for that matter, makes no ethical claims in and of itself. Scientists make ethical claims all of the time based on their beliefs. However, these claims are made on how scientific discoveries should be used. They make no claim on the validity of the discovery itself. Religions tell you what you OUGHT to do. Science only provides explanations for how things are. How you use that information after it has been found is up to you.When I say their are no sacred cows in science, I mean that nothing is off-limits. Science is a cut-throat endevour. The only way to get the truth is to be painfully honest. No bullshit, no sensitivity, just plain cause, effect, nature and natural phenomena, scientific laws and principles, objective information, empirical observations, and peer reviews that are civil, but hold no punches. If someone found a way to disprove evolution through natural selection or the theory of common descent, they would be famous. Can anyone say "Nobel"? In the ongoing search for certainty in the natural world, every hypothesis and theory is scrutinized. That is how science works. Scrutinize biblical literalism and what do we find? Untenable positions on disproven myths coopted from other sources. Does this cancel god/creator out of the picture? Certainly not. It just says that the bible is not 100% historically accurate.

quote:

---

As far as dictionary definituions, perhaps we should toss them out of school, as well, since you get sore at them not all being revised yet to give more glory to your wonder theory.

---

I am not saying to throw out the dictionary. There are certain things within a field of study that you either do not find in the dictionary or you find the colloquial use of that term/word. Do people still know what these things mean w/o them being in a dictionary? Of course. Also, if you look under "evolution" in Webster's, it tells you to also go to "Darwinian theory". I don't agree with it being called "Darwinian theory" but the definition is actually pretty good. You need to understand that their were other ideas about evolution. Webster's also tells you to go to "Lamarckism" for that definition.Dictionaries also have a usage guide and an "introduction" of sorts. Read the section on "Aims and Limitations of Lexicography". I found it very informative.

quote:

---

But an aknowledment and respect for a Christian God,-(In God we trust-one nation under God etc.)then make a godless education sysytem, but do not compel attendance.

---

Our public schools are not anti-god or antireligious. Since the majority of the people I work with are Christian, I see and hear about religion everyday in school. Believe me, no one is being persecuted for being Christian. However, snide comments and rude innuendos are presented by some of these so-called Christians about other belief (or belief-less) systems. I think you are confusing public policy with how it is privately enacted. Public schools should be areligious. From what I have seen here in Maryland, and from more recent stories from Kansas and now Georgia, I say that Christianity is well represented in public schools. Just count up the court cases involving religion in schools. People don't sue to take evolution out, they sue to put creationism in. For a great look at two big creation science inclusion cases, read up on Edwards v.Aguillard (Louisiana equal-time statute) and Epperson v. Arkansas. The former is more forceful since it was held by the Supreme Court, but Judge Overton's ruling in the latter is a great read.

quote:

---

the nation is doomed. The heart and soul and very God has been ripped out, and (regardless of still having to allow kids to parade outside pole praying)peoples hearts and wills are not with you. Peoples votes, and money is not with you. God is not with you, and can not win your battles, and protect you. And on it goes till you take your place in the ash heap of countries who rejected God, and were left to your demise. Nasty? no, pity- for the children held to ransom by the state godless system-and the country no longer able to seemingly do anything about it, except 'fiddle' while the last vestiges of their godly heritage are destroyed.

---

Reductio ad absurdum...

Well, football is not pro Christ so are you suggesting that it is antigod??

Please direct me to the specific post(s). At this time I don't have time to read ALL of your posts that are not replies to me. Thanks. God didn't write "it" or the Bible...it was supposedly inspired or something, right? So, are you conceding that the Bible is NOT the "oldest book"?? Because it sounds like you are while seeming to imply it was sooo important to me. I already knew it wasn't the "oldest book" I just thought you needed to admit that this claim was erroneous, and indirectly you have. That's fine.

Couple problems we run into with you line of thinking in post 153.

quote:

---

I think the evolution thing I outlined. And challenged someone to show how it isn't.

---

I explained that evolution is not anti-god, it is areligious. It makes no claim on anything supernatural. Evolution is good science. As good science, it limits itself to nature and natural phenomena. It says nothing about god. Someone else also stated that evidence in evolutionary theory contradicts what is written in the bible. It does, but the bible is not an inerrant text. Claiming that it is undermines its message. I don't dismiss the messages in Aesop's fables just because I know animals don't talk or consciously set up competitions against each other.

quote:

---

Well, in the sense that God wrote it, and it covers things right up to the point where there is no such thing as PREhistoric! Dinosaurs, planets, you name it, man also!

---

Prehistoric is a relative term to categorize events that happened before copiously recorded history. If we are talking "in the sense that god wrote it", then how can you say that evolution is not the way god decided to do things. He/she/it could have wrote the history of life in the genome or the entire history of the universe in natural processes. Just b/c you decide to limit your idea of god, doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow suit.

quote:

---

is not a big issue for me. Like I said, if you know of one, share it. It really does not matter to me. So if you want to get hung up on it, that's your problem

---

Actually, you made the claim so it is your problem to back it up. I really think that you are hung up on this. Why else would you be arguing? The validity of a claim needs to be supported by the person making the claim. Making a claim based on ignorance of the subject you make the claim against is really no claim at all.

quote:

---

The fact that they go right to the beginning is what I was really trying to get at there.

---

Really? How do you support this "fact"? With testimony from the very book that you are trying to validate?

Really? Can you fill me in? Now this I've heard. If God is God why couldn't He do it the way He said? It tells us how many days (morning and evening even, to keep people from getting any confusing ideas), tells us what was made on each day, including the sun! It tells us how many years Adam, and his decendants lived, and it tells us of the flood. Even Jesus talked about the flood Himself, so it's not an old testament only thing. If He is such an incompetent liar, then we can throw out the book. If that is untrue then there is no Heaven, or cross, or thousands of 100% accurate fulfilled prophesy. And no hope. Christians, of all men on earth, are as Paul said then, "most miserable". In other words it's all pointless. But it is not like that. Since the Garden, we needed to listen to the voice of the serpent, or God. There is always both. In this case it is very clear where evolution originates, like the serpent it pretends to offer knowledge, but is a most horrible of lies. (Keeps a lot of people from finding the truth) Thank goodness it can't keep you from from finding God! But there are millions of children being taught God didn't really make the earth. Kinda like Santa, a fairy tale. Instead of having a Friend for life close by, and eternity to look forward to, they have a dark world with little love, a lot of lies, and pain, and no hope. So is a wonder they turn to drugs, drink, anything, and in many cases hate the system that left them so abused? I think God is Love, and people need love! I don't like religion, myself, in the sense that religious people killed Jesus and cause so much war! To me religion is the last thing I want. But as far as getting to know Jesus, and the Bible, and His presence, protection, provision, salvation, etc. I think they need it. If they don't get it at home, if they lost their parents, or were ripped away from their parents by the state, then I'd like them to at least have a chance to learn about how we didn't just all climb out od a tree-and are just animals, in a world that just slopped itself together, may crash into the sun, and there is nothing more in or after this life.

Depends if I am forced to pay for it, deny my faith, and have my kids perform satanic rituals during the half time, and wear darwin tee shirts.

You must be an evilutionist, you have a lot of faith, and you're overly interested in men's rectoms!

then again maybe .000001 %, either way I can show so called evidence for a lot of things, not all important enough to make the case for stealing a child's faith. Guess you left something out. Apparently some people think we were created as well as the moon, and stars the same way, by ourselves. Think what you want, don't touch my kids with it. sounds good it's not a regular theory, or just a utterly godless one, or just an unproven one, but it'a "robust" that you see is a big part of the problem, not all things are good for us, or our children, just because it is knowledge! So dictionary in, bible out?

But it is, guess it was a feeble explanation. A pretty big omission! The reason for everything left out! And knavishly supplanted by something that is the laughing stock of the universe! You think you're fooling everyone trying to sound like it's even handed. fair, neutral! It is a concept that rules out the Savior! So that is not good for children! "Relating to a time anterior to written records" (websters) It's all in the record so there's nothing relative about it! Easy, He says so Himself! Who am I going to believe-you? ( Who seem to believe you evolved from low lifes!)

So, you can't prove there are no baboons in your rectum.So we can all work under the assumption that there are in fact baboons in your rectum.