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

Very like Santa. But for grownups, too.

OK, one version of Genesis (Gen 1;19 - 1;27)reports the Creation thus

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. And God said "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind : and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let the fowl multiply in the earth." And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said "Let the earth bring forth the living creatures after his kind, cattle and creeping thing, and the beast of the earth after his kind" : and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind : and God saw that it was good. And God said "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness : and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So according to that, God created all the animals THEN created man to have dominion over them. However, in Genesis 2 it's different

(Gen 2; 7) And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.

(Gen 2; 18-22) And the Lord God said "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helpmeet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all the cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field: but for Adam there was not an helpmeet for him And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman and brought her unto the man.

So, Chapter 1 tells us that God made all the plants, then animals then man to take care of the animals, but Chapter 2 tells us that God created plants then man then animals to keep the man company and help him, but they were no use as helpers so woman was created. If we want to take Genesis literally, then these two DIFFERENT ordersfor thecreation of man and animals means that there is an inconsistency. Was it animals then man, or man then animals? It can't be both.This has been covered in another thread, something about "What's the most convincing explanation you've heard for Gen 1 and Gen 2. However, I thought I'd put the full quotes here to save you from hunting for it.

quote:

---

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.

---

If you can show evidence for a lot of things, then why have you not shown how evolution is anti-religious? You keep saying it is, but you haven't explained why. You try to explain that evolution is anti-god b/c it doesn't acknowledge a creator/god! That is not evidence for anti-god. It is evidence for areligious (no religious viewpoint). Evidence for anti-god would be statements that say that there is no god. Since evolution limits itself to nature and natural phenomena, it cannot deal with anything supernatural. Therefore, the theory of evolution has no claim on a supernatural god/creator.What do you mean by "then again maybe .000001%"? You have to understand that scientific theories are tenative--we have to leave a little room for expansion of our understanding. One clear way to see that something is not science is that it claims to be inerrant, unfalsifiable, absolute, proven, etc. In science we support or falsify. The only thing we can be sure of is that we can always gather more information and never stop asking questions. Claiming you know that "evilution" (as you call it) should not be "pressed" on children in public schools b/c you think it is anti-god, evil, destructive, or not science only shows hubris on your part.

quote:

---

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.

---

I touch your children with the principles of honest evaluation, critical thinking, scientific rationalism, skepticism, and peer review. I teach them how to think; not just regurgitate information or blindly follow myth, dogma, or folklore. If some people think something and cannot support it with scientific evidence, then it is not scientific. You are confusing good science with personal belief and comparing science to religious dogma.

quote:

---

sounds good it's not a regular theory, or just a utterly godless one, or just an unproven one, but it'a "robust"

---

You can try to be clever and cute by trying to mock real science, but a robust theory in science is called "robust" b/c of the shear weight of evidence that supports it.

quote:

---

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!

---

Ah, finally you said what I suspected all along--you fear knowledge! You fear the learning process b/c it undoes your hold on absolute truth. Look out, people are starting to think for themselves! Are you afraid that one day your children are going to find out that you were wrong? Why is that such a big deal? Do you want them to be individual Christians or brainwashed "dogmanites"?Good quote from Saint(?) Augustine--"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight...know nothing but the Word of God." You seem to agree with this provision of suppressio veri, which calls for the suppression of truth for the sake of Christian edification. If people like you still had their way we would still be in the Dark Ages.[This message has been edited by hitchy, 02-10-2004]

quote:

---

I explained that evolution is not anti-god

---

You said,

quote:

---

But it is, guess it was a feeble explanation.

---

What do you think your dictionary says about the prefixes a- and anti-? You suggest that evolution is anti-god b/c it doesn't acknowledge a creator or

quote:

---

is a concept that rules out the Savior! So that is not good for children!

---

Millions of muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, shintoists, etc. have a different opinion on this matter of a Christian saviour. Is their opinion as legit as yours? Sure. Is it scientific, no! Is it verifiable, falsifiable, and subject to extensive peer review? No, and it doesn't have to be. Your ideas on god rely on faith. Evidences that support evolution do not rely on faith. They are true no matter what your viewpoint is. (Refer back to my post on the theory of common descent for an example.)What does everyone else think? Have I won the case for evolution not being anti-god? I know people on this post and I have said the same things concerning this topic. So, if we agree that evolution is not anti-god, then I haven't won the case, everyone has! Except, of course, gipper and jazzlover who will argue against anything that threatens their "truth" (or ego)...

I listed 4 creation science theory type topics, in the message that this is a reply to. I have just rediscovered another relivent topic. Creation Science In Schools: Give Us A Lesson PlanTrueCreation once suggested a creationist only forum, and I later re-suggested much the same.I now float the idea of a creationist only "Great Debate" topic, where the proponents of creationism in the schools, especially creationism in the science class, can discuss what they'd like is such classes. The topic would be off-limits to evo side comments. I would even go so far as to NOT want a "side comment" topic, at least for a while.Moose

And amazingly public schools don't require any of those things! Wow.......there are just no words for this much ignorance.So far all I have heard from you is the "You're wrong, I'm right" deal.
Let me ask you a serious question, do you really believe the stuff you are saying? Because I am starting to wonder how a person could be so disconnected from reality in this day and age.

Actually, what it is is a flashback there, like a bird's eye view first, then you pan back & cover a closer shot. It's not complicated at all. The days in which things were created were chapter 1, and in 2 we go back over and cover some more detail, like the woman. As explained, not at all, very simple, and common misconception. sorry they didn't understand it very well.

It's anti God anti Christ, in that it tries to replace God's creation, with the creature creating itself, it leaves no room for the Savior, It says God is a liar, and it was designed to destroy faith in God. Not all knowledge is good, and kid's don't need to be brought up thinking there is no spiritual. Most of the world understands there is a spiritual world, even if it's just ghosts etc. And to the christians claiming to believe that we decended from common ancestors, (like flies), do you also not believe in any spititual? ("God is a Spirit..")? that there is no Creator...some thinking, Sherlock. your godless idea of science is nonscense, in that you don't want to drop your assumptions that you call evidence to mock God, and the same evidence and science that can be used to explain creation. You think you are, do you not, decended from flies, or sharing common ancestors with them? You think you should be allowed free reign with this on christian children? nice try, but I said not all so called knowledge is appropriate for children. Such telling them the flies were their ancestors as well as yours. How dare you tell them science says that God is a liar! Your religious embrace of your 'chosen parts of science'(and assumptions, guesses, combined into religious philosophy that destroy kid's faith) is at issue.

and also of evolution! heres a link to a muslim site for you ::: The COLLAPSE of DARWINISM ::: ! how much more anti god can you get if you acknowlede Him even! And then go on to call His writings a total lie! And then go on to assault children trying to use the veil of 'science'-chosing only those things that omit Him! Talk about the 'dark ages!' You think kids are like mushrooms to be fed bull, and kept in the dark. Your idea of fairness seems to be keeping all god's out as well as Jesus.

Rule #2 of this forum reads, "Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration."It appears to me that whenever you don't like something that's said, you simply assert that it's not true, or that it's just false on the surface, even though you must realize that those debating with you don't see it as false on the surface.Here's an example of what I mean by asserting something is just false on the surface: Common ancestors with flies is indeed a teaching of evolution, and so obviously those who believe evolution should be taught in schools, which includes the majority of our local governments, all our state governments, and our federal government believe that this should be taught to Christian children. Asserting that this is nonsense is not debating. Another repeated and baseless assertion. Assertions such as this are to be supported with evidence. Until you do, then it is you who are putting forth assumptions.People seem to be satisfied to continue debating you, which might just be because it would be too irritating to leave you with the last word, when that last word is just another baseless assertion, but if you registered, you agreed to try to debate in good faith. That means not just asserting, "I guess it was a feeble explanation." It's incumbent upon you to give reasons for what you're saying.I'm not terribly satisfied myself with the following answer you gave, but hey, it was an attempt to explain your position: At least this provides something to discuss and is more than a bare assertion. Maybe you can use this one as an example to follow in future responses.

So, if I go to my local cafe and look at the menu and they don't mention god in the menu, does that mean they are anti-god?You talk about the Dark ages, but religion has held science back and we would still be in the dark ages if we still believed claims of religious people of that day. Science proved that the sun doesn't go around the earth-the earth goes around the sun. Science also proved that the world isn't flat.When you have proved something as fact rather than stating your opinion as fact then please come back to us.Atheist641YOU SAID: how much more anti god can you get if you acknowlede Him even! And then go on to call His writings a total lie! And then go on to assault children trying to use the veil of 'science'-chosing only those things that omit Him! Talk about the 'dark ages!' You think kids are like mushrooms to be fed bull, and kept in the dark. Your idea of fairness seems to be keeping all god's out as well as Jesus.

---

"We are all born in the gutter, but some of us are looking up at the stars". OSCAR WILDE.

Welcome to EvC Atheist641. Unfortunately, you will have to stop frequenting your local cafe for the safety of your immortal soul and the souls of every young child in your neighborhood.If people like this actually knew what they were doing to the Christian faith. They are the ones that should be worried.

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

quote:

---

::: The COLLAPSE of DARWINISM :::

---

Now you did it. Now you'll face the wrath of Andya Primanda, our resident Islamic evolutionist.

quote:

---

And then go on to call His writings a total lie!

---

No, we are calling what we see in His creation (the universe and everything of the universe) the truth!Unfortunately, His writings seem to have been damaged by his editors, man.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

Hey, lucky the person didn't notice my handle name :-) Ops, what a giveaway. Now I AM in trouble...Atheist641 (you don't think that will get noticed much do you???){Note from Adminnemooseus - If you are replying to a specific message, is't best that you use the little reply button at the base of that message. That way little "who's replying to who" links are formed, in various places. Use the big bottom of the page reply button, if you are not replying to a specific message. And yes, minnemooseus and Adminnemooseus are the same person.}{2nd edit - oops, it seems my signature replaced yours. We may have something in the system that needs fixing. Sorry about that - Signature now shut off for this message - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-11-2004][This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-11-2004]

It's anti God anti Christ, in that it tries to Well, I'll try to figure out exactly what it is you want, if I can. It's a little confusing though, as it seems the fellow with the baboon theory elicited no correction from you-as some others didn't so I'm trying to digest how such ignorant 'debating' seems fine with you. Thank you I was waiting for someone to admit that.