Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

My initial reaction, emphasis added: What the hell is he even talking about? His word choice makes absolutely no sense at all! Or to paraphrase Inigo Montoya: "He keeps using that word. I don't think it means what he thinks it means."There are four words that he needs to learn:

1. sight -- noun Various meanings, including the ability to see, something to be seen, the appearance of something seen, the ability to perceive and or imagine solutions (AKA "having vision").
   ​
2. site -- noun a location where something is placed, constructed, or scheduled to occur. Eg, a web site, the site of a rally.
           verb to place something on a site or in position
   ​
3. cite -- verb to quote a source, to reference a source usually in a bibliography.
   ​
4. citation -- noun The noun that is based on the verb, cite. Various meanings, but it appears that EWolf wanted to use this word's meaning of "something being quoted."

Words have meaning! Ignoring that simple fact reduces one's writings to nonsense. Besides, I learned to read by recognizing words, not by having to sound out everything aloud in my head (ie, my lips do not have to move when I read), so egregiously wrong word choice only generates confusion (eg, "Your welcome." which always has me asking, "My [i]what?[i]")  In Eisenstein's classic Alexander Nevsky (1938 -- included in the world's 100 best motion pictures), the most unforgettable scene after the Battle of the Ice (on the ice of frozen Lake Chudskoe where the ice breaks under the Teutonic knights who then fall through to their deaths), is the slaughter of the babies. The Teutonic knights from Poland were accompanied by their Catholic priests. In the depiction of the massacre of Pskov, the priests would baptize the babies to make them Catholic and then immediately kill them (I seem to recall by throwing them into a bonfire). Similarly, we have stories of Catholic missionaries in newly conquered regions baptizing native babies so that they may be "saved" and then dashing their brains against the rocks in order to keep them from losing salvation by reverting to their savage ways -- please remind me again just exactly who the savages are in those stories.Ah, the incomprehensible mysteries of "Christian love"! I anticipate Texas passing another "right to life" law offering $10,000 bounties to vigilantes for every baby they can "save" by killing it. Of course, they would have to baptize the baby just before killing it, so they would have to be invested with powers to baptize. I'm sure that Internet sites will spring up where you could buy ordination in an on-line "church" in the same way that you can be ordained to perform marriages. As is my view too. Amazing how they can worship a book as being the ultimate source of all morality while it is actually so morally reprehensible.

Wow, another "I have no idea how to respond so I shall just reframe the same issues I already raised" post. You're doing great. From the Forum Guidelines:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Since you're new here I gave them a quick look anyway. Where would you say you rank on the gullibility scale? Looks to me like it must be pretty high if you really believe that "Teenage pregnancy rates have gone up 500% since 1962." Here's a graph of teenage pregnancy rates for ages 15-19 for the years 1940-1918: Would you say your guy is a bit off? If teenage pregnancy rates had really gone up by 500% since 1962 when it was about 85 per thousand, that would put it at about 500 per thousand today. It would mean half of all girls 15-19 are getting pregnant. Does that sound right to you? Does it sound even remotely possible given that only 40% are sexually active (not counting those who are married)?So how far off is your guy? The figure today is actually about 17 per thousand, so he was 3000% off. He also had the trend precisely backward. Since 1962 when the Supreme Court ruled on school prayer the teenage pregnancy rate has been steadily falling, not rising.Your guy is also wrong about school prayer being removed from public schools. Prayer is still allowed in schools. It just can't be prayer promoted by school officials because, you know, that would be state promoted religion.Look, Mr. Wolf or whatever you'd like us to call you, think about what you're trying to accomplish. You're not going to be able to get away with bullshit here. All you're going to do is destroy your credibility, especially if you persist with your "I'm going to ignore rebuttals and plow ahead repeating the same questions in different ways" approach. It's just going to irritate people and invite derision and mockery. Play things straight, get your facts right, and let's have a genuine and productive discussion.But I think your guy is right about declining SAT scores. Everyone knows that if you don't pray before an important test that you won't do well. Let's see if your second guy fares any better. Nope, he's a liar, too: "After 1963 pregnancies increased 187% in the next 15 years." Look at the above graph. Does it look like teenage pregnancies increased after 1963 to you? Did you ever hear of vetting your sources, or do you pass stuff on as gospel if you like the sound of it?This guy also says, "For younger girls, ages 10 to 14 years, pregnancies since 1963 are up 553%." I couldn't find figures all the way back to 1963, but here's a graph that goes back to 1970: Look's like one of your guys is wrong again. By the way, even if other circumstances had remained the same, the pregnancy rate for girls 10-14 would have experienced upward pressure since 1960 because the age of menarche has gradually dropped, approximately from 13 to 11.I thought I might read your links until I found something that merited comment, but right off the top they both contained significant errors, so I looked no further. If you want to discuss the rest of what these guys say then I'm willing, but you'll have to present the information yourself (rule 5 from the Forum Guidelines), provide support from reputable sources (because they've already been shown very wrong), and use your links as supporting references. Again, please present the information you found in those sources - please don't just provide the links.Or maybe you could care less about making a case with evidence and argument. Perhaps you're one of those guys who thinks it doesn't matter if it's untrue because at least some people will end up believing it anyway. Or maybe you're one of those "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" guys. We already know you ignore what people have said previously, but wow! Is the fact that not everyone is Christian just lost on you no matter how many times you're reminded? It is indeed wonderful that Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and Jews are all free to exercise Biblical religion. Uh, yeah! I guess you think being God makes it okay to commit atrocities. I'm through reading your bare links. In your own words, please explain the points they make. Is there nothing so preposterous you won't say it? Here's an elephant staring you in the face side-by-side with a unicorn: I guess there really is nothing so preposterous you won't say it. Here's a house being built side-by-side with God answering your prayers: I hope you're not going to hold up a banana and say, "There, there is your proof of God. Delicious and nutritious, opens easily, and ideally shaped to fit in our hand." But the answer is not, "Generally 'no'." You're just making that up. You've been accepting lies as truth for so long that you believe you have proof in your book. Thank you for that sermon, reverend. We've said that many times, including to you in this thread. Faith deals witht the spiritual and means having no evidence but believing anyway, while science deals with the real world and requires evidence, explication, replication, consensus. You're just going down the list of long ago debunked arguments one by one. The argument that you have to see something or it didn't happen is really brilliant. When you come home to a broken living room window and a baseball on the rug do you say, "There's no way to know how this window was broken because we didn't see it happen." No, of course you don't, that would be idiotic.And what about all the work detectives and forensic technicians do? Would you just ignore it. Would you say, "How does one know how his fingerprints got on that gun? Did you see him put them there?"If you'd like to go to an appropriate thread and argue against evolution, hopefully using better arguments than "you didn't see it happen before your very eyes, so you don't know," you're more than welcome to. Here side-by-side with a Lamborghini factory is your claimed creator of everything: And yet evangelical Christians are among the most vehement of climate change deniers. They want to be good stewards of the environment because it is God's creation, but they don't believe God's power would permit human destruction of climate and so tend to be on the side of exploitation of resources. They're in favor of use of coal and fossil fuels, and in favor of opening up national parks and pristine wildernesses to economic exploitation. You're not looking at reality. You're reading a book of fiction and calling it real.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Punctuation.

He shows no evidence he has EVER actually read any Bible, has even the slightest clue that there is no such thing as "The Bible™" or what Christ taught or what Christianity is supposed to be.He is utterly and willfully ignorant and despicable and deplorable and proof positive that today's Biblical Christianity is a threat to all attempts to acknowledge reality.He makes Christians and Christianity seem like excrement.

Regarding the "moral character" of God, I just found the text for this Mark Twain quote.From Mark Twain's Letters from the Earth, at the end of Letter VII (I apologize for any typos in my transcription):

quote:

---

I will tell you a pleasant tale which has in it a touch of pathos. A man got religion, and asked the priest what he must do to be worthy of his new estate. The priest said, "Imitate our Father in Heaven, learn to be like him." The man studied his Bible diligently and thoroughly and understandingly, and then with prayers for heavenly guidance instituted his imitations. He tricked his wife into falling downstairs and she broke her back and became a paralytic for life; he betrayed his brother into the hands of a sharper, who robbed him of his all and landed him in the almshouse; he inoculated one son with hookworms, another with the sleeping sickness, another with gonorrhea; he furnished one daughter with scarlet fever and ushered her into her teens deaf, dumb, and blind for life; and after helping a rascal seduce the remaining one, he closed his doors against her and she died in a brothel cursing him. Then he reported to the priest, who said that that was no way to imitate his Father in Heaven. The convert asked wherein he had failed, but the priest changed the subject and inquired what kind of weather he was having, up his way.

---

One should be careful what one wishes for, for fear of actually getting it.

EWolf's ideas about education seem to consist of nothing but dunnage (a play on what I recall his original "nom de forum" to have been). If he were to have any clue, then he would know better to advance his "arguments."In Message 2004 I quoted briefly from the State Board of Education Policy on the Teaching of Natural Sciences found in the 1990 Science Framework for California Public Schools Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve; that policy statement superceded the 1972 Anti-Dogmatism Policy. In Message 2004 my citation (EWolf: do please note that word choice which is totally unrelated to the word, "sight"):

quote:

---

"Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding."
and later in the same document:

​

"We repeat here the fundamental conviction of this framework: Education does not compel belief; it seeks to encourage understanding. Nothing in science, or in any other field, should be taught dogmatically. But teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth. In science, there is no truth. There is only knowledge that tests itself and builds on itself constantly. This is the message that students should take away with them."

---

Eleven years ago in this very same topic, in Message 133 I quoted that policy in full and quote it in full again here for EWolf's edification:

quote:

---

The domain of the natural sciences is the natural world. Science is limited by its tools — observable facts and testable hypotheses.

​

Discussions of any scientific fact, hypothesis, or theory related to the origins of the universe, the earth, and life (the how) are appropriate to the science curriculum. Discussions of divine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes (the why) are appropriate to the history-social science and English-language arts curricula.

​

Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. Dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.

​

To be fully informed citizens, students do not have to accept everything that is taught in the natural science curriculum, but they do have to understand the major strands of scientific thought, including its methods, facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws.

​

A scientific fact is an understanding based on confirmable observations and is subject to test and rejection. A scientific hypothesis is an attempt to frame a question as a testable proposition. A scientific theory is a logical construct based on facts and hypotheses that organizes and explains a range of natural phenomena. Scientific theories are constantly subject to testing, modification, and refutation as new evidence and new ideas emerge. Because scientific theories have predictive capabilities, they essentially guide further investigations.

​

From time to time natural science teachers are asked to teach content that does not meet the criteria of scientific fact, hypothesis, and theory as these terms are used in natural science and as defined in this policy. As a matter of principle, science teachers are professionally bound to limit their teaching to science and should resist pressure to do otherwise. Administrators should support teachers in this regard.

​

Philosophical and religious beliefs are based, at least in part, on faith and are not subject to scientific test and refutation. Such beliefs should be discussed in the social science and language arts curricula. The Board's position has been stated in the History-Social Science Framework (adopted by the Board).1 If a student should raise a question in a natural science class that the teacher determines is outside the domain of science, the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural science and encourage the student to discuss the question further with his or her family and clergy.

​

Neither the California nor the United States Constitution requires that time be given in the curriculum to religious views in order to accommodate those who object to certain material presented or activities conducted in science classes. It may be unconstitutional to grant time for that reason.

​

Nothing in the California Education Code allows students (or their parents or guardians) to excuse their class attendance on the basis of disagreements with the curriculum, except as specified for (1) any class in which human reproductive organs and their functions and process are described, illustrated, or discussed; and (2) an education project involving the harmful or destructive use of animals. (See California Education Code Section 51550 and Chapter 2.3 of Part 19 commencing with Section 32255.) However, the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, and local governing boards and school districts are encouraged to develop statements, such as this one on policy, that recognize and respect that freedom in the teaching of science. Ultimately, students should be made aware of the difference between understanding, which is the goal of education, and subscribing to ideas.

---

In that same earlier message, I noted:  We normals understand education's purpose to be for the student to gain knowledge and understanding of facts and ideas whether the student actually believes in those ideas or not. Hence we can study any idea without having to subscribe to that idea ourselves (eg, Communism, Nazism, fascism, Animism (spirits inhabiting nature), feudalism, all forms of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, flat earthism, polygenesis (the idea that human races each have seperate origins (eg, God created the "sub-human races" separately from Adam) and hence forms the basis for Nazi race theory and American racism), organized criminal practices). And of course practice follows purpose, so students are presented with factual presentations and analysis but are never coerced nor forced to subscribe to the ideas. One of the bottom lines is that the student is expected and encouraged to think.It appears that EWolf's inability to understand any part of education as delineated above is because creationists' "Christian education" has almost entirely different purpose and goals and hence, since practice follows purpose, entirely different methods. It should be noted that "Christian education's" purposes and methods are very much the same as practiced by most all other religions, cults, and ideologies (eg, Nazism, Communism, GQP-ism). Their bottom line is to dictate what the student must believe and to compel that belief; IOW, the student is forbidden to think and instead is forced to comply.The operative word for EWolf's "Christian education" is indoctrination. And because he and other creationists and fundies only think of education in terms of indoctrination, they accuse us of indoctrination too even though nothing could be further from the truth. In support of this, please consider the "public school edition" "equal time" "creation science" classroom materials, which always end by urging the students to decide between their "unnamed Creator" and "atheistic evolution" all while giving a very distorted picture of evolution and a glowing (and fact-free) picture of creation. IOW, they're using the public schools (a government agency) to proselytize.And to make matters even more muddled, they appear to have an inherent belief that in order to learn something you are required to believe in it. Yeah, I know, weird! That became very apparent in one on-line exchange I had with a creationist. Since practically every creationist I've encountered has demonstrated almost complete ignorance of evolution coupled with horrific misconceptions, I have very frequently (almost constantly) urged creationist to please, please, please learn something about evolution if for no other reason than to concentrate their anti-evolution efforts on evolution itself instead of wasting them on complete nonsense. This one creationist's response was absolute horror as he adamantly refused to learn anything about evolution: "Studying evolution would mean I would have to believe in it!" Complete and utter idiocy! And that is the kind of idiotic nonsense we have to deal with when dealing with creationists. 
So as for EWolf's two specific questions/"points": Why? Evolution is taught in science class. Teaching religion in science class is completely inappropriate. And indeed, EWolf's rhetoric repeated refers to the religion that he would want to have taught as "Biblical truth." Hence, he wants to have the Bible itself, not just the deliberately crafted "Hide the Bible" deception which is "creation science", taught in science class.Of course not! What possible pedogogic purpose could that possibly ever have?The closest valid reason for teaching about non-science subject matter in a science class would be to show past ideas that have since been proven wrong in order to provide some history and historical context (eg, spontaneous generation, the caloric theory and phlogiston to explain heat transfer, geocentrism, flat-earthism (which wasn't an actual thing what with Eratosthenes having measured the earth's circumference circa 240 BCE)). But of course EWolf would then complain bitterly if we were to include the Bible in such a manner in the science classroom.The other reason for mentioning popular pseudo-scientific ideas would be to expose their falsehoods (which "creation science" consists entirely of). Of course, this would have the effect of exposing creationism as the complete fraud that it is, something which I doubt EWolf would actually want. And despite all the creationist talk of wanting "equal time" and "balanced treatment" and "our reasons for opposing evolution are purely scientific, nothing religious about it" (that being the central lie and deception of "creation science", which was deliberately crafted to deceive the courts and the public). And yet when an actual honestly run "Two Model" class was held, the creationists hated it and forced it to be shut down.Somewhere around 1980, two professors at San Diego State University, Roger Awbrey and Bill Thwaites, started a "Two Model" class. At that time, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), then the cutting edge state-of-the-art YEC organization (they had literally created "creation science" and Flood Geology and were the foremost publishers of creationist "educational" materials) was still headquartered in nearby El Cajon and then in Santee, plus they had on their staff the leading professional creationists. Basically, whenever you were talking about creationism and creationist claims, you were talking about what the ICR said. Literally, guest creationists gave half the lectures and Awbrey & Thwaites gave the other half. Now, at many creationist debates it's traditional to have the audience vote on who won -- of course, since the audience would be packed with church groups along with other factors (eg, the creationist being far more experienced in these events and more polished through practice) the creationist would usually win the vote. Similarly, at the end of the semester the students would also vote for which side made the better case. Typically, science would win since now the students could actually examine and test the creationist claims. The campus Christian clubs kept protesting this course and I believe I was told also hold demonstrations against it. Finally, Admin grew tired of the ruckus and cancelled the course.So when they finally get a an actual two-model course in a school, the creationists oppose it. Now of course, in their presentations Awbrey & Thwaites would present the actual science that the creationists were misrepresenting, which means that they were responding to the creationists' claims -- I assume that the creationist was allowed to be present for those classes. In their presentations Awbrey & Thwaites could present what the creationists' own scientific sources (which the creationists had misquoted or misrepresented; AKA "quote-mined") actually said, a tactic that had been used very effectively against ICR VP Duane Gish in debate (overhead projection with two columns, on the left is what Gish said a source said and on the right is what it actually said). Also in one class Gish had repeated their false claim about the bombadier beetle (AKA "Bomby") that the two chemicals in its chemical defense would spontaneously explode when mixed, so Awbrey & Thwaites took beakers containing those two chemicals and mixed them together right in front of Gish in class (as well as in glass!) and no explosion. Gish mumbled something about somebody else having screwed up and misinformed him, but for several years afterwards Gish continued to use that same claim which he had admited in public to be false.Also, regarding those debate votes there is a story. In a report on a debate in Redlands, Calif, the reporter had surveyed the parking lot filled with Christian school and church buses and cars bearing ΙΧΘΥΣ fish and fundamentalist bumper stickers and he estimated that at least 90% of the audience arrived pro-creationism. At the end of the debate, creationism got two-thirds of the vote so the creationists declared a victory. But in reality they had lost about 23% of the audience (dropping from 90% to 67%), so they actually lost. No, not encouraged, since that would involve government establishment of religion which is a clear violation of the First Amendment.However, that does not mean that it shouldn't be taught in the appropriate classes and in an appropriate manner. As the Science Framework says:

quote:

---

Such beliefs should be discussed in the social science and language arts curricula. The Board's position has been stated in the History-Social Science Framework (adopted by the Board).

---

Rather, the appropriate place to encourage religion is in the church, in the public square, and ultimately in the home. The authority to determine what religious instruction a child should receive resides in the parents and in the parents alone! Seeking to have the government take that parental right away from the parents is an abomination!Just what the hell are you talking about? What "evolutionary mindset"? No such thing exists any more than there's an "electronics mindset" or a "muffin method mindset."All you're doing is repeating a fake bogeyman that was created to scare you. If you truly believe that there is such a thing, then you must present it and your evidence for it, and then be ready to discuss it.BTW, there is absolutely no inherent conflict between a supernatural creator god and evolution. An actual creationist believes that a Creator created the physical universe and hence the real world is as we find it because that's how it was created to be and to function. As such, there can be no conflict between that Creator and the findings of science. Conflict arises only when a creationist holds beliefs that are contrary to fact and hence believes that if the real world is actually as we find it then that disproves God. For example, John Morris, now-President of the ICR, stated "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning." Well, the earth is in fact very much older than 10,000 years, so according to him Scripture has no meaning, which I know from my Jesus Freak training is that same as saying God either does not exist or is totally unworthy of worship. Congrats, creationists, you have accomplished what even the most rabid anti-theist could never do: you have disproven God. By "scientists that support Biblical creation" I take you to mean creationists. And particularly those of the "creation science" ilk. Practitioners of a deliberately created deception.Creationists are looked down upon because they are party to a political agenda that attacks science education, trying to damage it and even destroy it. They misrepresent what science is and teaches, often even to the point of outright lying -- while most followers, undoubtedly including yourself, know far too little to realize that they are peddling falsehoods, the better educated creationist know better and yet they zealously push the lies. That is especially true of the creationists with actual scientific training.So, what about their sorry misdeeds and malfeasance is not deserving of being looked down upon?I started studying "creation science" back around 1981, four decades ago. I sincerely wanted to learn what their evidence was, only to learn that it didn't exist. The more I looked into their claims, the more I could see them lying about science. Then I encountered their deliberate lying and other forms of gross and flagrant dishonesty. In all those four decades, I have never seen a creationist present a single valid argument nor truthful claim. Never! Nothing but lies and deception from hypocrites who claim to worship a god that is the personification of Truth. You keep paying lip service to "Biblical truth." Coming from a creationist, I recognize that as code for "even greater numbers of even more audacious lies."Thank you for your "Christian witness." Actually reading the Bible is what innoculated me from Christianity. "Creation science" provides me my boosters to keep me save from that false religion. Considering that about 80% of those raised in the faith grow up to run away from that religion as fast as they can, it is helping them as well.

Hello Percy and the rest of you GuysI always enjoyed your music---Oops you are not Percy Faith that had an orchestra.I speak religion as long as we are talking about religion and education. I think I said a plenty to you guys to the point that I may now taper off unless any of you may have any more unanswered questions. But I hope you wouldn’t mind my adding what I have to say below.One of you said that you were an atheist. May I please share a few things I learned by talking with guys like you?Atheism may only be professed based on denial. Is it possible for anyone to vehemently deny what he was never informed of? Scriptures tell us there’s none good--no not one (Romans 3:12)! We are all lil bad-bads! Our consciences bear witness of this whether we believe it or not. Don’t we all have that sense of guilt that tend to make us want to run from the “Police?” The possibility of damnation because of our fallen nature bears the weight of thousands of locomotive trios that pull long trains on our shoulders. Is this what leads some to the temptation to conclude that God is the cruelest of all beings and to deny His existence for apparent relief from this crushing weight?But this requires forgetting the good news that God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish. . . (John 3:16).” When it’s necessary to turn someone into hell, God is in the position of a judge that puts his own son away for life for a crime that the son committed. What would we think of the judge if he spared the son only because it is his son? The judge would weep at the end of the workday. As written, God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked.Because of the cross, (only what Paul said that he preached), the “banker” of whom we owe impossible billions forgave us of our crushing debt only under the condition that we honestly face up to the reality of and confess the impossible amount we owe. Who wouldn't take up on a bankers offer of such great forgiveness?I remember the day when I came to that point the spirit of the Lord touched me and brought me peace that I never before knew. God proved Himself in a way no other person could have. For whoever may say, “been there done that,” I only advise not to allow whatever discouraged to lure away from this genuine offer.You lil meany-meany guys picked on this po lil creationist so badly that you made me cry (for your sake)! But I'm encouraged that Mr. Reality will take you by your hands and bring what I shared to your memories.Thanx, Percy for the picture of the Lamborghini that I downloaded to keep. It was the sports car of this nature that I had in mind when I talked. But my soul yet sorrows for you guys that even though you showed the car inside its factory, you think that the car somehow assembled itself. I also thank you for the picture of the elephant that you denied existed when it faced you.Happy Thanksgiving Guys!

Yes, you did still never answer my question. Though I'm sure that it's entirely beyond your ability to answer, since you don't know the answer yourself: You keep blathering about this "evolution mindset", but you never say what it is supposed to be. Do you even know yourself? I doubt that very much. You are obviously just vomiting the BS lies that creationists keep feeding you, and then you return to eat your own vomit as a dog does.Which reminds me, you really should try to get around to reading the Bible. I don't mean the few selected verses that you're taught to memorize, but rather entire books or even just chapters from start to finish. You could start with the Gospels -- I always found wisdom in some of Jesus' teachings which contrasts sharply with what Paul did to everything.While you're reading the Gospels, watch for what Jesus has to say about hypocrites. OK, so you are also abjectly ignorant about atheism. How sadly typical.Here's a bit of Scripture for you from Sun Tzu's The Art of War, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):

quote:

---

31. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.

​

32. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.

​

33. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."

---

You are abjectly ignorant of both your perceived enemies and of yourself.At the very least, learn something about any subject that you wish to pontificate about. It's very pitiful to watch you stumble about blindly. 
But at the very least, we could have some fun.You are obviously a young-earth creationist (YEC). So pick a young-earth claim and present it for discussion. After all, it would be something that you wish to force on schoolchildren. And make it one that you actually believe.

If that's what you learned talking to us bad-arsed atheists, you weren't listening.

What I'm still trying to figure out is how you managed to turn the null hypothesis into the default method.

quote:

---

I speak religion as long as we are talking about religion and education. I think I said a plenty to you guys to the point that I may now taper off unless any of you may have any more unanswered questions

---

There are quite a few questions you haven’t answered. But it seems you’d rather talk at us rather than discuss - even though this is a discussion group.

quote:

---

Atheism may only be professed based on denial. Is it possible for anyone to vehemently deny what he was never informed of?

---

Thanks for the implicit admission that God is not at all obvious - that we need to be told about him. Although it would be rather better if you actually used this assertion to make a relevant point.

quote:

---

Scriptures tell us there’s none good--no not one (Romans 3:12)! We are all lil bad-bads! Our consciences bear witness of this whether we believe it or not. Don’t we all have that sense of guilt that tend to make us want to run from the “Police?” The possibility of damnation because of our fallen nature bears the weight of thousands of locomotive trios that pull long trains on our shoulders.

---

No, we don’t. I don’t claim to be perfect or even more than averagely good, but that’s enough for me.

quote:

---

Is this what leads some to the temptation to conclude that God is the cruelest of all beings and to deny His existence for apparent relief from this crushing weight?

---

The real reasons are the Bible and Christian theology. The former paints God quite badly in a number of places while the latter often implies it.

quote:

---

But this requires forgetting the good news that God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish. . . (John 3:16).” When it’s necessary to turn someone into hell, God is in the position of a judge that puts his own son away for life for a crime that the son committed. What would we think of the judge if he spared the son only because it is his son? The judge would weep at the end of the workday. As written, God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

---

And if God is all Christians say he is then he knowingly created that situation. Which doesn’t make a lot of sense (not to mention that Calvinists have a quite different take).

quote:

---

Because of the cross, (only what Paul said that he preached), the “banker” of whom we owe impossible billions forgave us of our crushing debt only under the condition that we honestly face up to the reality of and confess the impossible amount we owe. Who wouldn't take up on a bankers offer of such great forgiveness?

---

Somebody who is not aware of the alleged debt, does not trust that the person making the offer has any authority to do so and who finds the additional conditions - which you left out a rather high price. (Not to mention the disagreements over that price among Christians).

quote:

---

I remember the day when I came to that point the spirit of the Lord touched me and brought me peace that I never before knew.

---

And you also said - or at least implied - that you’d abandon your faith in God if the Noah’s Ark myth turned out not to be literally true. That doesn’t make a lot of sense.

quote:

---

But I'm encouraged that Mr. Reality will take you by your hands and bring what I shared to your memories.

---

Why? You’re hardly the first person to preach untruths at us.

Stop and think Phat. Really, try it sometime. You might even like it.What does the evidence show?Is there ANY evidence that there is ANYTHING but human created gods and Gods?

You're really not are you? You've had it explained dozens of times but you don't actually want to get it.The default position is that the world is the way it seems to be until it's shown not to be."the null hypothesis (often denoted H0) is a default hypothesis that a quantity to be measured is zero (null)."The null hypothesis is that there is no god; you have to prove that statement wrong.
At least get your terminology right.

Does this mean you're not going to address a single thing I said? That appears to be the the case. You're just another clueless sermonizer who didn't come here to discuss but to preach. If you're not going to show what we write any respect by responding to it, then how do you expect what you write to be shown any respect? You reap what you sow. Judging by how much you listen to us, it seems a pretty safe bet that you didn't learn a single thing talking with atheists. I predict you're just going to preach your own opinions again. Yet another unChristian Christian here to speak his piece and ignore people. The spectrum of atheistic opinion is more varied than this. I'm no expert on atheism, but I'm sure some deny the existence of God while others merely don't believe in God or gods. But you deny the existence of God, too. You deny the existence of Allah, Zeus, Odin, Brahma, the Sikh god, etc. The only difference between you and atheists is that they believe in one fewer god than you. Our lengthy experience is that Christians are big on message and short on Biblical knowledge. And scripture tells us the opposite: You can find anything you like in the Bible. No one here feels any crushing weight based on stories from mythology. The cruel God of the Old Testament has no more reality than minotaurs, mermaids and vampires. The God of the New Testament was equally cruel, just ask the poor fig tree and Ananias and Sapphira. And thank you again for the sermon, reverend. You have managed to come here and learn nothing.--Percy

Scott D. Weitzenhoffer from his amazon.com review of Eugenie Scotts’ book Evolution Vs. Creationism: An introduction (2004):

quote:

---

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

---

Hello Paul,Here are my answers to your statements that answered mine in the last post.

quote:

---

There are quite a few questions you haven’t answered. But it seems you’d rather talk at us rather than discuss - even though this is a discussion group.

---

But Don't discussions give the opportunity to share information to help solve the issue discussed?

quote:

---

Thanks for the implicit admission that God is not at all obvious - that we need to be told about him. Although it would be rather better if you actually used this assertion to make a relevant point.

---

Our wayward nature tends to blind us to God's noon day presence, thus making it necessary that we be informed of Him.

quote:

---

No, we don’t. I don’t claim to be perfect or even more than averagely good, but that’s enough for me.

---

Thanks for your admitting that you are not perfect as none of us are. But isn't there a need for us to do something about it? May we go from here?

quote:

---

The real reasons are the Bible and Christian theology. The former paints God quite badly in a number of places while the latter often implies it.

---

Or is it only according to limited understanding that God is painted badly? Do you think that your views of the Bible and Christian theology are perfectly true even though you admitted that you are imperfect?

quote:

---

And if God is all Christians say he is then he knowingly created that situation. Which doesn’t make a lot of sense (not to mention that Calvinists have a quite different take).

---

But we are concerned more of what the Bible says than what people say. Are you sure you correctly understood all you were told about God? Are you sure you are not without a full unbiased understanding of what the Bible says about Him? Should we blame God for man's fallen, corrupting nature? Where is your heart when reading or hearing what’s said in the Bible? To see God the way we see imperfect man is fatally erroneous.

quote:

---

Somebody who is not aware of the alleged debt, does not trust that the person making the offer has any authority to do so and who finds the additional conditions - which you left out a rather high price. (Not to mention the disagreements over that price among Christians).

---

Ones ignorance of his debt does not negate the fact that he owes it. It's unfortunate that many failed to trust the Lord's precious offer of forgiveness and consequently brought unto themselves very great loss. There are Christians that you may trust.

quote:

---

And you also said - or at least implied - that you’d abandon your faith in God if the Noah’s Ark myth turned out not to be literally true. That doesn’t make a lot of sense.

---

When and where did I say that?

quote:

---

Why? You’re hardly the first person to preach untruths at us.

---

Although admitting yourself imperfect, you yet unquestionably trust your judgment that shared knowledge based on Biblical truth is untruth? If that's so then all I shared based on it appears only as foolishness. If you really think in your heart that knowledge based on the word of God is untruth, then why aren't you consistent with it in all points of your life even to the point that the commandments not to steal and kill appear as mythical so that you would violate them with no thought? Would you do unto others exactly what you wouldn't want done to you? I’m sure you would not!I therefore cannot buy any of your or any of the other guy’s claims that knowledge based on God and His word with all of its wisdom is untrue. Neither can I buy any of your other claims against God. Do you daily show that as the way you really think? I doubt it. For one to think in any way that God and His word are undesirable and to be trashed is to fulfill the prime prerequisite to begin walking in and fulfilling the vision of Karl Marx. Is it not he that said "Religion is the opium of the people?" I’m sure none of you have any intention to go that path!I think too highly of you guys to think you are truly against God! Your and the others speeches appear only to be from grudges.Earl