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

Is there an correlation between lower levels of education and belief in creationism perhaps? The more generally ignorant you are the more you are inclined to believe?

---

Common sense isn't

Believe is something you do without evidence (at least in the context we are discussing within).

---

Common sense isn't

Well, you've shown no sign of being someone who is going to make a dent. You have to actually understand what you are attacking before you have much chance of succeeding.Since you seem to think that the full breadth from tadpole to man is wrong perhaps you could find the macro and micro evolution discussion threads and put your case forward.this one might be appropriate:
http://EvC Forum: Question....(What is difference between micro and macro evolution?

---

Common sense isn't

By dent I meant, of course, showing scientific evidence and reasoning against the fact of evolution and/or the theory of evolution.You are very big an bold statments but as yet have offered nothing to support what you say but those assertions. Some of those assertions also demonstrate that you are willing to make the mistake of attacking a well developed position with you know nothing about.Based on that I'm sure if the ToE is going to be modified it won't be anything you do.

I'm afraid you don't understand the significance of it being a theory. That is a topic that has been covered quite a bit. In fact, I think Answers in Genesis suggests avoiding that particular arguement.Changing spots? Actually, on some occasions that happens. Not often of course but some creationists do realize that maybe they have not been told the whole truth. (Of course, you can't really tell from what someone posts here).

The problem is you don't know anything about what you are arguing with.

Was anyone argueing against God? I don't. Some do but only if the believer makes it possible. The majority of Christians don't do that. Some Christians, for some strange reason, make it possible and even easy to argue against God. They even go on and on about God as if they understand Him and seem to think they know all about how He choose to build the world and it's life.I do happen to understand electricity. I don't understand God.

Do you actually think that anyone said that? Another example of you knowing nothing about what you are agruing against. It is fine to make little jokes now and then. It isn't a good idea to hide behind them rather than showing that you understand the point made.You whole last paragraph is another example of how little you know about what you are going on about. A lot of scientists are Christian and the majority of Christians have no problem with what we learn through the process of science.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-06-2004]

Then open a thread and explain it.or you might read the creationist answers in genesis

quote:

---

‘Evolution is just a theory.’
What people usually mean when they say this is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ (Therefore that is what they should say.) The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye—Hckel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin—Landau/Verwey—Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

---

Then you could try and show why it is a hypothesis or conjecture and in what way it is unsubstantiated. It seems at least this site does understand the use of the term. You obviously don't.

You don't seem to pay attention to what you post do you? The reasons you give for not teaching is that it isn't a valid theory. However, you are incapable of showing that.Therefore the only reason you have left for not teaching it is that you don't know it yourself and you are of such a weak form of faith that your faith is in danger if scientific ideas are taught. There is no reason for anyone else to listen to you.Why bother posting if you can't say anything worth listening to.

Ok, taking a break. Will I get some hint as to when it would be ok to start up again?

I was inclinded to argee with you Mike, I do have a serious spelling problem myself. ( ) I am also a bit too lazy to proof read eveything I write.I guess I can see Schraf's point too though. In this particular context (that of education) it does look a little foolish doesn't it?

AH HA! Gotcha, you didn't notice my spelling mistake! Which was actually a real one.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-06-2004]

Well I didn't set it deliberately. I actually made the error. But then deliberately didn't correct it. (and I'm not sure I have deliberately spelled right either).No, not evil little creo. By definition creo's are god fearing and therefore can not be 'evil'. It is atheists that are, by definition, evil. Creo's are all ignorant, by definition. We need to keep our designated faults straight.

Show me where in my TV remote instruction manual God is. Is it anti God?Darwin, in fact, in "The Origin of Species"

quote:

---

He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication, in this particular manner, so as often to become striped like the other species of the genus; and that each has been created with a strong tendency, when crossed with species inhabiting distant quarters of the world, to produce hybrids resembling in their stripes, not their own parents, but other species of the genus. To admit this view is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for an unknown cause. It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception; I would almost as soon believe with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells now living on the sea-shore.

---

Which is both your mention of God and is explicit in saying that the living things are works of God and warns about the kind of thing you are doing to Christianity.It is after all a scientific work. You would not find such references today. This is not because they are anti God (remember that about 40% of scientists are believers) but because like my TV remote manual it is not relevant.I am very sure you never looked at it close enough. It is a surprisingly good read. It is however more than a century out of date now and there are much better explanations of current theory.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-07-2004]