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

Hey you are the ones offering de facto statements like 'in gunk we trust, we all crawled out of it and this worship shall be enforced by force of law, whether you and the children like it or not -(salam) science tells us so, or at least suggests it in what we like to try to call more than a theory' Keep it pal, it stinks

You seem to be a "I know what I know, and I don't care what anyone else knows or thinks" type.This is a discussion/debate forum. Why are you here?Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Do you know anyone who understands God? If not, how can you argue against Him? Do you understand electricity? same deal. mutations eh? all beneficial right? ha. don't think so I guess it has to fall then! My statements have had to do with not having atheism crammed by force into children falsely called science. You know a lot of people feel a similar way, what do you want, a poll? .despite some trying to dream it is proven. It isn't, except in the minds of the converted. I don't support evolution forced on kids who can't afford a proper education. There's evidence to interpret either way. Deal with it.

Perhaps you could offer us some evidence that would refute what hitchy said instead of just saying "Your wrong!"

Seen anyone who wasn't that was posting lately? I can have an opinion on the education system, without accepting any theory. I know we won't settle the Creation evolution debate here, which was why I wasn't getting in to any discussions so far, if I could, that would debate it's validity, or creation's but as to what kids should be compelled to learn. I know and care what others think about our free choice, rights, education, children, etc. I am short with those holding it up as some god we must pay alligiance to, claiming it mutated it's way to stardom, and such silliness.

Perhaps he could find someone on a thread having do do with that particular scientific debate. My point is, it is a theory, and my concern is how it relates to school. You're not going to convince a creationist, or evolutionist to change spots here.

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.

I have no problem with a religious class that would teach creation stories. Creationism isn't science however, evolution is. So teaching creationism in a science class would be deceiving the kids.Please, I beg of you, back up your claims that evolution isn't real science.

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]

Perhaps it is you who do not understand? Now if it was a fact, that would have some bearing! And I can see many of you don't want to let that stop you. The evolution theory has suffered a number of known setbacks, especially Darwinism. I'm not wanting to dig it all up. How would you feel if I forced your children if you had any, or say a neighbor'skids to study marxism, or Buddism, or any such thing? You probably don't feel it is a religion either, many do! Creation scientists will tell you plenty about the weakness' flaws, hoaxes, assumptions, and so on in the theory. So, back to the topic, I don't want it forced on public schools.

he said this "Evolution is about how life went through mutations and grew more complex" so I guess there must have been some beneficial mutations in multitudes of cases? Do you honestly think he didn't say that? Who supports it, the Democrats? Angus Reed? The league of exrordinary evolutionists? I don't much care if it wins a beauty pagent, judged by evolutionists! It isn't supported by many as well! So what? Anyhow get a sense of humor will you, and stop trying to nag non believers on how they should behave in your mind, or where to send their kids!

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.

I'm happy you would allow some creation in your world. Creationism is based on the same evidence largely as the other. So, it is a matter of how we interpret it. Teaching Evolution in religion class would be better. I wouldn't support anyone who teaches it personally, as I believe it is harmful, and wrong. That's my vote.