I want some answers

[Powerman]

Well that's 3 of us...

If you don't swallow evolution hook line and sinker that is fine. I admire your skepticism. But you should be skeptic of all scientific theories, not just ones that conflict with Genesis.


But, ID is not a plausible 'scientific theory'

It's just philosophy

 

[LuvRPgrl]

If you want Christianity taught, go to a Christian school or homeschool. BTW, I have little against vouchers, with the exception that it's an opening for the gov't to tell private schools what they have to do. Have to pay the piper, ya know.

If you dont want my kids to be taught Christianity, then dont FORCE me to send them to public schools. And no, not everyone can afford private or homeschooling, hence SOME are FORCED to send them to public schools.

Not to mention, I have to pay TWICE if I do send them to a private school. So, if you want Christianity out, also remove the requirements attatched.

 

[MissileMan]

You are trying to prove their isnt an intelligent creator by using two examples where we know for a fact there were intelligent creators??? hahahha

Ok,,, well, we do have electric cars dont we? Didnt exactly evolve from the internal combustion engine, now did it? Before you make analogies between electric cars and gas cars,,,I can make the same analogies with various species with different forms of reproduction.

Fact is, the electric car would have eventualy came into being if there were no gasoline cars at all. Hence, it didnt necessarilly evolve from the internal combustion engine, otherwise you would have to conclude that all things with wheels evolved from the first one.

But even with an electric engine, it still retains the basics of a car. An inventor (intelligent designer) would not reinvent reproduction for each species, but would apply the first successful method to all.

 

[MissileMan]

If you dont want my kids to be taught Christianity, then dont FORCE me to send them to public schools. And no, not everyone can afford private or homeschooling, hence SOME are FORCED to send them to public schools.

Not having an option is not the same thing as being forced.

 

[Powerman]

If you dont want my kids to be taught Christianity, then dont FORCE me to send them to public schools. And no, not everyone can afford private or homeschooling, hence SOME are FORCED to send them to public schools.

Not to mention, I have to pay TWICE if I do send them to a private school. So, if you want Christianity out, also remove the requirements attatched.

OK this is stupid. If you claim you are FORCED to send your kids to a public school because you can't afford to send them elsewhere there is no reason that you can't teach them your religious beliefs at home or send them to bible school on sundays. There is no place in the public school for religious doctrine of any kind. It's a waste of time.

 

[Powerman]

Not having an option is not the same thing as being forced.

Correct.

You dug your own financial hole. If you are that poor it's your own fault. Maybe you shouldn't be procreating if you aren't financially stable.

 

[Annie]

If you dont want my kids to be taught Christianity, then dont FORCE me to send them to public schools. And no, not everyone can afford private or homeschooling, hence SOME are FORCED to send them to public schools.

Not to mention, I have to pay TWICE if I do send them to a private school. So, if you want Christianity out, also remove the requirements attatched.

You are not forced to send your children to a public school. I guess then the schools should by your logic, also be teaching the doctrines of Islam and Hebrew? What about the Wiccans? Atheists? Buddhists? No time left for reading and writing.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You are not forced to send your children to a public school. I guess then the schools should by your logic, also be teaching the doctrines of Islam and Hebrew? What about the Wiccans? Atheists? Buddhists? No time left for reading and writing.

We are a Christian culture. No need to teach Islam. The anti school choice people in california used the same scare tactics to defeat the prop. for voucheers, "kids will be going to schools to teach them witchcraft"

And prop 13, its opponents claimed police and fire services would become terrible, but it passed and the services only improved. Scare tactics are meaningless to informed thinking people.

So, mandatory schooling to age 18 isnt law? Hmmm, I thought it was.

 

[Powerman]

You are not forced to send your children to a public school. I guess then the schools should by your logic, also be teaching the doctrines of Islam and Hebrew? What about the Wiccans? Atheists? Buddhists? No time left for reading and writing.

That's right. Waste of time. No time for anything else.

 

[Annie]

We are a Christian culture. No need to teach Islam. The anti school choice people in california used the same scare tactics to defeat the prop. for voucheers, "kids will be going to schools to teach them witchcraft"

And prop 13, its opponents claimed police and fire services would become terrible, but it passed and the services only improved. Scare tactics are meaningless to informed thinking people.

So, mandatory schooling to age 18 isnt law? Hmmm, I thought it was.

In most states, it's 16. Whatever, you can homeschool and you can decide it's important enough to send your kids to private schools. Then again, you could just teach them your religion at home and save yourself a lot of time and/or money. Your call.

 

[Nienna]

Here's something in the Bible that may support C.D....

A guy in the Bible named his son Peleg, "for in those days was the earth divided." My mom has an English-to-Hebrew dictionary in the back of her Bible, and when I looked up "divided", the word is "Peleg" which means roughly "channel of water" and is also related to the word "earthquake." Put that in your pipe and smoke it!!

Pretty cool! I am very interested in etymology, nerdly girl that I am!

 

[Nienna]

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. You are implying that the theory evolution is unsound because it hasn't been observed due to the length of time involved. I posted the quote from your link about scientific method that explains how theories are derived in other fields where vast amounts of time are involved, like geology, paleontology, astronomy, etc. not through experiments, but through analysis of the evidence on hand.

The implication wasn't that it is unsound bc of inability to observe vast time periods. I was simply pointing out that, BECAUSE we cannot observe the past we must "analyze evidence on hand" and determine which theory best fits the evidence. This is not operational science, where we can test again and again, like with gravity. We cannot REPEAT the formation of the earth and the emergence of life forms. We can only perform tests on the present environment and derive deductions from our observations.

 

[Nienna]

That's the stance I take. I don't want to try to make you believe ID, just that it is a plausible theory instead of being told I'm stupid for not swallowing evolution hook, line, and sinker.

Exactly.

 

[Nienna]

The vast amount of diversity between all of the forma of life on this planet IMO speak volumes against there being one intelligent designer behind the whole thing. An intelligent designer would not have come up with the varying methods of reproduction for example. An intelligent designer would have applied the same method to all species. All animals would lay eggs, or give birth to live offspring, or would be marsupials, etc.

Maybe you ONLY like to eat eggs. Eggs here, eggs there, eggs everywhere. An INTELLIGENT person would of course abhor any variety.

Michelangelo was a dummy! He should have stuck to JUST painting. Leonardo, what were you thinking man? Didn't you know you were showing your LACK of intelligence when you jumped from sketching to science?

(Just having some fun with you, MM. I mean no offense.)

An intelligent designer would have enjoyed stretching His mind, seeing how things could be done differently, but still perform the same function (reproduction).

 

[MissileMan]

The implication wasn't that it is unsound bc of inability to observe vast time periods. I was simply pointing out that, BECAUSE we cannot observe the past we must "analyze evidence on hand" and determine which theory best fits the evidence. This is not operational science, where we can test again and again, like with gravity. We cannot REPEAT the formation of the earth and the emergence of life forms. We can only perform tests on the present environment and derive deductions from our observations.

That's what I was trying to say also. That said, I believe the evidence for evolution far outweighs the evidence for creationism.

 

[Nienna]

That's what I was trying to say also. That said, I believe the evidence for evolution far outweighs the evidence for creationism.

You are, of course, perfectly entitled to your belief.

 

[Gunny]

I see a few threads here pertaining to evolution.

I can understand if from a scientific standpoint you might not be completely sold on evolution.

But if you believe in creationism or ID why don't you apply the same thought process to that?

Why must there be a high standard of proof for evolution which so many of you despise yet you don't apply that to your own beliefs concerning faith? With faith there is no standard of proof. It's quite silly actually.

Your question is just trying to sneak in the back door when you can't get in the front.

I can only assume you fail to grasp the difference between evolution and scientific theories of origin. ID is NOT at odds with evolution. ID IS at odds with scientific theories of origin for the simple reason that scientific theories of origin are no more or less conjecture than ID is.

And I DO hold each to the same standard. You show me some irrefutable evidence that the Earth/life/Man was created by happenstance, as scientific theories claim, and I'll concede.

Until you do, a Supreme Being is far more logical to me than out of nothing came something.

 

[Gunny]

That's what I was trying to say also. That said, I believe the evidence for evolution far outweighs the evidence for creationism.

Evolution is man's understanding and categorizing life's continued adaption to its environment. Everything is evolving or dead.

If you are saying there is more scientific evidence to support scientifc theories of origin than any religious theory, I beg to differ. You are incorrect.

 

[Powerman]

Until you do, a Supreme Being is far more logical to me than out of nothing came something.

Why not just say. "I don't know"
Why does there have to be this invisible supernatural being?
Certainly he would have had to come from something as well.

 

[Powerman]

Evolution is man's understanding and categorizing life's continued adaption to its environment. Everything is evolving or dead.

If you are saying there is more scientific evidence to support scientifc theories of origin than any religious theory, I beg to differ. You are incorrect.

Well there certainly isn't anything LESS scientific than religious theory now is there?