|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
Batwoman said:
Yes there is, it's been proven and both our senior pastors at my church are biologists. In facte Scott, one of the co senior pastors, just did a sermon on proving the Case for God's Exsitence, 2 weeks ago and he disproved Darwinsism. You can Listen to it here. You'll need Real audio to listen. I was there the night of first serivce and it was a great seromon. For anyone having problems with that link, you can find the page with all the seroms and links for each one acrrodingly, here. This is the third week of the series and it's a great one.
Quote:
Batwoman said:
I see everyone ignored what I posted.
You'd probably get more responses if you summarized the sermon and listed specifically the different ways you feel your pastors disproved Darwinism and proved God's existence. That way people will be able to support or refute your points.
Also, you might wanna keep in mind that Darwinism doesn't work to disprove God's existence. It doesn't even touch on the subject.
Actually, it works better when you listen to what he had to say, vs me summarizing it since I can't do it justice which is why I just linked it.
It's a rented tux ok? I'm not going comando in another man's fatigues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
What is SETI?
SETI
Those giant dishes that seach for signs of extra terestrial itelegence.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
I dunno, MICRO-evolution
What does this explain?
Quote:
survival of the fittest
Is that a scientific theory or just a popular set of buzzwords?
Quote:
Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.
This is a classification system, not any kind of explanation.
Quote:
I don't think macro-evolution needs to be taught and i don't think all other topics are exhausted to the extent that if you don't teach it there will be a vacume where the kids stare blakely not being educated.
But if you're proposing to remove something already in the cirriculum, you have to offer something in its place, and you have to have a valid reason for doing so.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
What does this explain?
You don't know?
Quote:
Is that a scientific theory or just a popular set of buzzwords?
I was just throwing stuff out that allready taught.
Quote:
This is a classification system, not any kind of explanation.
So you think it's science classes job to explain something, even if no proven explaination exists?
Quote:
But if you're proposing to remove something already in the cirriculum, you have to offer something in its place, and you have to have a valid reason for doing so.
No, I don't. If I suggest they remove something from the cirriculum that doesn't mean I have to fill it. This is such a dodge, It's not even funny. You set a standard that you thought should bar intellegent design theory from being taught, I said that evolution theory should be removed for the same reason and your response is to say i can't suggest it be removed if I don't fill the cirriculum?  Do you work for a shool board? Please explain to me how that has ANYTHING to do with what we're talking about. Oh and you could alwayse answer my other challenges too, because I'm sure not going to spend my time debating anything so burricratic as what to fill the curriculem with. Fill it with science and not theory if that's your standard.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
See, I said all this: Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Ok, tell me how one goes about submitting intelligent design theory to an empirical test.
Gods existance cannot be tested, but is “Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife” confirmed by tests in the empirical world?
Is “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” confirmed by tests in the empirical world? Breeding experiments have shown that natural selection can produce a limited variation in one kind. Experiments on generations of fruit flies have shown that random modifications of genes can cause a loss of information resulting in inferior mutant varieties of fruit flies, but no new kinds of insects. In these experiments, scientists have not been able to use artificial selection to create a new kind of insect because mutation hasn’t produced anything suitable for selection.
So lets be fair, eh?
Quote:
For the same damn reason I've been harping on this!
At least this is a question of science rather than an emotional debate.
Quote:
Intelligent Design or Creationism all ASSUME some sort of divine/supernatural force/being/entity created life on earth and is responsible for the evolution of species. The cause of everything is, therefore, assumed from the outset. And that is not Science. Science works to find the cause and it goes about without presupposing the cause.
God's involvement shouldn't be assumed any more than it should be ruled out. Evolotion ASSUMES we evolved! My only contention is that itellegent design THEORY is no less reasonable than evolution THEORY. If kids can't be taught that we are intellegently designed then why should the be taught that we weren't? You're arguing on behalf of one unprovable theory against another. If you want to argue that ONLY FACTS can be taught in science class in school, fine then make that argument, but if you're going to allow one unproven theory then you should be allowed to teach others. I wonder if you're opposed to school vouchers?
And you're response was this:
Quote:
What do you suggest to replace evolutionary theory with?
Talk about getting to the heart of the issue 
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
And you're response was this:
Quote:
What do you suggest to replace evolutionary theory with?
Talk about getting to the heart of the issue
After awhile, I just get tired of banging my head against the wall.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
And you're response was this:
Quote:
What do you suggest to replace evolutionary theory with?
Talk about getting to the heart of the issue
After awhile, I just get tired of banging my head against the wall.
Yu never answered my challenge and it looks like you don't intend to, so my point stands. Good bye.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
To chime in for a minute... The Theory of Evolution is...interesting. I think it is valid to question whether this is a scientific theory or not. I think it's more of a leap of faith to say that humans evolved from apes. There is no question we are related. But, I think we evolved along similar evolutionary lines. We have found so many forms of man preHomoSapien. I don't think we can deny that we weren't always HomoSapiens. I think in this instance the Bible should be interpreted a bit more loosely. When it says God created man from the dust of the Earth, can't that mean that God began man's own evolutionary process? Just like when it says the Earth was created in six days, can't each day actually be millions of years long? If you get into the Hebrew, the word Yom, which means day, can also mean a period of time. There is hidden meaning in the words themselves. And this is where I start to get off on a religious discussion... Anyway, I have no problem with the stickers on the books that advise students to keep an open mind when studying the Theory of Evolution. After all, it has yet to be proven as fact, and should not be taught or presented that way. I think that it should be discussed in science as a lesson, but it is a lesson on theory, on having an open mind, not on evolution. It is important to bring it up in science because there are many scientific theories that have yet to be proven. If we remove the Theory of Evolution from science class, then why not cut out maybe a third of the text book itself? The Theroy of Relativity is still called a theory. There are many theories taught in science. There are many things we have yet to prove. But we still discuss them. We have to. It's part of the learning process. To counter discussing the Theory of Evolution in science, I think it should be discussed in a philosophical mannor, along with other theories of creation. Because they are all theories. Well, I believe God created the world, but I know that many people don't. It's been quite a few thousand years since God split the Red Sea. 
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
And you're response was this:
Quote:
What do you suggest to replace evolutionary theory with?
Talk about getting to the heart of the issue
After awhile, I just get tired of banging my head against the wall.
Yu never answered my challenge and it looks like you don't intend to, so my point stands.
Criminey, you've said so much and it's not like I sit here and take notes on what you write...
You mean the question about SETI? What challenge is there in that? It's just a question.
Quote:
Good bye.
A bit petulant there, no?
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
I was saying bye, because it seemed implied that you weren't going to be responding to my challege wich was as follows in response to your challenge, I answered you and issued a challenge in teh same light: Quote:
Gods existance cannot be tested, but is “Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife” confirmed by tests in the empirical world?
Is “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” confirmed by tests in the empirical world? Breeding experiments have shown that natural selection can produce a limited variation in one kind. Experiments on generations of fruit flies have shown that random modifications of genes can cause a loss of information resulting in inferior mutant varieties of fruit flies, but no new kinds of insects. In these experiments, scientists have not been able to use artificial selection to create a new kind of insect because mutation hasn’t produced anything suitable for selection.
The SETI question was for all, but I ask again. Is the SETI search for intelligent life throughout the cosmos a scientific endevor or not?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
You know, WBAM...I'm continuing to give this some more thought...
I may reconsider.
As long as any presentation on Intelligent Design does not advcoate one religious faith over another, I guess I have less problem with it than I thought.
As a parent, I would address it on a case-by-case basis. As someone with training in research, I would judge the merits of how the teacher presents it and what the course materials are.
And SETI? Frankly, I don't really care about the search for life on other planets.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
As long as any presentation on Intelligent Design does not advcoate one religious faith over another
Agreed, wich is why I TRY to use the term intellegent design over creationism. Itellegent design curriculem would challenge evolution theory as well as look for evidence of intellegent design in nature. It would not (in the public schools) teach the Genisis narritive or try to prove scientiffically that the God of Abraham is the author of creation and that man was created in His image. They can save that for a comparitive religion class.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
How does the theory of intelligent design contradict the theory of evolution? This is a serious question since I'm not prive to the difference between "intelligent design" and Creationism.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
How does the theory of intelligent design contradict the theory of evolution? This is a serious question since I'm not prive to the difference between "intelligent design" and Creationism.
From Terestrial Soup:
Creationism is the belief that the Biblical account of Creation in the book of Genesis accurately depicts the process God used to make the world and all that is in it.
The Intelligent Design Movement is an intellectual, scientific, and theological alternative to the naturalistic perspective pervading the bulk of western thought today. The Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) consists of three main branches: it seeks to be a scientific investigation into the effects of intelligent causes, it seeks to challenge naturalistic evolution theories, and it seeks to comprehend the workings of the Divine. More and more scientists are breaking away from mainstream naturalistic science and are joining the IDM, for of a number of reasons from religious to scientific.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
To answer the "evolution is a theory, not a fact" question:
We first have to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution. Pretty much every living 'example' used to teach evolution - the London moths, Darwin's finches and turtles - is an example of microevolution; changes to individuals within a species to adapt to a changing environment. Two physically different individuals in these examples could procreate and yield a viable, fertile offspring. At the most basic level, that is the definition of a species. We see microevolution all the time.
Now, macroevolution - the transformation of one species to another species - is a lot harder to make stick. As I mentioned before, almost no living examples have undergone a definite change in speciation. It is for all intents and purposes impossible to observe macroevolution in an empirical sense, because even if we have strong fossil evidence for an evolutionary link between two species in the distant past, we don't have the genetic material needed to establish whether definite speciation has taken place. The best we can do is make an educated guess and build to a conjecture based on what limited evidence we have. That doesn't prove or disprove anything - in fact, it makes either eventuality impossible for current science.
The definition of empirical science is science that concerns itself with information on the physical universe that can be gathered through the five senses and through methods we have created. Most textbooks will establish that for a hypothesis, theory, or conjecture to be workable within the realm of empirical science, it has to be observable, it has to be repeated or repeatable in an experimental setting, and it has to be mathematically quantifiable. Quite obviously, both creationism and macroevolution cannot be subjected to such standards. That's what makes this such a sticky debate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,797 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,797 Likes: 40 |
I guess the trouble I have with Intelligent Design is that it seems to be Creationism Light with the goal of getting something into schools to go up against Evolution. This isn't about science but about protecting somebody's literal interpretation of the Bible. If it is a better theory supported by stronger evidence that is another thing. So Darwin's theory has a huge fossil record supporting evolution. What does Intelligent Design have?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
It's a rented tux ok? I'm not going comando in another man's fatigues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Depending on who you ask... everything that exists.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
People have tried to disprove the Bible for years and what their finding is it's all true. The more scientists try to disprove it, the more their finding that supports what's written in it.
It's a rented tux ok? I'm not going comando in another man's fatigues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,797 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,797 Likes: 40 |
But was Evolution Theory meant to disprove the Bible? Isn't it just science doing what science does? Asking questions then trying to answer them.
Out of curiousity how far do you guys take the Bible literally. Is the Earth round or flat, is it millions of years old or thousands & so on?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
The question of whether the Earth's round or flat was never in the Bible. That was a human theory disproved by Christopher Columbus. If you seriously want us to answer your questions, then try asking legitmate questions that are in the Bible, not just random questions that have nothing to do with it.
It's a rented tux ok? I'm not going comando in another man's fatigues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Depending on who you ask... everything that exists.
The problem is that it depends on who you ask.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,405
3000+ posts
|
|
3000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,405 |
The problem is that it's fucked.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Batwoman said:
People have tried to disprove the Bible for years and what their finding is it's all true. The more scientists try to disprove it, the more their finding that supports what's written in it.
The idea that scientists are trying to disprove the Bible is false. If their findings go against what is found in the Bible, they do. If their findings support what is in the Bible, they do. They are simply searching for the truth, and part of that endeavor requires the separation of fact from fiction without bias.
The problem is that though many parts of the Bible hold true through evidence, there is scientific evidence that contradicts a literal interpretation of the Genesis story.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,797 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,797 Likes: 40 |
Quote:
Batwoman said:
The question of whether the Earth's round or flat was never in the Bible. That was a human theory disproved by Christopher Columbus.
If you seriously want us to answer your questions, then try asking legitmate questions that are in the Bible, not just random questions that have nothing to do with it.
I thought I was. This web sight describes a spectrum of creationist beliefs. The Flat Earthers being the most extreme who take a phrase about the 4 corners of the earth in the Bible as being literal.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Not everyone who claims to believe what's in the Bible can give you a straight answer as to what it actually means. That's what happens when people don't investigate it for themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,793 Likes: 3
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
|
|
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,793 Likes: 3 |
Isaiah 40:22 Quote:
There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth...
nobody ever mentions that scripture though. everybody always quotes Isaiah 11:12 (the corners of the earth one). And I read somewhere that the word that was translated into "corners" could literally be translated as "wings". Would that mean that in ancient times they thought the earth was square and flew on wings? Or could it be they were just using a phrase.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
Ever hear of a metaphore? Think people like Shakespere were the first ones to use them?
There are plenty of instnces in the Bible were stories were told to make you think, illustraste something but not nessacrily to be taken litterally, like the 4 corners of the Earth thing.
It's a rented tux ok? I'm not going comando in another man's fatigues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Or the story of creation?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
Why do you have to pick a fight? Do you have nothing better to do than to troll around? We've already answered that question, and yet you don't waste any time to take what I said and purposely use it to suit your own needs.
It's a rented tux ok? I'm not going comando in another man's fatigues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Batwoman said:
The question of whether the Earth's round or flat was never in the Bible. That was a human theory disproved by Christopher Columbus.
If you seriously want us to answer your questions, then try asking legitmate questions that are in the Bible, not just random questions that have nothing to do with it.
I thought I was. This web sight describes a spectrum of creationist beliefs. The Flat Earthers being the most extreme who take a phrase about the 4 corners of the earth in the Bible as being literal.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
 I love that a website puts the flat eart society on the top of the list of creationisnts. I'm sure there ARE fives of people arround the world who take the Bible litterally. These people would be comprable to members of secular society who believe that the sun revolves arround a flat Earth because the weather man tells him so. That's right, he does. Many meteoroogists tell people each week what time the sun RISES and then what time it SETS! I mean c'mon these guys are proffessionals, havenst they heard of the copernican revolution? sheesh! seriously though this is what is called phenominallogical language wich refers to things the way they appear rather than the way they are it was common then, it's common now.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Or the story of creation?
nope.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Or the story of creation?
nope.
And here we begin the classic argument about the apocryphal (or not) nature of the Genesis Story.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Or the story of creation?
nope.
And here we begin the classic argument about the apocryphal (or not) nature of the Genesis Story.
Nope, you can, but while not willing to concede the point, I don't think that's a debate best served on a message board. I also don't think it's relevent for THIS discussion since I am willing to concede that it shouldn't be taught in science class. I'll just say that while I do believe the Genesis account to be accurate, I don't think it's fundemental in an understanding of the gospel...... perhaps when this thread dies down we can start one on that (the gospel, not Genesis)
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Batwoman said:
Why do you have to pick a fight? Do you have nothing better to do than to troll around? We've already answered that question, and yet you don't waste any time to take what I said and purposely use it to suit your own needs.
You're right, I used what you said to suit my needs because it brought up a very interesting point.
I am not, however, picking a fight. If you don't want to discuss it, don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
nope.
And here we begin the classic argument about the apocryphal (or not) nature of the Genesis Story.
I also don't think it's relevent for THIS discussion since I am willing to concede that it shouldn't be taught in science class.
Others aren't, which is really what this debate is about.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
nope.
And here we begin the classic argument about the apocryphal (or not) nature of the Genesis Story.
I also don't think it's relevent for THIS discussion since I am willing to concede that it shouldn't be taught in science class.
Others aren't, which is really what this debate is about.
OK, quick show of hands people! Who thinks that the Genisis account should be taught in PUBLIC SCIENCE classes rather than just intellegent design?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
PrincessElisa said:
I think its important to teach both views! The school's are already teaching evolution which is still a theory and not a fact. I'm in favor of Creationism...the sciences sure point towards it more. Kids should be able to get both sides of the fence and left to decide for themselves.
Also, though I can't speak for her, Batwoman appears to believe in Creationism over the Theory of Evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
OK, quick show of hands people! Who thinks that the Genisis account should be taught in PUBLIC SCIENCE classes rather than just intellegent design?
No. Should not.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Nope, you can, but while not willing to concede the point...I'll just say that while I do believe the Genesis account to be accurate, I don't think it's fundemental in an understanding of the gospel...... perhaps when this thread dies down we can start one on that (the gospel, not Genesis)
Do you believe it's accurate and complete? IOW, if it's not mentioned in Genesis, it didn't happen?
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
