Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The idea of a Creator is a logical next step in the thought process.
It is neither logical or the next step.
Quote:
My book, the Bible, has accurately predicted future events hundreds and thousands of years forward without error or omission.
I have both a King James and a New American Standard bibles on my desk, if you would care to point out a single prediction mentioned in the bible with a single historical event in the last two-thousand and eight years, I would like to read about it.
By the way, none of the books of the bible were written contemporaneously, so their predictive value is more than a bit suspect.
I think we need to be careful about how we state our positions here. Do I believe living organisms have the ability to adapt to a changing environment? Yes., of course I do. Do I believe that the jump from a pool of organic compounds to living organisms happened spontaneously. No, that's ridiculous on the face of it. If it were possible, the scientific community would have already done it. They've tried, but they can't. So I'm sceptical when they tell me that they don't need a god to explain what they don't understand. The idea of a Creator is a logical next step in the thought process. It is however, a step that scientists with an atheist agenda cannot take. Their books speculate about what may have happened in the past without direct proof. My book, the Bible, has accurately predicted future events hundreds and thousands of years forward without error or omission. I'll put my stock in that book.
Evolution makes no attempt to explain the origin of life. That's known as abiogenesis, and is something else completely. Evolution is a scientific theory, which means that it is as close to fact as you get with science. It is a proven science, and so far, there has been no alternatives.
I have no doubt that people are motivated by their religious beliefs, and that their actions are part of reality. But that doesn't mean that their mythology is part of reality.
Of course it does. How else would one explain their real actions?
Quote:
If I'm scared to sleep with my light off because of monsters under the bed, that would be verifiable - you can see my nightlight. But that doesn't make the monsters real.
Can anyone who knows the physics of life not call it divine? Definition 1a or 2a
If we can all agree on that does it really matter how each of us decides to conclude why or how and if it does why does another individual conclusions impose on yours?
Are creationist pulling the best scientific minds away from the facts of our universe? So if there is this over confidence of the real facts why not just let the pins fall the way you know they will and how science says it will. If someone is arguing with you that 2 + 2 = 5 and you know for a fact it equals 4 do you fight and argue with them trying to convince them or do you smile and nod your head knowing their destiny before they do?
That argument can be felt from both sides.
Last edited by BigJon3475; 01-19-2009 at 09:24 PM..
Can anyone who knows the physics of life not call it divine? Definition 1a or 2a
If we can all agree on that does it really matter how each of us decides to conclude why or how and if it does why does another individual conclusions impose on yours?
Are creationist pulling the best scientific minds away from the facts of our universe? So if there is this over confidence of the real facts why not just let the pins fall the way you know they will and how science says it will. If someone is arguing with you that 2 + 2 = 5 and you know for a fact it equals 4 do you fight and argue with them trying to convince them or do you smile and nod your head knowing their destiny before they do?
That argument can be felt from both sides.
Except that those who believe that 2 + 2 = 5 are trying to have that taught in Math class. They are trying to handicap our kids, and that harms society as a whole.
I don't mind if adults fall for that silliness on their own, and if they solve their own math problems on Sundays. They can even tell their kids that math works differently in their own home. It's sad, but that's the best way to run a society.
The most basic system of public schooling avoids historical cultures and practices and the most advanced embrace it... Not surprising. How can you be intellectually honest when you can not even mention a religion in schools? As if one day you arrived at your decision without 200 generations before you possibly believing something different and basing their life on that.
I see nonsense but I don't think we refer to the same thing when we both say that word.
The most basic system of public schooling avoids historical cultures and practices and the most advanced embrace it... Not surprising. How can you be intellectually honest when you can not even mention a religion in schools? As if one day you arrived at your decision without 200 generations before you possibly believing something different and basing their life on that.
I see nonsense but I don't think we refer to the same thing when we both say that word.
Religion is mentioned and taught in public schools - just not in science and math class.
How can you be intellectually honest when you can not even mention a religion in schools?
You can't. Fortunately, you can "mention" a religion in schools, in the proper academic context. Any claim to the contrary is being made by people who are either uninformed or intentionally dishonest.
You can't. Fortunately, you can "mention" a religion in schools, in the proper academic context. Any claim to the contrary is being made by people who are either uninformed or intentionally dishonest.
Well do tell... what classes did you have that taught you anything about religion other than mentioning that a culture follows a specific one? What classes went into detail about their beliefs, following, scriptures..etc..
Also add what decade you went graduated if you don't mind.
Well do tell... what classes did you have that taught you anything about religion other than mentioning that a culture follows a specific one? What classes went into detail about their beliefs, following, scriptures..etc..
Also add what decade you went graduated if you don't mind.
I went to religious schools, so it's a moot point.
Any notion that schools are forbidden to discuss religion in a neutral way is a result of (1) right-wing paranoia or (2) local school officials taking matters in their own hands and avoiding any possible controversy by choosing not to deal with the subject. There is no legal precedent, anywhere, forbidding schools to discuss religion in a neutral context. If you have information to the contrary, by which I mean an actual court case, not a "talking points" transcript from The O'Reilly Factor or some similar crap, I'd be interested to see it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
