Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

If evolutionary science does not care what you believe, why is Intelligent Design being banned from being taught in the public school system? Why do the proponents of atheistic evolution have such a prejudice against it when the many of the greatest scientists believed in Theism and intelligent design? Evolution is state supported propaganda that uses a liberal court system to suppress all scientific debate in the public school system. The country was founded on Theism. Why are we banning the very foundational principles that made us great?

Atheistic evolutionary science proponents and their legal liberal socialist lackeys are the ones who trying to shut down free speech and intelligent scientific discussion by using legal suppression. They are trying to suppress it on the basis of a constitution that was written by theists. The constitution says there should be no prohibition on the free exercise of religion and yet atheistic evolutionary proponents says that we cannot allow theism to influence our understanding of science, but yet it is perfectly acceptable for atheism to control our understanding of science. How illogical is that? If the arguments of evolution are reasonably incontrovertible, then all reasonable people will believe them. If all reasonable people will not believe them, why not have a reasonable debate?

That has been done multiple times on this thread. Were you not paying attention?

Are you sure that isn't the most comical assertion of all times in the history of the internet? :-)

Because ID is not science. The reasonable debate has been done. ID lost - by a landside. Time to move on.

This is a typical liberal response lacking the essence of the real facts of what happened in my area. It never truly was a scientific debate--because that would not happen in a court--it was a legal case. This case establishes the point I was making that evolution is propped up by the Federal government in various ways.

The federal courts first addressed intelligent design in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in 2005. A local school board in Dover, Pennsylvania voted to require teachers to read a statement about intelligent design prior to discussions of evolution in high school biology classes. The judge found that the practice violated the Establishment clause, concluding that intelligent design is not a science because it fails to seek a natural cause for observed phenomenon, among other reasons.

And on the same logical grounds we could indite atheistic evolution because it does not seek to identify a theistic cause for observed phenomenon, among other reasons.

There is no doubt that the drive from the federal funding aspect is to keep evolution taught as the main scientific curriculum without acknowledging theistic options as science which is a denial of a founding principle of our country - which is theism.

It appears you didn't do as he suggested and check it out on google.

Apparently you have not read much literature about time. From what I read most accept time had a beginning just as matter and energy had a beginning. The idea gravity caused "stars, galaxies and solar systems" is ludicrous. The gas pressure is at least fifty times stronger pushing the particles apart rather than gravity bringing them together. So your conclusion of not needing a Creator is built on a flawed premise.

It's a theory, not a myth. Take it for what it's worth.

The public teacher's union has a firm position that discounts scientific creationism as being on equal footing with atheistic evolutionary science. It believes that religious dogma should not guide or hamper the pursuit of knowledge. Well, what about irreligious dogma guiding or hampering the pursuit of knowledge? We are asked to pay taxes to support teachers' salaries whose union is firmly opposed to any theistic understanding of science and yet if they teach science they will need to mention famous scientists who were theists. This statement itself should be considered unconstitutional because we have state and public supported teachers whose agenda is atheism and evolution and who are firmly opposed to any theistic possibility.

Uh, because Satan rules on earth (and the flesh degenerates as does civilization as it is overcome by bable). Or, because unbelievers are blinded and look for answers from creation rather than from the creator.

just as an expression of principle, i'd never capitalize the name of an avowed enemy. i'd choose to demonize them in any way possible?

i figure the experiment that is happening before the very eyes of some 7 plus billions peoples eyes is that we're seeing a frenzy development?

a frenzy? what could that be? we have tornadoes & hurricanes as an act of nature.

the heat from fossil fuel combustion gets exhausted into the atmosphere.

it's purpose is to hold back the advent of another ice age.

der satan don't like cold weather. ya know?

You mean AOC got it wrong, it's not cow farts?

You were responding to me, obviously. And it's curious that you keep bringing up creationism and arguing against it when you respond to my posts, because way back about 70 or 80 pages I pretty clearly stated I''m not a creationist. If you want to argue against creationism you should probably do that with a creationist, it'll be more productive for you.

Nice diversion with the "it's not personal" comment though. You side step so well, you should've been a Motown singer.

Another assertion of obfuscation. It is the problems of asserting 'God did it' that are being pointed out. 'God' cannot be explained or detected or tested, hence it is not an explanation for anything. It is just a word being offered as an explanation.




The attributes and features, 'eternal self-existence, omniscience,' etc, are simply being tacked onto the word 'God' - these also not being verifiable or testable.

It can just as easily said - the universe is cyclic eternal and self-existent - for what it's worth.

If God creates Evil out of His so called infinite goodness, He cannot be infinitely Good, hence the argument stands

It doesn't come from anywhere, matter/energy/gravity exists, something rather than nothing, cyclic, quantum fluctuations, multiverse.....nobody knows...not even those who assert 'God did it'

I don't know the full details of US law, but I assume that it is banned from being taught in science classes because it is not science (tried in court and failed). It is religion, so I guess that it is not banned in religious study classrooms.

if we're willing to first assume a god, then that gives us a ladder to climb up out of the hole in the ground.

usually, i've depended upon monetary theorists, and macro economists to supply the ladder.

but, probably god could do the job just as well. maybe better. i don't know.

Jeez, someone finally got it!