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

Alchemy in Chemistry class?

Astrology in place of Astronomy?

Flat earth?

Geocentric solar system?

Some still argue for flat earth cosmology, though it's hard to believe they are serious.

You just assumed that you have evidence and it is good, and you exist and are capable of evaluating it and forming a belief. Lotta assumin goin on thea.

The question is, evidence for what?

The fact that you are appealing to hard solipsism to defend your position tells the rest of us everything we need to know about your position.

I'm defending a position? Coulda fooled me. All I'm saying is in any rational discussion there are assumptions and they should be acknowledged if not tacitly assented to.

Another bad argument because I did not say that God created evil out of His infinite goodness. God is a source of natural calamity that is sometimes called evil in a general sense, but He is not author of sinful or moral evil. If you design a rifle for hunting to put food on the table and it gets used to commit a crime, are you the ultimate source of the crime? Think about the logic of your argument.

How do you know that it existed before the Big Bang? You will say because the Big Bang used it. How do you know the Big Bang used it? Because it made a Big Bang. Talk about unverifiable circular reasoning.

Of course He cannot be explained or tested or He would not be God. I cannot explain or test a thought while its going through your mind or test that you think before you speak or write--therefore should I assume that you never had a thought or that you never think before you speak or write?

It's a general observation ... Its tried by folks who study law and not science, and who are trying to take a society down a liberal path of socialism, and in order to do so need to get it banned from the public school system. However it is not legally banned from being taught in all states here. The communists also followed this path and banned theistic science also under the guise of true science. The real intent here is not to teach pure science at all, but rather to ensure the erosion of all moral absolutes from our theistic based societies.

So if we don't assume anything can we assume that we have no reason to believe anything that is taught in our public school systems? Should parents tell their children every day they go to school, "Don't assume that anything you are taught is correct." Would it not be better to say, learn all you can, but ask for evidence about anything that doesn't sound right? No one can start the learning process without trusting in something as a starting point. It is better to seek truth than to rely on doubt as a guide--otherwise the best you can become is a doubter and I doubt that will have a good outcome.

Spewing more garbage again, so early in the morning.

So, perhaps you can tell us WHY the real intent of schools is to NOT teach science and how do they benefit or profit from ensuring the erosion of all moral absolutes? What is in it for them?

You are so ridiculous, but at least we can laugh at you.

These are good questions. But let's consider them within the context of America since that is where most of us reside. Our countries founders were all theists. Everyone signed the declaration which talks about all men being created and being endowed by their creator. As theists they wrote a constitution from the basis of a theistic framework of logic, experience, and truth. Any usage of that document to undermine theism is an unconstitutional argument or agenda because it seeks to destroy the very foundation on which the document rests. The constitution never attempted to remove theism from our institutions but rather it limited government from prohibiting the free exercise of it.

The context of this thread is not about teaching religion in public schools but about whether evolution is a myth. The question is whether science can only be taught from an atheistic perspective which is also a belief system or whether it can be taught from a theistic perspective as well. Do you really think our theistic founders formulated their document to be used to ban a theistic understanding of science? Theistic science was in progress long before Darwin came along and introduced an atheistic and materialistic bias.

Sounds like another emotional outburst--use sarcasm when lacking substance.

Maybe you could discover an answer on your own if you can tell us why the NEA would encourage teachers to only present science from one point of view. If for some reason you cannot comprehend the clash taking place in public schools regarding the teachings on gender and sexuality and moral absolutes you are living in isolation or in denial. Gender and sexuality issues can only be redefined if we first remove the moral basis for properly understanding gender and sexuality that is given at birth in our DNA. A deceptive way of redefining gender and sexuality is by first using science to attack the idea of the existence of God under the guise of teaching science. Then when we come to biology and sociology we can establish a new morality for gender and sexuality related topics. A person does not need to be very astute to notice the obvious connections.

1

Science is presented from a scientific point of view. Pretty simple, eh? One doesn't present science from a mythology point of view. That's really quite irrational, but then you are like that.

So, since you don't have a good answer, you now jump from evolution to sexuality. I know you don't even believe that yourself. Why would you expect me to believe it?

Where are all these schemes being hatched and directed? Must be a really top-secret society that is doing this at all the schools across the country. Amazing, isn't it?

So when have these odds been demonstrated before? Unless it can be demonstrated and repeated it is not science .. aye?

Science was taught long before Darwin postulated his theories, so to assume evolution as an apriori of science is a bit irrational.

Look into the "Law of Large Numbers" also sometimes knows and "Limiting Probabilities"

Study up, report back.