Creation/Evolution In Schools? -- Should We Let The Kids Decide?

Jimi.  Monumentally silly does not approach the insanity of Mr. Bill.

6000 year old Earth speaks to one's sanity or honesty.  One or both is severely lacking.

DF

Someone seems very confused.  Where do you see any reference to 6000 year in my post?  Maybe, just possibly, do you think that all that atheism dust you have been spreading has rusted your eyesight, memory, mind -- or, all of the above?

So, tell me:  Since science is a subset of Creation -- how can science be scientific and Creation not?

And, Deep, if you are going to allow your young "son in atheism" -- Jimi -- out into the public; tell him to wear long pants since that is what big boys do now.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

"how can science be scientific and Creation not?"

SRSLY?

          ****************************************************

Bill, you indicate that Deep is putting words in your mouth. Even if he is, why is it allowed for you to do that to others but no one is allowed to do that to you?

The Bible describes a line of descendants of Adam and Eve, & if you add ages of these people, it can lead to an estimate of the age of the earth of somewhat more than six thousand years.

"Since science is a subset of Creation"

O RLY?

___________

In your stupid picture/graph thingy.  Pay attention to your own posts, Bill.  I'm tired of trying to keep you straight.

___________

I fight against teaching "creation" as science for the same reason I fight against teaching any other creation myth.  I don't want the Mayan or Mongolian or Buddhist myths taught as science, either.  Leave those traditions to comparative religion studies and mythology.  I am against any cult that teaches their nonsense as fact.

I am presuming that was a feeble attempt to ask the question:  "Oh, really?"  And, if so, the answer is yes.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"  Genesis 1:1.   "In the beginning" referring to that period before the creation when nothing except God existed.   And, since nothing existed until "In the beginning" -- then it fits that the physical creation as well as all the sciences, and all the laws governing those sciences, were a part of that "In the beginning" Creation.  

Therefore, science, all the sciences, and all the laws governing all those sciences -- are a subset of the Creation.  Why do you think the atheists, secularist, and other non-believers want so badly to separate the Bible and science?  Because it proves what I have just written.

And, why do you think those people are so adamantly against having Creation and Evolution side by side in our schools?  Because they realize that unless their Darwinian Evolution is forced upon the young people -- many, or most, of them are intelligent enough to know the truth of Creation.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

In your stupid picture/graph thingy.  Pay attention to your own posts, Bill.  I'm tired of trying to keep you straight.  

Hi Crusty,

If you will look at that graphic -- it asks the question:  "Where do you 'fit" millions of years?"   Neither it, nor my post, mentions anything to do with the actual age of the earth.  My Friend, in your spiritual blindness, or your tunnel vision -- you see what YOU want to see -- not what is actually written.

Good try, but, no cigar, Billy Bob.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Believe me, that is NOT why the Bible should be separated and you didn't prove anything.  It isn't why scientists and teachers don't want them taught side by side, and this isn't a matter of who is intelligent enough to "know the truth of Creation".  Amazing.

The bolded part is my opinion as well.  

___________

If it isn't millions, that only leaves thousands.  And you will notice on the picture thingy that it is all about the "genealogy" in the Bible.  That plus your known belief in the 6k model is enough to pin it on you, Bill.  Your fascination with phallic symbols and homosexuals is disturbing.  If anyone is spiritually bereft it is you, Goober.

Answers in Genesis rejects modern scientific consensus on cosmology, geology, linguistics,^[25] paleontology and evolutionary biology in favor of a worldview which sees the universe, the Earth and life originating about 6,000 years ago. AiG claims their views of origins, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, define what should be considered "good science".^[26] They consider it positive that the intelligent design movement has produced resources supporting the biblical creationist viewpoint, but are critical of intelligent design for failing to mention the Christian God and the age of the Earth.^[27]

Answers in Genesis emphasizes a presuppositional rather than an evidentialist approach to apologetics.^[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis

Hi Deep, Someone seems very confused.  Where do you see any reference to 6000 year in my post?  Bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill, that someone that's confused seems to be you.

You have copied this from an article in Wikipedia which, from all appearance, could have, and most likely was, written by Michael Shermer -- an avowed atheist/skeptic.   Just a few days ago, I read that Shermer has been asking more atheists to to post and edit articles written on Wikipedia -- in an attempt to smother, or outright kill, any and all Christian thought or influence found there.   And, I suppose this excerpt which you copy/pasted is an example of what Shermer is seeking from his non-believing bedfellows.

Shermer, if you recall, is the devoted atheists who worked so hard a couple of years ago -- to lure vulnerable young teens, or younger, into atheism.   His magazine, Skeptic, published a challenge on the internet asking young people to post videos of themselves denouncing God.  And, he promised them some silly reward fo doing this.

And, yes, he was able to get quite a few silly kids to do his bidding -- just as Satan does around the world every day.   But, no one in their right mind, in an adult mind, pays attention to his ramblings.

Jennifer, regardless of the few militant, devoted atheists huffing and puffing -- God has already won the war.  What we are seeing today is just the clean-up skirmishes -- before Christ returns, Raptures His church, and leaves the world of non-believers to their own chaos they will create in the world for seven years. 

My Friend, it would be remiss of me if I do not ask you, again, to give up this foolish atheism, turn to following Jesus Christ -- and live eternally in the presence of God.   Think about it.  It really beats the alternative -- hands down!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

lol

From Bill:

Shermer, if you recall, is the devoted atheists who worked so hard a couple of years ago -- to lurevulnerable young teens, or younger, into atheism.   His magazine, Skeptic, published a challenge on the internet asking young people to post videos of themselves denouncing God.  And, he promised them some silly reward fo doing this.

 I don't see luring (funny choice of words) kids to be atheists as any worse than trying to lure them into being Christian.  There are plenty of videos of people announcing God, so why not?  I bet you wouldn't mind if they were all announcing how much they love God...lol.

And, yes, he was able to get quite a few silly kids to do his bidding -- just as Satan does around the world every day.   But, no one in their right mind, in an adult mind, pays attention to his ramblings.

lol.  So now he is like Satan since he doesn't agree with you.  

Jennifer, regardless of the few militant, devoted atheists huffing and puffing -- God has already won the war.  What we are seeing today is just the clean-up skirmishes -- before Christ returns, Raptures His church, and leaves the world of non-believers to their own chaos they will create in the world for seven years. 

 

My Friend, it would be remiss of me if I do not ask you, again, to give up this foolish atheism, turn to following Jesus Christ -- and live eternally in the presence of God.  Thank about it.  It beats the alternative hands down.

 

---

And once again the friend thing and how Bill would be remiss if he didn't call her and/or all atheists foolish.  Don't you think she heard you by now and got your points?  I have no idea what her path is, but the point is since I haven't been here long and I have read your point of view many times, don't you think everyone else got what you mean by now and can choose what they want for their own lives?

Is there anyone at all on this whole religion forum that didn't get what you want them to do and how you really feel about them?  Has anyone here actually become closer to God or converted, accepted, been saved, or anything similar after reading all the insults and demands, cajoling, and dismissals of their choices?  Just curious...anyone?  

So bill, you tell me what AIG is. After all I got the name off your post. So tell us.

You know this already, Jennifer, but AiG is founded by Ken Ham, nutcase extraordinaire, who is also the founder of the Creation Museum.  He a charter member of the Liars for Jesus Club.

Just a thought...how is quoting from Wikipedia any different than quoting from any particular religious book?  You have to take on faith that the author is who s/he says s/he is, researched the topic, has honest motives when writing it, and isn't lying or misinterpreting something s/he might not even understand at all?

Hmm.

I calmly repeat my assertion that Bill is either insane or dishonest.

No sane, informed person can posit that the Earth is 6000  years old.

It's just that simple, and everyone here knows it.

DF

That is a good question -- and the answer may surprise many folks.  On Wikipedia, anyone can submit articles and edit articles, even articles written by another.  I may write on Wikipedia that Frog is a sweet person -- and, someone else may edit that to say that Frog is a wacked out militant atheist -- or a New Age nut.  Do you see why we must be somewhat careful what we accept from Wikipedia?

On the other hand, books written be a published writer tend to stay set in concrete once they are published.  Now, one may believe or disbelieve the book based upon how much you know about and trust the writer.  But, in a book, at least we know the name of the writer.

On Wikipedia, it does not show the name of the writer -- so, how can we verify his/her credentials?

And, there is no way of verifying the credentials of those who edit the articles.  So, the guy who edits my writing to say that Frog is a wacked out militant atheist or a New Age nut -- may not know the true, sweet, very nice Frog that we on the Religion Forum have come to know and love.

Basically, my Friend, that is the difference.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill, feel free to tell us what AIG is about. And if you think the info is wrong and anyone can change it why hasn't someone "corrected" it?

Hi Jennifer,

You asked, "Bill, feel free to tell us what AIG is about.  And if you think the info is wrong and anyone can change it -- why hasn't someone 'corrected' it?"

Good point, Jennifer, why haven't the people at Answers In Genesis spent time running around after all the atheists who write erroneous, misleading information about them on the internet -- to correct their writings?

Have you ever read about the FBI and how they teach their agents to detect counterfeit money?   Does the agency spend a lot of time showing them counterfeit bills and having them memorize all the minute mistakes to identify false money from real money?  No, the agency teaches them everything possible about real currency and how to recognize it.  When they become intimately familiar with real money -- counterfeits stand out like a sore thumb.

So, the folks at AIG spend their time generating good, solid material and resources which supports and teaches about the true Creation, the Genesis Creation.  And, like identifying counterfeit bills -- a person well grounded in knowledge of God's Truth -- will have no problem identifying false religions and false teachings -- such as Darwinian Evolution.

There is good reason why atheists attack the book of Genesis and why atheists will attack Answers In Genesis -- because when folk truly understand the book of Genesis -- they have a good foundation to build upon in their Biblical knowledge.  So, the atheists attack the foundation.

This will tell you more about Answers In Genesis:

++++++++++++++++++++++++

ABOUT ANSWERS IN GENESIS
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about

Our Message:

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and  to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ effectively.  We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most attacked book of the Bible.  We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).

AiG teaches that “facts” don’t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted.  That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation -- we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.).  The difference lies in how we interpret what we study.  The Bible -- the “history book of the universe” -- provides a  reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on.  Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world.  When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical  account.

For an elaboration of AiG’s presuppositional thrust check out our Get Answers section -- for example, learn how the Bible offers the best explanation of the world’s geology, anthropology, and astronomy.  Also, for information on the issues we deal with and which ones we don’t, see Where Do We Draw the Line?

Introductory Articles:

Where Do We Draw the Line?
What’s the Best “Proof” of Creation?
How Do We Know that the Bible Is True?
How old is the earth?
A young earth—it’s not the issue!
What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs?
The New Answers Book
The New Answers Book 2

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jennifer, I pray that I have answered your question.   If not for you, at least for others who may read our discussion.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Not true, I do consider you my Forum Friend.  You may not accept me as a Friend; but, I most certainly see you as a Friend.

You tell me, "but instead as you described me above and have before."

I don't even know who you were before you evolved into a Frog.  So, how could I describe you?  In other posts, I have said that your writings appear to lean toward a New Age religion -- but, that is only from those brief writings.

In my post above, I wrote:

On Wikipedia, anyone can submit articles and edit articles, even articles written by another.  I may write on Wikipedia that Frog is a sweet person -- and, someone else may edit that to say that Frog is a wacked out militant atheist -- or a New Age nut.  Do you see why we must be somewhat careful what we accept from Wikipedia?

But, that is not saying anything about you.  I have taken a hypothetical situation and have shown that articles on Wikipedia can be slanted in many ways -- depending upon the writer and those who follow and edit the writings.

You tell me, "You have no reason to assume those things. . ."

What things?  I wrote, "I may write on Wikipedia that Frog is a sweet person. . ."   Is this a wrong assumption?

Possibly, if you and I have crossed paths, or words, before you evolved into Frog -- maybe you can tell me -- with whom am I having this dialogue?

I would ask if you are my old Fishy Friend; but, I do believe you are female.  That also leaves out Al Williams and a few others, although Al did make a few appearances as the Girl From Malibu.  So, there, I cannot be sure.  But, why the mystery -- who were you in your past life or lives?

Regardless -- I still consider you my Forum Friend.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

          ************************************************

frog, Bill has always stated that his mission here is to reach those that read this forum, not the ones that post.  Since you haven't been here long, are you possibly one of those he was trying to reach?

I've often asked Bill if his art of persuasion has reached anyone yet, but he refuses to answer. My guess is that those that "just read" this forum, find him as foolish as the majority of us do.

The most glaring issue with quoting a book (or person) to prove what is written in that book or what that person is is that it doesn't prove anything.  If the Bible is a true history of the world then all other religious books must be as well, and since none are identical, either someone lied, made a mistake, or they were possibly written by people with various motives.  I doubt that would set well with leaders and followers of any of them to be told another is right and they are wrong...so what then?

One thing is true...we see the same events in different ways from each other since no two people have identical experiences upon which to form a framework for interpretation.  So who chooses who gets to be "right"?  If one group says, "Well, but this book IS the history of the world, inspired by someone similar to God, and it is the only one that is true", but all other groups are saying the same thing with just as much evidence they are right since they must use the material itself as proof they are right, then what happens?

Oh yes...wars, fights on forums, lots of hatefulness, and divisiveness.  But then of course we could all take AIG to heart and just trust that the Bible must be the right book to believe since whoever "they" are has told us it provides an accurate eyewitness account of the beginning of things.  Umm...k.  So what then if another group tells us that their book or person does the same?  Since we agreed that different people interpret the same facts in different ways, and they all base their "this is the right one" opinion on the same books they are trying to convince us are right, aren't we back at the beginning of the circle?

"When properly understood" can mean different things for different people, and that is part of the right of each of us to choose as we think appropriate.  It doesn't even matter if I believe one book is right or not...if I do why not just live that system and not go bash everyone else's system of beliefs?  To each his own.