What would actually be in a "magical creation" textbook? Beyond it isn't evolution.

[squeeze berry]

So Republicans get their wish and schools suddenly decide it's only fair to teach magical creation. Besides "it isn't evolution", what is it exactly, they would "teach"? Anyone?

strawman right off the bat

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

polytheism. Belief in many gods. Though Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monotheistic (see monotheism), most other religions throughout history have been polytheistic. The numerous gods may be dominated by a supreme god or by a small group of powerful gods.

Which CURRENT religion do you think meets this criteria and why did the Greek religion not continue on to modern times??

I would argue all religions are polytheistic. Its inherent in all religions I can think of. You have 1 main god and other deities all working invisibly to affect your life. Christianity for example has the father the son and the holy spirit. Clearly polytheism even though it will upset some people to hear that.

I dont think any religion has a real clue. I think the religions from the most ancient parts of the world are probably closer to the truth than present day religions. They would inherently be closer to the truth due to their proximity to the creation event.

I keep telling you this is above your pay grade ..................

Trinity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Father, Son, Holy Ghost", "Holy Trinity", and "Trinitarian" redirect here. For the album, see Father, Son, Holy Ghost (album). For other uses, see Holy Trinity (disambiguation), Trinitarian (disambiguation), and Trinity (disambiguation).

The "Shield of the Trinity" or Scutum Fidei diagram of traditional Western Christian symbolism.
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (from Latin trinitas "triad", from trinus "threefold")[1] defines God as three consubstantial persons,[2] expressions, or hypostases:[3] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature".[4] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is.[5][6][7]

According to this central mystery of most Christian faiths,[8] there is only one God in three persons: while distinct from one another in their relations of origin (as the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds") and in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and "each is God, whole and entire".[9] Accordingly, the whole work of creation and grace is seen as a single operation common to all three divine persons, in which each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, so that all things are "from the Father", "through the Son" and "in the Holy Spirit".[10]

Terms such as "monotheism", "incarnation", "omnipotence", are not found in the Bible, but they denote theological concepts concerning Christian faith that are believed to be contained in the Bible. Even the term "Bible" is not found in the Bible. "Trinity" is another such term.[11]

While the Fathers of the Church saw even Old Testament elements such as the appearance of three men to Abraham in Book of Genesis, chapter 18, as foreshadowings of the Trinity, it was the New Testament that they saw as a basis for developing the concept of the Trinity. The most influential of the New Testament texts seen as implying the teaching of the Trinity was Matthew 28:19, which mandated baptizing "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". Reflection, proclamation and dialogue led to the formulation of the doctrine that was felt to correspond to the data in the Bible. The simplest outline of the doctrine was formulated in the 4th century, largely in terms of rejection of what was considered not to be consonant with general Christian belief. Further elaboration continued in the succeeding centuries.[12]

Scripture does not contain expressly a formulated doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, according to the Christian theology, it "bears witness to" the activity of a God who can only be understood in trinitarian terms.[13] The doctrine did not take its definitive shape until late in the fourth century.[14] During the intervening period, various tentative solutions, some more and some less satisfactory were proposed.[15] Trinitarianism contrasts with nontrinitarian positions which include Binitarianism (one deity in two persons, or two deities), Unitarianism (one deity in one person, analogous to Jewish interpretation of the Shema and Muslim belief in Tawhid), Oneness Pentecostalism or Modalism (one deity manifested in three separate aspects).

I dont have a pay grade so it doesnt really matter what you keep saying. You cant have 3 distinct entities then pretend they are one philosophically so you wont be accused of polytheism. This requires some critical thinking so I understand its a hard concept for you to grasp. Once you add in all the angels and the devil (which is a European representation of Osiris) You just added more "gods".

Get the grade school princess down the street to explain it to you, maybe she has some comprehension skills ................................

Aww it seems as if you are getting upset. Dont do that. Finish it. If the father, son, and holy spirit are one why are they separated into 3?

No ones upset, the post down below my last post in this thread did just that, explained it in more detail. This is a concept that is widely recognized and comes from the wikipedia, it is a concept understood and accepted byt millions, there is currently on one dumb ass that refuses to acknowldege the truth ............
That moron will be responding shortly though ...........................

 

[Asclepias]

I would argue all religions are polytheistic. Its inherent in all religions I can think of. You have 1 main god and other deities all working invisibly to affect your life. Christianity for example has the father the son and the holy spirit. Clearly polytheism even though it will upset some people to hear that.

I dont think any religion has a real clue. I think the religions from the most ancient parts of the world are probably closer to the truth than present day religions. They would inherently be closer to the truth due to their proximity to the creation event.

I keep telling you this is above your pay grade ..................

Trinity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Father, Son, Holy Ghost", "Holy Trinity", and "Trinitarian" redirect here. For the album, see Father, Son, Holy Ghost (album). For other uses, see Holy Trinity (disambiguation), Trinitarian (disambiguation), and Trinity (disambiguation).

The "Shield of the Trinity" or Scutum Fidei diagram of traditional Western Christian symbolism.
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (from Latin trinitas "triad", from trinus "threefold")[1] defines God as three consubstantial persons,[2] expressions, or hypostases:[3] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature".[4] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is.[5][6][7]

According to this central mystery of most Christian faiths,[8] there is only one God in three persons: while distinct from one another in their relations of origin (as the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds") and in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and "each is God, whole and entire".[9] Accordingly, the whole work of creation and grace is seen as a single operation common to all three divine persons, in which each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, so that all things are "from the Father", "through the Son" and "in the Holy Spirit".[10]

Terms such as "monotheism", "incarnation", "omnipotence", are not found in the Bible, but they denote theological concepts concerning Christian faith that are believed to be contained in the Bible. Even the term "Bible" is not found in the Bible. "Trinity" is another such term.[11]

While the Fathers of the Church saw even Old Testament elements such as the appearance of three men to Abraham in Book of Genesis, chapter 18, as foreshadowings of the Trinity, it was the New Testament that they saw as a basis for developing the concept of the Trinity. The most influential of the New Testament texts seen as implying the teaching of the Trinity was Matthew 28:19, which mandated baptizing "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". Reflection, proclamation and dialogue led to the formulation of the doctrine that was felt to correspond to the data in the Bible. The simplest outline of the doctrine was formulated in the 4th century, largely in terms of rejection of what was considered not to be consonant with general Christian belief. Further elaboration continued in the succeeding centuries.[12]

Scripture does not contain expressly a formulated doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, according to the Christian theology, it "bears witness to" the activity of a God who can only be understood in trinitarian terms.[13] The doctrine did not take its definitive shape until late in the fourth century.[14] During the intervening period, various tentative solutions, some more and some less satisfactory were proposed.[15] Trinitarianism contrasts with nontrinitarian positions which include Binitarianism (one deity in two persons, or two deities), Unitarianism (one deity in one person, analogous to Jewish interpretation of the Shema and Muslim belief in Tawhid), Oneness Pentecostalism or Modalism (one deity manifested in three separate aspects).

I dont have a pay grade so it doesnt really matter what you keep saying. You cant have 3 distinct entities then pretend they are one philosophically so you wont be accused of polytheism. This requires some critical thinking so I understand its a hard concept for you to grasp. Once you add in all the angels and the devil (which is a European representation of Osiris) You just added more "gods".

Get the grade school princess down the street to explain it to you, maybe she has some comprehension skills ................................

Aww it seems as if you are getting upset. Dont do that. Finish it. If the father, son, and holy spirit are one why are they separated into 3?

No ones upset, the post down below the OP in this thread dd just that, explained it in more detail. This is a concept that is widely recognized and comes from the wikipedia, it is a concept understood and accepted byt millions, there is currently on one dumb ass that refuses to acknoldege the truth ............
That moron will be responding shortly though ...........................

You are definitely upset. You are reduced to name calling. Do you always follow the crowd without thinking for yourself? I told you before I dont care what millions of people think. Millions of people think its ok to work and make someone else wealthy. You didnt answer my question. If the father, son, and holy spirit are one why are they separated into 3?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

I keep telling you this is above your pay grade ..................

Trinity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Father, Son, Holy Ghost", "Holy Trinity", and "Trinitarian" redirect here. For the album, see Father, Son, Holy Ghost (album). For other uses, see Holy Trinity (disambiguation), Trinitarian (disambiguation), and Trinity (disambiguation).

The "Shield of the Trinity" or Scutum Fidei diagram of traditional Western Christian symbolism.
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (from Latin trinitas "triad", from trinus "threefold")[1] defines God as three consubstantial persons,[2] expressions, or hypostases:[3] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature".[4] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is.[5][6][7]

According to this central mystery of most Christian faiths,[8] there is only one God in three persons: while distinct from one another in their relations of origin (as the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds") and in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and "each is God, whole and entire".[9] Accordingly, the whole work of creation and grace is seen as a single operation common to all three divine persons, in which each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, so that all things are "from the Father", "through the Son" and "in the Holy Spirit".[10]

Terms such as "monotheism", "incarnation", "omnipotence", are not found in the Bible, but they denote theological concepts concerning Christian faith that are believed to be contained in the Bible. Even the term "Bible" is not found in the Bible. "Trinity" is another such term.[11]

While the Fathers of the Church saw even Old Testament elements such as the appearance of three men to Abraham in Book of Genesis, chapter 18, as foreshadowings of the Trinity, it was the New Testament that they saw as a basis for developing the concept of the Trinity. The most influential of the New Testament texts seen as implying the teaching of the Trinity was Matthew 28:19, which mandated baptizing "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". Reflection, proclamation and dialogue led to the formulation of the doctrine that was felt to correspond to the data in the Bible. The simplest outline of the doctrine was formulated in the 4th century, largely in terms of rejection of what was considered not to be consonant with general Christian belief. Further elaboration continued in the succeeding centuries.[12]

Scripture does not contain expressly a formulated doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, according to the Christian theology, it "bears witness to" the activity of a God who can only be understood in trinitarian terms.[13] The doctrine did not take its definitive shape until late in the fourth century.[14] During the intervening period, various tentative solutions, some more and some less satisfactory were proposed.[15] Trinitarianism contrasts with nontrinitarian positions which include Binitarianism (one deity in two persons, or two deities), Unitarianism (one deity in one person, analogous to Jewish interpretation of the Shema and Muslim belief in Tawhid), Oneness Pentecostalism or Modalism (one deity manifested in three separate aspects).

I dont have a pay grade so it doesnt really matter what you keep saying. You cant have 3 distinct entities then pretend they are one philosophically so you wont be accused of polytheism. This requires some critical thinking so I understand its a hard concept for you to grasp. Once you add in all the angels and the devil (which is a European representation of Osiris) You just added more "gods".

Get the grade school princess down the street to explain it to you, maybe she has some comprehension skills ................................

Aww it seems as if you are getting upset. Dont do that. Finish it. If the father, son, and holy spirit are one why are they separated into 3?

No ones upset, the post down below the OP in this thread dd just that, explained it in more detail. This is a concept that is widely recognized and comes from the wikipedia, it is a concept understood and accepted byt millions, there is currently on one dumb ass that refuses to acknoldege the truth ............
That moron will be responding shortly though ...........................

Do you always follow the crowd without thinking for yourself? I told you before I dont care what millions of people think. Millions of people think its ok to work and make someone else wealthy. You didnt answer my question. If the father, son, and holy spirit are one why are they separated into 3?

Right on time, no comprehension abilities at all ........................right moron ??

 

[Asclepias]

I dont have a pay grade so it doesnt really matter what you keep saying. You cant have 3 distinct entities then pretend they are one philosophically so you wont be accused of polytheism. This requires some critical thinking so I understand its a hard concept for you to grasp. Once you add in all the angels and the devil (which is a European representation of Osiris) You just added more "gods".

Get the grade school princess down the street to explain it to you, maybe she has some comprehension skills ................................

Aww it seems as if you are getting upset. Dont do that. Finish it. If the father, son, and holy spirit are one why are they separated into 3?

No ones upset, the post down below the OP in this thread dd just that, explained it in more detail. This is a concept that is widely recognized and comes from the wikipedia, it is a concept understood and accepted byt millions, there is currently on one dumb ass that refuses to acknoldege the truth ............
That moron will be responding shortly though ...........................

Do you always follow the crowd without thinking for yourself? I told you before I dont care what millions of people think. Millions of people think its ok to work and make someone else wealthy. You didnt answer my question. If the father, son, and holy spirit are one why are they separated into 3?

Right on time, no comprehension abilities at all ........................right moron ??

You seem to be frustrated. Why cant you give me a sensible answer? You didnt answer my question. If the father, son, and holy spirit are one why are they separated into 3?

According to your own link they made it up.

Trinity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Sabellianism taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are essentially one and the same, the difference being simply verbal, describing different aspects or roles of a single being.[35] For this view Sabellius was excommunicated for heresy in Rome c. 220."

"The doctrine did not take its definitive shape until late in the fourth century.[14] During the intervening period, various tentative solutions, some more and some less satisfactory were proposed."

"Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early 3rd century, is credited as being the first to use the Latin words "Trinity",[21] "person" and "substance"[22] to explain that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "one in essence—not one in Person""

 

[RosieS]

Prove evolution took place by providing me with an actual picture of my direct line grandfather from 20,000 generations ago evolution supporters say I evolved from.

What's a Missing Link?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Evidence for Creation

Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more.

If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing. Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.

While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.

If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.

Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.

Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vertebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing!

Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?

No.

When there are mass extinctions, only the ones who escaped get to continue to evolve. All of the links that got that critter to that point are gone. Vanished. Missing. Never to be found.

That is a punctuation in the typical, usual equilibrium among critters.

Punctuation points extinguish ancestry without a trace.

There was no Triassic Ancestry.com.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Harry Dresden]

It seems very weird that someone would create a world full of "temptations", tell us not to be tempted and then send us to hell if we are.

That is not a foregone conclusion.

As a father, I knew before my children were even born that they were not going to be perfect. They were going to make mistakes.

Now, when they do make mistakes, it in no way affects my love for them. There are times when one of my children makes a mistake that opens a gulf between us, and I realize as their father I have a responsibility to reach across that gulf and they have a responsibility to also reach across that gulf. When I reach across that gulf, I bring my children back to me. That is the nature of forgiveness. The realization that I created these imperfect beings and that I still love them.

I do not demand perfection from my children, and neither does God.

All we have to do is reach out. God's hands are already there, waiting for us.

Your assigning human attributes to a force you dont even know is human like. The general consensus is god is a male. What male do you know that conceives kids? Might I add without a woman?

So Jesus wasn't human?

God created man in his own image and man is male.

So Jesus wasn't human?
if his story is true and he actually did what is claimed he did....then no he is an alien.... the Bible,whether true or false is the greatest story yet of Aliens visiting the planet....no Prime Directive enforced with them apparently....

He was fully man and fully God.

I would explain the entire thing to you but I doubt with your 5th grade mentality, you'd ever come close to getting it.

so to your little mind this "God" that is talked about is not an Alien?...

 

[rdean]

So Republicans get their wish and schools suddenly decide it's only fair to teach magical creation. Besides "it isn't evolution", what is it exactly, they would "teach"? Anyone?

strawman right off the bat

What does that mean? That you know but you are so smart you won't say?

 

[rdean]

So far, the Republicans have come up with a single discredited book. And the author of said book also believes Astrology to be a "science". Do Republicans also believe Astrology is a science? Nancy Reagan did.

 

[Freewill]

Me thinks they would teach evolution and intelligent design. Since there is absolutely no way that the evolutionary theory explains creation of life. Evolution does explain variety of the animals in my opinion. It does not explain the varitiey of humans, or does it? See that is where the athiests who push their brand of religion get tripped up. They say they are all for science yet when it comes to a logical application, such as who is the most evolved man all of a sudden evolution really isn't about evolving.

A board definition of evolution it is all about survival of the fittest. About continuing on the specie, or at least the KIND of animal. All about who is the best and strongest in terms of reproduction, the continuation of the specie. Thus once again liberals trip over science as they holy grail. IF we accept what I just posted as fact where does that leave homosexuals in the tree of life? Are they people we are evolving away from? Certainly, speaking of evolution homosexuality has no place. What purpose does homosexuality serve in the evolutionary cycle?

The point is that the liberal left has a love/hate relationship with science. They love it when they can use it and hate it when they can't.

They can't explain creation because science can't. But they certainly would rather bet on the chances of life coming from non-life, no matter how fantastic are the odds against then admitting that maybe, just maybe there is something out there bigger then they are and they are not the be all and end all of all things.

 

[Freewill]

Um....evolution doesn't attempt to explain the creation of the universe, merely the origins of man.

Right wing politicians use the term "evolution" to represent far more than the origins of life and Man.

Could you please supply an example of what you mean? You know like a quote or something along those lines.

The left wing uses evolution as a bludgeon without really realizing the short comings of the theory.

 

[BlindBoo]

polytheism. Belief in many gods. Though Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monotheistic (see monotheism), most other religions throughout history have been polytheistic. The numerous gods may be dominated by a supreme god or by a small group of powerful gods.

Which CURRENT religion do you think meets this criteria and why did the Greek religion not continue on to modern times??

There are many supernatural beings in Christian mythology, all created by the one supreme god.

 

[BlindBoo]

Me thinks they would teach evolution and intelligent design. Since there is absolutely no way that the evolutionary theory explains creation of life. Evolution does explain variety of the animals in my opinion. It does not explain the varitiey of humans, or does it? See that is where the athiests who push their brand of religion get tripped up. They say they are all for science yet when it comes to a logical application, such as who is the most evolved man all of a sudden evolution really isn't about evolving.

A board definition of evolution it is all about survival of the fittest. About continuing on the specie, or at least the KIND of animal. All about who is the best and strongest in terms of reproduction, the continuation of the specie. Thus once again liberals trip over science as they holy grail. IF we accept what I just posted as fact where does that leave homosexuals in the tree of life? Are they people we are evolving away from? Certainly, speaking of evolution homosexuality has no place. What purpose does homosexuality serve in the evolutionary cycle?

The point is that the liberal left has a love/hate relationship with science. They love it when they can use it and hate it when they can't.

They can't explain creation because science can't. But they certainly would rather bet on the chances of life coming from non-life, no matter how fantastic are the odds against then admitting that maybe, just maybe there is something out there bigger then they are and they are not the be all and end all of all things.

The theory of evolution does not try to explain of the origin of life.

 

[Freewill]

Me thinks they would teach evolution and intelligent design. Since there is absolutely no way that the evolutionary theory explains creation of life. Evolution does explain variety of the animals in my opinion. It does not explain the varitiey of humans, or does it? See that is where the athiests who push their brand of religion get tripped up. They say they are all for science yet when it comes to a logical application, such as who is the most evolved man all of a sudden evolution really isn't about evolving.

A board definition of evolution it is all about survival of the fittest. About continuing on the specie, or at least the KIND of animal. All about who is the best and strongest in terms of reproduction, the continuation of the specie. Thus once again liberals trip over science as they holy grail. IF we accept what I just posted as fact where does that leave homosexuals in the tree of life? Are they people we are evolving away from? Certainly, speaking of evolution homosexuality has no place. What purpose does homosexuality serve in the evolutionary cycle?

The point is that the liberal left has a love/hate relationship with science. They love it when they can use it and hate it when they can't.

They can't explain creation because science can't. But they certainly would rather bet on the chances of life coming from non-life, no matter how fantastic are the odds against then admitting that maybe, just maybe there is something out there bigger then they are and they are not the be all and end all of all things.

The theory of evolution does not try to explain of the origin of life.

That's what I said, so we agree. Now tell that to the left wingers that don't actually say it but imply it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Intelligent design is just an argument for the existence of God that attempts to prove God exists by arguing that other things, such as living organisms, could not exist without having been created by God...

...since those things do in fact exist, then God must exist.

It's an attempt to attach scientific credibility to an article of faith.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe humans have actually existed for hundreds of billions of years more than we know, and maybe our universe is just a science project created by some kid billions of years more advanced than we are,

a project to show how his species lived billions of years ago.

lol

 

[Coloradomtnman]

So Republicans get their wish and schools suddenly decide it's only fair to teach magical creation. Besides "it isn't evolution", what is it exactly, they would "teach"? Anyone?

If evolution can be taught, isn't it fair, to use a Liberal construct, to teach the other? You lefties constantly talk about equal until equal involves doing something you don't think should be done.

I have no problem teaching all sorts of creationism in a comparative religion class. Not in a science class.

So religion classes have to be taught in a manner in which the religions aren't supposed to be studied yet science is to be taught as science. If science is taught as science, then religions, even comparatively, should be taught from a theological standpoint as that is what religion is. You can't compare religions in a secular manner and expect it to be more than a history class.

Well an argument could be made for a Science Fiction appreciation class. I suggest starting with Larry Niven and his Protector series.

What?! Heresy!

They should read the one true book!

Dune.

 

[BlindBoo]

So Republicans get their wish and schools suddenly decide it's only fair to teach magical creation. Besides "it isn't evolution", what is it exactly, they would "teach"? Anyone?

If evolution can be taught, isn't it fair, to use a Liberal construct, to teach the other? You lefties constantly talk about equal until equal involves doing something you don't think should be done.

I have no problem teaching all sorts of creationism in a comparative religion class. Not in a science class.

So religion classes have to be taught in a manner in which the religions aren't supposed to be studied yet science is to be taught as science. If science is taught as science, then religions, even comparatively, should be taught from a theological standpoint as that is what religion is. You can't compare religions in a secular manner and expect it to be more than a history class.

Well an argument could be made for a Science Fiction appreciation class. I suggest starting with Larry Niven and his Protector series.

What?! Heresy!

They should read the one true book!

Dune.

The Spice must flow........

 

[Coloradomtnman]

If evolution can be taught, isn't it fair, to use a Liberal construct, to teach the other? You lefties constantly talk about equal until equal involves doing something you don't think should be done.

I have no problem teaching all sorts of creationism in a comparative religion class. Not in a science class.

So religion classes have to be taught in a manner in which the religions aren't supposed to be studied yet science is to be taught as science. If science is taught as science, then religions, even comparatively, should be taught from a theological standpoint as that is what religion is. You can't compare religions in a secular manner and expect it to be more than a history class.

Well an argument could be made for a Science Fiction appreciation class. I suggest starting with Larry Niven and his Protector series.

What?! Heresy!

They should read the one true book!

Dune.

The Spice must flow........

Are you prepared for the coming of the Kwisatz Haderach?

 

[rdean]

Me thinks they would teach evolution and intelligent design. Since there is absolutely no way that the evolutionary theory explains creation of life. Evolution does explain variety of the animals in my opinion. It does not explain the varitiey of humans, or does it? See that is where the athiests who push their brand of religion get tripped up. They say they are all for science yet when it comes to a logical application, such as who is the most evolved man all of a sudden evolution really isn't about evolving.

A board definition of evolution it is all about survival of the fittest. About continuing on the specie, or at least the KIND of animal. All about who is the best and strongest in terms of reproduction, the continuation of the specie. Thus once again liberals trip over science as they holy grail. IF we accept what I just posted as fact where does that leave homosexuals in the tree of life? Are they people we are evolving away from? Certainly, speaking of evolution homosexuality has no place. What purpose does homosexuality serve in the evolutionary cycle?

The point is that the liberal left has a love/hate relationship with science. They love it when they can use it and hate it when they can't.

They can't explain creation because science can't. But they certainly would rather bet on the chances of life coming from non-life, no matter how fantastic are the odds against then admitting that maybe, just maybe there is something out there bigger then they are and they are not the be all and end all of all things.

This is right winger binary science. If it isn't this, it must be that. Only two choices. Since science hasn't yet explained it, the answer must be the occult.