The point seemed rather obvious and declarative to me - some doctors, a majority in fact, have some belief in miracles.

 

 

And that point had nothing to do with what he said. People who are opposed to atheism and think science is atheist dogma are hypocrites by accepting the benefits of medical science, are they not?

 

 

Why do you always look for some sort of hidden meaning in what people write?

 

 

Maybe because you keep putting pointless hidden meanings in your posts.

640705[/snapback]

 

Talk about putting words in people mouth.No one has said Science is bad for humanity.I just pointed out how atheiest community is pushing for Evolution as only means to educate individuals on history of the earth for their own agenda.

 

Creation science offers another alternate of earth history instead of just presenthing ONE theory to the individual.Allowing the young person to make a desicion on his own.

 

BTW

 

I'm really not an advocate for pushing creation to the classroom.I just don't like the fact how many atheist try to stump any attempt by conservative christian by saying it doesn't belong in a science classroom because on the contrary,there a scientific version which would provide another alternate to individual.

The point seemed rather obvious and declarative to me - some doctors, a majority in fact, have some belief in miracles.

 

 

And that point had nothing to do with what he said. People who are opposed to atheism and think science is atheist dogma are hypocrites by accepting the benefits of medical science, are they not?

 

 

Why do you always look for some sort of hidden meaning in what people write?

 

 

Maybe because you keep putting pointless hidden meanings in your posts.

640705[/snapback]

 

Talk about putting words in people mouth.No one has said Science is bad for humanity.I just pointed out how atheiest community is pushing for Evolution as only means to educate individuals on history of the earth for their own agenda.

 

Creation science offers another alternate of earth history instead of just presenthing ONE theory to the individual.Allowing the young person to make a desicion on his own.

 

BTW

 

I'm really not an advocate for pushing creation to the classroom.I just don't like the fact how many atheist try to stump any attempt by conservative christian by saying it doesn't belong in a science classroom because on the contrary,there a scientific version which would provide another alternate to individual.

641429[/snapback]

 

Here is where you logic is wrong minus. You are arguing that atheists are pushing their agenda by keeping alternatives to evolution theory out of school. First and foremost, that argument falls short because for it to be an atheist agenda, they would have to argue that not only has evolution been proven the correct theory, but all other theories have been proven false. That has never nor will it ever be taught in school. Simply keep the religious arguments out of school.

 

But perhaps your argument is that the mere presence of no alternative makes kids think its the only theory on the history of the earth. Here is the reality though. It, although a theory, is secular in nature and hence has that luxury. It has plenty of foundation in scientific study and for that reason alone should we either give it a caveat or ignore the establishment clause? No.

 

Look at this way. We teach kids that the ice age happend millions or billions of years ago do we not? Now that theory goes against the Bible's teaching of creation of earth does it not?(as evidenced by the Texas school district that altered their books to say the ice age is just a theory). Now by your argument, should we add that despite all the monumental evidence, the ice age should only be seen as a theory and not taken as fact and hence not used in scientific study as a fact? Or should we add that the Bible teaches alternatives to this? Both alternatives are simply ridiculous and have NOTHING to do with atheisim. Would you want the ice age happening that long ago to be considered a theory then just because it goes against the Bible's teaching? Would that make you part of an atheist agenda if you didnt?

 

People need to stop thinking there is some atheist agenda because schools cant teach the bible and can teach scientifically backed evolution theory. Thats not atheism. Thats rational thought and everyone here uses and benefits from it via medical science.

 

As far as your last assertion that they want to prevent Christians who want a alternative scientific explantion rooted in the intelligent design, we have already talked about this discrepency. Intelligent design deals with the creation of all existence whereas evolution theory deals with the creation of humans. It is not in any sense of the word an alternative. Its pure a simple a conduit to infuse Christian views in schools. Kids should not be taught anything on creation of all existence since nobody has evidence on it either way. But they should be taught evolution creates humans because there is evidence for that. If there was evidence for intelligent design in terms of creation of humans, then by all means, teach that. But there isnt except for biblical religious teachings. And that my friend, is what the establishment clause says no to.

Talk about putting words in people mouth.No one has said Science is bad for humanity.

 

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I never said anything to the effect that you are saying science is bad for humanity. You ARE the one who said that science is atheist propaganda. And I quote, from you: "Atheism and evolution go hand in hand.Is a mean of propaganda for atheist scientific world to further push their believes on the rest of the people."

 

 

I just pointed out how atheiest community is pushing for Evolution as only means to educate individuals on history of the earth for their own agenda.

 

 

It's not just the atheist community. Plenty of non-atheists are also trying to keep creationsim out of the classroom, because they know they'd become laughingstocks for allowing it.

 

 

Creation science offers another alternate of earth history instead of just presenthing ONE theory to the individual.Allowing the young person to make a desicion on his own.

 

BTW

 

I'm really not an advocate for pushing creation to the classroom.I just don't like the fact how many atheist try to stump any attempt by conservative christian by saying it doesn't belong in a science classroom because on the contrary,there a scientific version which would provide another alternate to individual.

 

 

It doesn't belong in a science class, because the creation story has no scientific basis to it. Some guy wrote it down on parchment 4000-5000 years ago. That's no more scientific than "The Iliad".

 

As for "creation science", the reason it's not taught is because it's junk science. You won't find that stuff being taught in major private Universities, so why should high schools teach it. Creation science has about as much business being taught in classes as Star Trek. Both have a scientific basis, but neither one is real science. I especially love how creation scientists try to use the Entropy argument to argue that the world could only be about 6000 years old (which places it along the Bible's timeline), but conveniently forgetting that the Earth is not a completely closed system. WHOOPS!

When a discussion is about creationism and evolution, IMO the fact that a majority of doctors are religious and believe in miracles seems somewhat relevant.

 

It's not even somewhat relevant to this discussion. What does a doctor believing in miracles have to do with creationism being taught in classrooms? Of those doctors that believe in miracles, could you tell me how many of them would want creationism to be taught in public schools? I mean that would actually address the topic at hand if you feel that you need to appeal to authority to back up your non-argument.

It's not even somewhat relevant to this discussion.? What does a doctor believing in miracles have to do with creationism being taught in classrooms?

 

Both would on the surface appear to be connected by religious belief.

 

Of course I may be wrong about that...feel free to present an argument to the contrary.

 

"The Exorcist" features a priest and had religious themes in it, but it still has nothing to do with this dicussion.

"The Exorcist" features a priest and had religious themes in it, but it still has nothing to do with this dicussion.

 

Indeed - the Excorcist is/was fiction.

 

The survey I referenced was real.

 

Yeah, real irrelevant.

Only to those with the imagination and analytical powers of a turnip.? :plain

 

 

 

Turnips are an excellent source of vitamin C.

 

www.truestarhealth.com/Notes/1982006.html

True enough about the vitamine C, but the turnip's ability to analyze and connect notions is still near zero.

 

 

One cannot connect when no connection exists and no connection can be made, grasshopper.