Reply
Leisurely Duchess 1 child; Monterey, California 25884 posts
24th Nov '12
Quoting Bangtail:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Leisurely Duchess:</b>" I would have to resist the addictive ... [snip!] ... Where'd you go? I've been MIA for awhile thanks to life. Just started hopping back in a couple weeks ago."


Took a break from the internet, then went back to the FB debate groups. Also got Diablo III, but then my comp died. :(

Bangtail 50 kids; Katy, Texas 7752 posts
24th Nov '12

<blockquote><b>Quoting Leisurely Duchess:</b>" Took a break from the internet, then went back to the FB debate groups. Also got Diablo III, but then my comp died. :("</blockquote>



I haven't joined any other debate groups, but I'm considering it. Now that I'm homeschooling my sons, I need grown-up interaction!

Leisurely Duchess 1 child; Monterey, California 25884 posts
24th Nov '12
Quoting Bangtail:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Leisurely Duchess:</b>" Took a break from the internet, then ... [snip!] ... joined any other debate groups, but I'm considering it. Now that I'm homeschooling my sons, I need grown-up interaction!"


For srs :lol:

Leisurely Duchess 1 child; Monterey, California 25884 posts
24th Nov '12

I'm off to bed nao. I'll be back, lmao f**king BG got me again THEY ALLWAIZ c*m BAK

Bangtail 50 kids; Katy, Texas 7752 posts
24th Nov '12

<blockquote><b>Quoting Leisurely Duchess:</b>" I'll explain a few things, if you don't mind... 1) There is no such thing as "both sides". You have ... [snip!] ... creationism is, instead, making arguments against the modern synthesis. The proper name for such a thing is anti-evolution."</blockquote>



I agree. I don't see how/why creationism would be taught in a science setting. When I was looking for my homeschool curriculum, I found one that I really liked that was Christian-based. However, I made the decision to use it only for subjects on which religion has no influence on facts, i.e. phonics and early math. I chose other curriculums for science and history. I want my children to have a good grasp on the world around them.

Leisurely Duchess 1 child; Monterey, California 25884 posts
24th Nov '12
Quoting Bangtail:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Leisurely Duchess:</b>" I'll explain a few things, if you don't ... [snip!] ... math. I chose other curriculums for science and history. I want my children to have a good grasp on the world around them."


:!:



Nothing wrong with theistic evolution.

MysticWitchKat 2052 posts
24th Nov '12
Quoting Bangtail:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Leisurely Duchess:</b>" I'll explain a few things, if you don't ... [snip!] ... math. I chose other curriculums for science and history. I want my children to have a good grasp on the world around them."


I think generally people who need creationism taught are very very religious and feel the bible most be inerrant. For to be otherwise would mean they could not believe. No matter the facts you put up, the reality that the ot/nt have loads of errors in them will convince them otherwise. People believing ID, at least attempt to use science to prove things, and don't reject the notion we evolved. But pure creationists....eh.

Bangtail 50 kids; Katy, Texas 7752 posts
24th Nov '12

<blockquote><b>Quoting MysticWitchKat:</b>" I think generally people who need creationism taught are very very religious and feel the bible most ... [snip!] ... ID, at least attempt to use science to prove things, and don't reject the notion we evolved. But pure creationists....eh."</blockquote>




In my opinion, and I know I'm weird, pure creationists are simply ignoring the fact that the bible leaves out many, many things we know to be true. Now, don't get me wrong, I am a Christian and I read the bible. However, I look at most of it as a moral teaching tool and not a literal representation of the history of the world. No one can argue that evolution has and does occur, and no one can argue the fact that there are many conflicting things in the bible. I personally do not think its blasphemous to believe in science and God. I also don't think it's blasphemous to find answers outside of the bible. I'm always asking questions, though.

TheNuge 1 child; Pennsylvania 23119 posts
24th Nov '12
Quoting Leisurely Duchess:" :!: Nothing wrong with theistic evolution. "



Wow! Good to see you back here!
I trhink I changed from GrizzlyMomma to TheNuge after you left...so, it's me!

Bangtail 50 kids; Katy, Texas 7752 posts
24th Nov '12

<blockquote><b>Quoting Leisurely Duchess:</b>" :!: Nothing wrong with theistic evolution. "</blockquote>




That's pretty much the direction we go as far as beliefs. But, honestly, I don't teach my kids any religious beliefs in our science class because they aren't old enough to grasp both concepts. I do think its funny, though, that they haven't yet put two and two together. In Sunday school, it's all Genesis and in science it's all science.

Bangtail 50 kids; Katy, Texas 7752 posts
24th Nov '12

<blockquote><b>Quoting TheNuge:</b>" Wow! Good to see you back here! I trhink I changed from GrizzlyMomma to TheNuge after you left...so, it's me!"</blockquote>




It's an OG reunion!

khigh 1 child; Fort Sill, Oklahoma 8101 posts
24th Nov '12

<blockquote><b>Quoting Leisurely Duchess:</b>" The Higgs boson has been confirmed, and the nickname "god particle" actually comes from the nickname ... [snip!] ... to do with deities or religion. Peter Higgs himself actually has intense dislike of the nickname, as it is very misleading."</blockquote>



Thanks for clearing that up. Like I said, I have a rudimentary understanding of physics. I took what I had to for my degree, but stuck mainly to biology and anatomy. I need to know more about bones and stomach gases than quarks and string theory. I wish I understood string theory better, but it makes my head hurt.

~~~~~~~~~~~ Thailand 339 posts
24th Nov '12
Quoting Boots+3:" Evolution is not a scientific theory, though. No more than creationism is...Evolution ultimately contradicts ... [snip!] ... researching it. I agree with the poster behind me...Teach both in only scientific terms if you are not looking to be biased."


I only read to this comment so I'm sorry but I just wanted to come by and say LOL!



First, sorry to burst your bubble, but evolution is IN FACT a scientific theory. *gasp* That means it holds a ton more weight than any "theory" some bronze age camel herder cooked up.



Second, I think you are confusing the theory of evolution with spontaneous generation and the big bang theory because evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how life or the universe began but how it developed to what it is in the present. That means before there were living single celled organisms, evolution is not in the picture. You can't say that you've done research on something or that something "contradicts itself" when you have absolutely no idea what it even entails.



Third, by definition, a scientific theory is falsifiable. So, if there were more scientific evidence of creationism (which there isn't), evolution would have been falsified. They don't go hand in hand, unless creationists are willing to say that Adam and Eve were a simple single celled organism spawned from the heavens.



I don't believe evolution can go together with an Adam and Eve story like somebody mentioned before you. Evolution starts at the beginning. Monkeys are an evolved form as well, so saying Adam and Eve could have been monkeys is like saying "Well, monkeys were created!" Then we might as well say people were created.



In some parishes in Louisiana, the schools can (sadly) teach creationism as an alternative theory. Creationism belongs in churches, not in science classes. If we wanted to teach everybody's religious theories, we need to teach the flat earth theory and how "god's love" holds us to earth instead of gravity. After all, those are only theories too.

~~~~~~~~~~~ Thailand 339 posts
24th Nov '12
Quoting Boots+3:" Only the atheist based scientific community. Any logical thinking, non biased science would have to ... [snip!] ... in essence, not all evolution is bunk. There is some truth in it. The problem with evolution is the macro-evolution theories. "



Right here, a Catholic biologist (Ken Miller) explains a bit about how chromosomes have changed over the years. He did another presentation where he goes through exactly what you are talking about but I will have to find it later.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk



IMO you have done a lot of research on sites with creationist agendas and haven't done the fact checking to back it up.



I posted this a while ago but my first paragraph didn't show up:



Right here, a Catholic biologist (Ken Miller) explains a bit about how chromosomes have changed over the years. He did another presentation where he goes through exactly what you are talking about but I will have to find it later.

Leisurely Duchess 1 child; Monterey, California 25884 posts
24th Nov '12
Quoting MysticWitchKat:" I think generally people who need creationism taught are very very religious and feel the bible most ... [snip!] ... ID, at least attempt to use science to prove things, and don't reject the notion we evolved. But pure creationists....eh."


What you're talking about is a very slim minority of "intelligent design" creationists, those who accept common descent. ID begins by rejecting natural selection on principle and the original doctrine also rejects common descent. Do not be fooled by ID's propaganda, they do no more science than any other kind of creationism. Like any other form of creationism, ID is 1% teleological argument and 99% arguments against evolution. There is no such thing as a pro-ID scientific hypothesis or pro-ID scientific evidence.