# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Genesis, Creation and Evolution

## TER

Genesis, Creation and Evolution

_Vladimir De Beer_

One of the most vital theological concerns of our time is whether the Christian belief in Gods creation of the world and all life in it can be reconciled with the scientific arguments in favour of biological evolution. Ever since the first publications on evolution by means of natural selection appeared in the nineteenth century many scientists, theologians and others have maintained that creation and evolution are incompatible. In contrast to this perceived conflict, many thinkers have been convinced that belief in Gods creative activity and acceptance of biological evolution are indeed compatible. This compatibility avoids the extremes of religious fundamentalism with its rejection of scientific evidence on the one hand and atheistic materialism with its rejection of Divine influence, design or purpose on the other. In this essay we will strive to briefly present both the theological and scientific sides of the issue. Finally we will propose a synthesis of Divine creation and biological evolution based on the Genesis text. Let us consider the Scriptural testimony first.

Creation according to Genesis

The first book of the Hebrew scriptures, Bereshith (In the beginning), has since the beginning of the Christian era also served as the first book of the Christian Bible, Genesis (Greek for birth). Already in its first chapter Genesis declares that all created reality arose through a series of Divine acts. At the end of each of the days of creation God saw that it was good. All of creation  whether spiritual or material, celestial or terrestrial, human, animal or plant - bears the Divine imprint. We thus find a positive and appreciative attitude in Genesis toward the created world, including matter. This view stands in stark contrast to the rejection or devaluation of matter found in the Vedanta, Platonism and Gnostic dualism. In the traditional Christian faith there is no need for an escape from the material sphere, as in some of these systems. Both the spiritual and material spheres of the world are good, since they are created by God, the fount of all goodness.
The Creation of Adam - Orthodox Christian Icon

The account of creation in the first chapter of Genesis is known as the Hexaemeron (Greek for six days), on which a number of Greek and Latin Church fathers wrote commentaries. Some of them interpreted the six days of creation quite literally, like St Basil the Great who was much influenced by Aristotles natural philosophy. Yet the same Cappadocian father insisted that the scriptural account of creation is not about science, and that there is no need to discuss the essence (ousias) of creation in its scientific sense.1 Others followed a more allegorical approach, such as St Gregory of Nyssa who saw the Hexaemeron as a philosophy of the soul, with the perfected creature as the final goal of evolution.2 Or in the words of the Greek Orthodox writer Alexander Kalomiros, the Hexaemeron is like an immense mystical vision that Moses experienced when he encountered Christ on Mount Sinai.3 It is therefore wrong to treat Genesis as an astronomical or zoological manual. Alas, this is precisely what generations of Christians have done, often leading to a loss of religious faith among those who take the natural sciences seriously.

There exists a wide consensus among Biblical scholars that the book of Genesis contains two accounts of creation.4 The first account (1:1-2:3) contains the Hexaemeron and is primarily cosmocentric, dealing with the creation of the world. It forms part of the so-called Priestly writing that uses Elohim as the name of God, and was probably written soon after the return of the Judeans from Babylonian exile, around the year 500 BC. The second account (2:4-3:24) is anthropocentric, dealing with the creation of humankind. It forms part of the so-called Yahwist writing in which Yahweh is used as the name of God, and was written in the southern Israelite kingdom around 900 BC.

The first creation account could be understood as an anti-myth to the Babylonian myth with its cosmogony based on a battle between the gods. In this priestly account of creation, order evolves from chaos by Divine command.5 The opening verse of Genesis sets the tone for what is to follow: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. We are next told that the spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water, while the earth was unformed and covered in darkness. It is pertinent to note that the Hebrew word for spirit, ruach, also means wind or breath. Then followed six days of Divine creative activity, each concluded with the statement that evening came and morning came. This order reflects the Judaic and Christian view that the day begins at sunset, a custom still observed in the Orthodox Church where the liturgical cycle begins with Vespers.

While the successive creation of the Earth, the celestial bodies, the plants, the marine animals and the terrestrial animals are effected with a Divine command, God said, the creation of humankind is introduced with a Divine deliberation, Let us make human beings in our image (Gen 1:26). From the outset Christian theology has understood the plural us as referring to the Divine Trinity, but its Judaic meaning could be a referral to the minor divine beings thought to surround God (see Job 1:6). The command to the first human couple to fill the earth and subdue it (Gen 1:28) does not authorise wanton exploitation of the earth, but could be interpreted as enjoining them to be free from natures tyranny and from idolising objects.6 After creating the heavens and the Earth and everything in it, God rested on the seventh day, foreshadowing the Judaic Sabbath.

A number of basic features in this creation account as it relates to the evolution of life have been discerned by the Russian Orthodox theologian Andrei Kuraev.7 Firstly, life appears gradually: all the species of plants and animals are not created at once, but rather follow a sequence of appearing. In the second place, the world is capable of responding to Gods call, and thus brings forth life. Thirdly, the creation of the world is a process within time, involving interaction of God and the world. All these features are compatible with biological evolution, but obviously not with the materialistic and atheistic interpretation thereof. It is important to note that evolution by itself would lead nowhere without the Divine Word (or Logos) to guide it, as Kuraev remarked. On the other hand, the question of how evolution takes place is not answered in the Bible - rightly so, since the sacred scriptures are primarily concerned with mans relation with God, in other words with salvation, and not with cosmology or biology.

The second creation account focuses on the creation of Adam and Eve as the ancestral human couple. The Hebrew text dealing with the creation of Adam is illuminating: a human being (adam) is formed from the dust of the earth (adamah) - thus linking the earthling with the earth. Also, the term living creature (Gen 2:7) does not imply a duality of soul and body as in Hellenic philosophy, but a unity animated by Gods creative act.8 The man was then put in the Garden of Eden to cultivate it, and for sustenance was allowed to eat of any tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. After the man had given names to all the animals, God formed a woman out of his flesh as companion to the man.

In his commentary on the early Patristic understanding of Genesis 1-3, the American Orthodox scholar Peter Bouteneff discussed the Hebrew and Greek terminology pertaining to humankind.9 The Hebrew adam could mean human beings generally, any particular person, or a specific person. It first occurs in Genesis 1:26-27, where it refers to humankind rather than a specific person. From Genesis 2:7 onwards the Hebrew text focuses on man (is) and woman (issa), in other words sexually differentiated humanity. For its part the Septuagint, the early Greek translation of the Old Testament, uses ho anthropos in Genesis 1:26 and 2:7. From Genesis 2:16, where the Divine command on eating is given, Adam is used in the Septuagint. This distinction is a logical one, with anthropos referring to humankind in general and Adam to a particular person.

The third chapter of Genesis relates the human couples disobedience to the will of God and their expulsion from the garden. After instigation by a serpent they had eaten of the fruit of the forbidden tree, became aware of their nakedness, and tried to hide from God. The belief that the serpent was actually an adversary of God, the Devil, and that the woman was to blame for the fall, only arose much later in Judaic thought (see Wisdom of Solomon 2:24 and Ecclesiasticus 25:24).10 The effects of the human rebellion are then described in an interweaving of a series of folk explanations: why humans feel hostile towards snakes, why childbirth is painful, why women are socially subordinate, and why men must work (Gen 3:14-19). It is interesting that up to this point the Hebrew text had been referring to man and woman. Now the man named his wife Eve, meaning Life  because she was the mother of all living beings (Gen 3:20).11 Only then is Adam introduced by name, when God clothed the man and his wife with garments of skin. They were forthwith expelled from the garden and settled to the east of Eden.

It is interesting that the Hexaemeron and the paradise narrative were virtually ignored in the rest of the Hebrew scriptures, in which Adams function appears to have been purely genealogical. Bouteneff suggested that the Yahwist paradise story was based on the Babylonian myth of Atrahasis, which also formed the basis of the flood story. Later the Priestly author rewrote the Yahwist narrative while borrowing from the Enuma Elisha.12 The texts of Second Temple Judaism (i.e. from the second century BC) show an increasing awareness of Genesis 1-3, notably the books of Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom of Solomon, Jubilees, Second Esdras and Second Baruch. Notable in this regard is the role ascribed to the Divine Wisdom (always referred to in the feminine sense) in the creation of the world. Thus Ecclesiasticus 24:3-6 identifies Wisdom with the divine wind or spirit of Genesis 1:2, being the word spoken by the Most High and covering the earth like a mist.13

The most important Jewish commentaries on the Genesis creation accounts, as far as the Christian Tradition is concerned, were produced by the great Alexandrian philosopher Philo (ca 25 BC-50 AD). His work represents an intricate synthesis of Biblical theology (as found in the Septuagint) and Hellenic philosophy, cast mostly as an allegorical commentary on Genesis.14 Philo is therefore regarded as the founder of the allegorical method of scriptural exegesis, of which Alexandria would become the main centre. The Jewish thinker preferred allegory to a literal reading of the Hebrew scriptures primarily to prevent anthropomorphising of God, in other words ascribing human qualities to God.15 He wrote several commentaries on Genesis 1-3, notably On the creation of the world.

According to Philo, God creates the cosmos out of non-being (ek me onton), and therefore the material world is not eternal but created and dependent on God. Philo accepts the fundamental Platonist teaching that the sensible world is an unequal reflection of the intelligible world.16 The first mention of the creation of humankind (Gen 1:27) is understood as referring to an idealised human being as genus, with male and female as its species. This human genus is immortal by nature and without sexual differentiation. In its turn the creation account in Genesis 2 refers to the sense-perceptible, psycho-somatic human being, which is by nature mortal, and either male or female. With this interpretation, which would be influential among early Christian thinkers, Philo demonstrated his intellectual debt to Platonist anthropology.17

Cosmological aspects of Genesis

Various aspects of the Genesis creation accounts that are relevant for our present purpose were pointed out by Kuraev. Firstly, those familiar with ancient and classical mythology will soon realise that there is no theogony (origin of the gods) in the Biblical account, as opposed to the Sumerian, Indian and Greek myths. The pagan myths were attacked by St Theophilus of Antioch for omitting reference to a Divine creator and Divine providence.18 It is no accident that the Hebrew text of Genesis commences with the word bereshith, of which the first letter serves as a kind of bracket that is opened to the text and closed to what goes before or beyond it, as Kuraev observed.19 We may note in this regard the riposte of St Augustine to the question as to what God was doing before He created the world. Such a question is meaningless, the Latin Church father argued, since time came into being together with creation.20 Therefore the terms before and after apply to the created order and not to God.

We have already commented that the Genesis account is both anthropocentric (humankind is created through Divine love) and geocentric (the Earth is at the centre of the narrative).21 However, these aspects have for thousands of years been misinterpreted, with disastrous results. Anthropocentricity has been employed to justify an ethic in which the rest of the natural world could be wantonly exploited by humans, with numerous extinctions of life forms, large-scale destruction of habitats and biodiversity, and adverse climate change among its effects. In its turn, geocentricity has been used by power-hungry ecclesiastics to persecute those who engaged in scientific activities, Galileo being the most conspicuous example. In this way an anthropocentric and geocentric narrative of creation became distorted into evil ethics and incorrect worldviews.

Furthermore, Kuraev reasoned, the Genesis account entails a series of separations: light from darkness, the waters above and below the heavens, the sea from dry ground, and finally Eden from the rest of the Earth. This stands in contrast to Indian religious thought, which sees the diversity of the world as an evil. Thus in Brahmanism salvation is a sacrifice, being a return to the primal unity. On the other hand, in Middle Eastern thought (whether Biblical, Egyptian, Phoenician or Sumerian) the concept of sacrifice entails protection of the cosmic diversity against the forces of chaos that strive to destroy it.22 In this view, the enormous diversity of life on Earth has to be seen as part of the Divine intention and not contrary to it.

Kuraev identified another leading theme in the Biblical account as that of abundance.23 There is too much water, too many stars, too much empty space - all disproportionate to the size of a human. Also, the water and the earth, impregnated with the Creators word, produce abundant life: the Hebrew text mentioning the reptiles and other creatures created on the fifth day is sheretz ga shertzu, meaning multi-bearing or multi-swarming.24 We may compare this observation with Christs teaching according to the Gospel of St John (10:10), I came that they may have life (Greek zoe), and have it abundantly. Or as St Dionysius the Areopagite wrote, all animals and plants receive their life and warmth from the Divine life. The benefits of the Power of God reach out to humans, animals, plants and all nature, including the elements of fire, water, air and earth. For instance, this Power stirs the powers that give nourishment and growth to plants (Divine Names 6:3, 8:5). Abundant life is therefore a significant theme in the Christian tradition.

It further transpires from the Genesis account that creation comes into being gradually, the transition from one day to another being mediated by Gods call: Let there be! In response to the Divine call the earth gives forth life: Let the land produce vegetation and living creatures; and it was so. In other words, a dialogue is taking place between God and the world - an interaction of appeal and response. This could also be seen as a synergy between the Word of God and the earth. Kuraev quotes St Basil in this regard: The earth germinates, but it does not sprout that which it has but transforms that which it does not have, as much as God gives the strength to act. 25 As a result, matter is created with the potentiality of self-organisation, growth and transformation, without the necessity of interference from outside.

Early Christian reception of Genesis

The first Christian interpreter of the Old Testament was St Paul the Apostle, but like the rest of the New Testament authors he was not much interested in the process of creation. For the early Christian writers generally, the Hexaemeron tells us more about the Creator than the details of creation.26 In his letter to the Romans (4:17) Paul made an oblique reference to God calling into existence things that do not exist (kalountos ta me onta hos onta). This implies that God is radically other than His creation. To the Roman believers the Apostle also wrote that the whole of creation suffers from the human rebellion against God, and eagerly await liberation from mortality with us (Romans 8:18-25). In his first letter to the Corinthians (8:6), Paul declared that Christ is the Lord through whom all things came and through whom we live. Through his letters to some of the earliest Christian communities St Paul transformed the scriptural message that the early Church had received from Judaism.27 In this way, Genesis came to be seen as relating the beginning of universal humankind and not only of Israel. Likewise, Jesus Christ is seen as the universal saviour of all creation, and not only the Messiah of Israel.

The Pauline identification of Jesus Christ with the act of creation was echoed (or perhaps preceded) by St John the Evangelist. Thus at the very beginning of his Gospel we are told that In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.28 In the Judaic Wisdom tradition we likewise find a conviction that God had made all things by His word (Wisdom of Solomon 9:1; Ecclesiasticus 24:3). This creative Word is equated with the Divine Wisdom (Greek Sophia), which is Jesus Christ. John continues that this Word had brought life and light into the world (1:3-4), but the world chose darkness. With the latter term the Evangelist indicated the forces throughout history that were (and by extension still are) hostile to God.29 Ceaseless spiritual struggle between those beings (angelic and human) loyal to God and those in the service of evil is after all axiomatic for the Christian understanding of reality.

By the middle of the second century the first indications of a distinct Christian philosophy appeared in the works of St Justin the Martyr. Even after his conversion to the Christian faith he remained convinced of the continuity between Platonism and Christianity, particularly in their theology and cosmology. For instance, both Genesis and the Timaeus taught that the cosmos is created and dependent on the Divine will. Justin nonetheless admitted important differences between the two traditions, as in the nature of the soul (immortal by nature versus immortal by Grace).30 As far as cosmology is concerned, Justin argued that God created all things out of formless matter (ex amorphou hyles).31 When Genesis 1:26 states Let us make it is read as referring to the Father and the Son. For Justin, Christ is the Wisdom of God, the Reason (Logos) that indwells all things. This applies especially to rational creatures, so that the latter are able to participate in the universal Logos.32

According to St Theophilus of Antioch, God created all things out of nothing (ex ouk onton ta panta). Therefore, there is no pre-existent matter, although God first creates formless matter and then gives it form. St Irenaeus of Lyons taught that the Son and the Spirit are the two hands of God through whom He creates. In line with most early Christian thinkers, he saw Plato as being closer to an understanding of God and creation than were the Gnostics. From Irenaeus came a fully developed doctrine of creation out of nothing. Thus, God creates and shapes matter in single act, unexplained by Scripture. For the second-century Apologists in general, creation is not an emanation from God (as in Neo-Platonism) or a shaping of pre-existent matter.33 In other words, God creates out of nothing (Latin ex nihilo), without the intermediary of pre-existent or formless matter.

Towards the end of the second century St Clement of Alexandria laid the foundations for the famous theological school based in the leading North African city. Appreciative of worldly knowledge, he saw Christ, the Logos of God, as the Principle uniting all the fragments of knowledge. Regarding creation, Clement rejected the notions that the world is eternal or that is created in time. According to both Genesis and the Timaeus God creates the world out of formless matter, which is initially in a state of relative non-being (me on) until God grants being to it.34 This interpretation of Clement could be viewed as a slight regression in terms of the developing Christian doctrine of creation from nothing. Nonetheless, he taught that God is the cause of every being, and that nothing falls outside His care. Contrary to the Neo-Platonist doctrine of emanation the Alexandrian theologian taught that the world is not necessary for God. In other words, God was God before He became the Creator.35

As far as anthropology is concerned, St Clement accepted the Platonist view that the soul is independent of the body, but he rejected the Gnostic teaching that the soul was sent into this world as punishment. Like St Justin he held that the soul is not immortal by nature, but as a gift in Christ. The Alexandrian theologian thereby preserves the fundamental Christian distinction between Creator and creation, including the soul. Furthermore, Christ is the mediator between the Creator and creation, standing at the head of the cosmic hierarchy of being which is held together by the Holy Spirit.36

continued...

----------


## TER

Creation in the post-Nicean Patristic understanding

By the fourth century the foundations of Christian theology had been established, a labour of love in which the great Alexandrian and Cappadocian thinkers had played no small part. In his highly influential homilies on Genesis 1, the Hexaemeron, St Basil the Great followed the scriptural details quite closely. According to his interpretation of Genesis 1:1 (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth), God first created a spiritual, invisible world for the benefit of the intellectual beings who love Him. This was followed by the creation of the sensible, visible world, both as a training school for souls and as a home for birth and death. At the will of God the cosmos arose in less than an instant, Basil argued. The extremes of heaven and earth refer to the substance of the whole world, including all the intermediate beings that were created at the same time. In creating all the heavens and all the earth, God also created the essence with the form (Hex I.5, 6, 7; II.3).

The statement in Genesis 1:2 that the world was invisible means for St Basil that either there was no person to behold it, or that the earth was submerged under water. It was argued by the Greek father that the terms light, darkness and deep in Genesis 1 do not signify opposing deities (as asserted by the Gnostics and the Manicheans), but should be understood literally (Hex II.1, 4). We read further in the same verse that the Spirit of God was stirring above the waters. This is interpreted by St Basil that the Holy Spirit was preparing the nature of water to produce living beings, in the image of a bird brooding on its eggs (Hex II.6). In a similar vein St John Chrysostom wrote in his Third Homily on Genesis that a fertile power was in the waters, being active and prolific. This enabled all living things by the command of the Creator to emerge from the waters  a striking anticipation of the later discovery that all life on Earth had its origin in the sea. Further light on this interpretation is provided by the Septuagint text in which the continuous tense epephereto (was stirring over) is used.37 These symbolic images in Genesis affirm that God is continuously active in the work of creation within time.

St Basil suggested that creation pre-existed in the mind of God, analogous to an artist knowing the beauty of each part beforehand. Thus the Creator, who proposed to Himself a manifest design in His works, approved each one of them, as fulfilling its end in accordance with His creative purpose (Hex III.10). One of the most salient aspects of Basils commentary is his interpretation of Genesis 1:11, in which the Divine command is give for the earth to bring forth vegetation. This command became a permanent law for the earth, granting fertility to produce plant life for all ages to come. Let the earth bring forth by itself without having any need for help from without, it becomes in Basils reading. He would not have agreed with modern views on the wastefulness of nature, since he argued that nothing has been created without reason or use. In addition, God left nothing to chance, but created all things with a motive through His wisdom (Hex V.1, 4, 8). In this way Basils cosmology, solidly based on Scripture, finds common ground with the philosophical argument of design as expounded by his mentor in natural philosophy, Aristotle.

Following the creation of the luminary bodies (sun, moon and stars), God commanded the waters to bring forth marine life as well as birds (Genesis 1:20). St Basil commented that everywhere the waters hastened to obey the Creators command, and brought forth for the first time beings with life and feeling. This includes aquatic mammals and reptiles as well as amphibians (Hex VII.1). In a striking anticipation of the evolutionary concept of common descent, the Greek father wrote that the swimming motion of fish and the flying motion of birds confirm their common derivation from the waters, making of them one family (Hex VIII.2). When God commanded the earth to bring forth living creatures (Genesis 1:24), He simultaneously gifted it with the power to bring forth, St Basil continues. He holds land animals in high regard, for although they have irrational souls they have memories, and they feel separation, joy and grief. Contrary to aquatic animals, among land animals the soul (psykhe) is in authority over the flesh, their souls being of an earthy substance (Let the earth bring forth a living soul) (Hex VIII.1, 2). Continuing the argument from design, Basil taught that even the poisonous sting of a scorpion was made by God (Hex IX.5). He also continues a number of Aristotles errors, for instance that eels proceed directly from mud and not from an egg, and that elephants live to more than 300 years of age (Hex IX.2, 5).

Although St Basil prefers a literal reading of the Genesis text (Hex IX.1), in contrast to the allegorising of Origen, he also finds moral lessons in the waters, the plants, the sun, the moon and the animals. In later commentaries on Genesis, Basil suggests that the scriptural reference to the image of God refers to the rational soul, while likeness refers to the human vocation to become like God. Genesis 1:26-27 signifies Gods making of the soul, while Genesis 2:7 refers to His fashioning of the body. This applies equally to male and female. According to the Greek Church father, this represents the sole instance in Scripture of how God creates.38

The younger brother and fellow bishop of St Basil, St Gregory of Nyssa, counts as one of the most profound Christian thinkers of all time. Following in his brothers footsteps he wrote commentaries on Genesis, notably one titled On the making of humanity. Gregory taught that God forms all things from matter which He created on the basis of His own immaterial ideas. Following the Platonist Christian cosmology, Divine creation is seen as two-fold: first there is an instantaneous realisation of Gods ideas in an invisible, spiritual and intelligible manner; and then there is an endowment over a period of time with sensible attributes and materiality. The days of Genesis are understood by Gregory as a sequence of self-contained cycles, rather than 24-hour periods. Like his older brother he insists that the text refers to actual water, light, earth and stars, and not to some elemental beings.39

In his commentary on the creation of humankind St Gregory provides a Christian version of the Neo-Platonist teaching of the souls descent and return. Humankind was first created as an intellectual, disincarnate being and then on the sixth day as the individual Adam. Only humans belong to both the intelligible and sensible realms, as rational soul and animal respectively. Humankind is therefore the midpoint (methorios) between Divine and animal life, in other words a microcosm of the spiritual and the material spheres. Adam still carried the image of God, but henceforth reflected his dual nature.40 There are two main reasons for human sexual distinction, Gregory suggested. The first reason is a practical one: to procreate like animals, in order to reach the full number (pleroma) conceived by God; sexual distinction is therefore not punitive, and should be use in a holy manner. The second reason is cosmological: male and female is humanity as God intended it to be. Humans were created for immortality, but due to their misuse of free will God grants death like irrational animals.41

A highly relevant concept in the Patristic understanding of creation is that of the universal seed. According to St Basil the Great and St Gregory of Nyssa, the universe and all life in it originated from a single ontological seed implanted by God in the beginning.42 Basil wrote, This short command (Let the earth bring forth) was in a moment a vast nature, an elaborate system; thus nature, receiving the impulse of this first command, follows without interruption the course of ages, until the consummation of all ages (Hex V.10). According to Gregory, from the single Divine creative volition outside time flow the seminal possibilities of things (spermatikai), which develop without any further divine intervention into all the phenomena that constitute the world.43 And the fourteenth-century theologian St Gregory Palamas read Genesis 1:1 as affirming that God creates out of nothing the heavens and the earth as an all-embracing material substance with the potential of giving birth to all things. Therefore the earth and the water were pregnant with the various species of plants and animals. Afterwards God embellished the world in six days, differentiating each by His command alone, as bringing forth from hidden treasuries things stored within and giving them form (Topics, 21, 22).

These Church fathers shared a view of the world containing a seminal force through which God calls the immense variety of life-forms to unfold, from the elements through plants and animals to humans. Furthermore, none of these forms are seen as permanent. St Gregory wrote, What is the nature of things? The Creator of the elements did not endow them with constancy or permanence. That is, all things are subject to change This change is unceasing among the elements and by necessity they pass into other things, undergo alteration, and change again.44 This dynamic view of nature could be regarded as compatible with the later discovery of biological evolution.

However, it has to be mentioned that some of the Church fathers believed the species of animals and plants to be permanent. St Basil himself held that the kinds of Genesis 1 maintain their nature to the end of time, thanks to the constant reproduction of kind that preserves each particular nature intact (Hex V.2, IX.2). On the other hand he mentions that when pine trees are cut down, they are changed into a forest of oaks (Hex V.7). This latter phenomenon is explained by modern botany as due to acorns having lain hid in the ground until the pines were cleared, and then sprouted. Another Greek theologian, St John Chrysostom, wrote that Gods blessing bestowed permanence on each animal kind.45 These views of permanently static natures have been refuted by both the fossil record and recorded observations of extinctions, even without taking genetic mutation into account. Here we find further confirmation that the Church fathers, like people in general, were informed by the world-view(s) of their time.

What is the place of matter in Greek Patristic thought? According to St Gregory of Nyssa, matter is a certain composition of accidents that proceed from invisible causes to visible matter. It is contained in the four elements, which are simple, incorporeal, and inaccessible to the senses. Further, both Gregory and St Maximus the Confessor saw matter as a fact of energy. The world and everything in it is an effected word (logos) of God. Therefore the human reason meets in nature another reason, or as commented by the Greek Orthodox philosopher Christos Yannaras, knowledge of nature is dialogical.46 This is another argument against the wanton disregard for the natural world that humankind has been displaying for so long.

In the Patristic understanding God created time together with the world. As St Basil wrote, Thus was created, of a nature analogous to that of this world and the animals and plants which live thereon, the succession of time, for ever pressing on and passing away and never stopping in its course... And such also is the nature of the creature which lives in time - condemned to grow or to perish without rest and without certain stability.  It is therefore fit that the bodies of animals and plants, obliged to follow a sort of current, and carried away by the motion which leads them to birth or to death, should live in the midst of surroundings whose nature is in accord with beings subject to change (Hex 1.5). The great mystical theologian St Dionysius the Areopagite noted that time is related to the process of change, for instance birth, death, and variety. Thus in Scripture eternity is the abode of being, while time is the abode of becoming (Divine Names 10:3). This coincidence of time, creation and change implies, as commented by Kalomiros, that God did not need six days to complete His creation - on the contrary, creation needed time for its unfolding.47 And this unfolding is still continuing, as new life-forms are created through the evolutionary processes.

In his summary of Greek Patristic teachings, St John of Damascus declared that creation out of nothing produces a subject infinitely removed from God, not according to place but according to nature. Furthermore, creation takes place according to Gods will, not according to Gods nature. Creation is therefore not co-eternal with God, but represents a movement from non-being to being. As the Russian Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky commented, the creature therefore has no ontological ground either in itself or in the divine essence.48 This implies that God is the source of the whole creation, both intelligible and sensible. Nothing can exist outside of God (to be more precise, outside of the divine energies), and all things reflect an aspect of the Divinity.49 St Dionysius wrote in this regard that the Good (i.e. God) is the source of all that exists: the archetypes, the heavenly beings, rational souls, irrational animals, plants, and inanimate matter (Divine Names 4: 1, 2).

Another significant implication of the Patristic cosmology is that creation is seen as an organic whole. All living creatures are branches of the same tree and shoots from the same primordial seed, kept in existence through the divine energies in which all life participates. As St Gregory of Nyssa suggested in his Great Catechism, so that one grace of a sort might equally pervade the whole creation, the lower nature being mixed with the supra-mundane.50 This organic inter-connectedness of all life on Earth is due to the fact of physical birth, since every living creature is born from another living creature. Through physical birth the genetic inheritance of the parents is transmitted to the offspring, thus continuing the flow of genes that makes life possible. Therefore the idea of the fixity of species, with the first individual of each species being independent from all others, amounts to an ontological fragmentation of creation, as Kalomiros correctly observed.51

It appears that some of the Greek Church fathers had an understanding of creation that might be compatible with an evolutionary model. We can mention aspects of their thought such as the single, universal seed implanted by God from which all life arose; the impermanence and mutability of all created things; the mutual dependence of time and becoming; and the inter-connectedness of all life on Earth. We will now proceed to consider the theory of biological evolution.
The rise of evolutionary thought

The philosophical antecedents of evolutionary thought can be traced to the cosmology of the early Hellenic thinker Heraclitus (ca 535-475 BC). He taught that everything flows (panta rei): nothing is, but everything becomes. Reality is seen as consisting of pairs of opposites such as day and night, male and female, and war and peace  all of which are in conflict with each other. This struggle brings forth becoming, although we are deceived by our senses to surmise that things are permanent and unchanging. Heraclitus made the celebrated statement that struggle is the father of all things, of all things the king (polemos panton men pater esti, panton de basileus).52 This notion of ceaseless struggle would much later become fundamental to the thought of Malthus and Darwin.

The observation that evolution occurs did not present itself suddenly and unequivocally to the scientific community. Intimations of it had been in the air for some time before Charles Darwin published his theory. He actually added a Historical Sketch to the third edition of The Origin of Species in 1861, to acknowledge prior developments in evolutionary thought. Darwin commented on the remarkable coincidence that similar anticipations on the origin of life had arisen at the same time (in 1794/5): in Germany with Goethe, in England with Erasmus Darwin, and in France with Geoffrey St Hilaire.53 The naturalist Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles, had written a treatise called Zoonomia. In it he proposed that all the warm-blooded animals are descended from a single filament created by the First Cause, and enabled to improve itself over time through modifications, such modifications being passed on to its progeny. This idea anticipated the work of Lamarck by a few years.

One of Darwins greatest predecessors was the French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829). He became the first thinker to expound a coherent theory of evolution in a number of works published in the early years of the nineteenth century. Notable among these was Philosophie Zoologique (1809), in which he postulated that all species, including man, descended from other species. He taught that the evolution of life consists of two forces working in tandem: a complexifying force that gradually drives organisms to more complexity, and an adaptive force that differentiates organisms according to environmental pressures. As organisms interact with their environment, characteristics such as bodily organs would become either strengthened through use of weakened through disuse. These acquired characteristics are then inherited if both parents alike transmit it to their offspring. This theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, also known as Lamarckism, would remain popular until it was discredited in the late nineteenth century by the new science of genetics. Nevertheless, Lamarck would be credited by Darwin as the major progenitor of evolutionary thought, although the latter rejected the Frenchmans belief in progressive development.54

The economist Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), who published the influential Essay on the Principles of Population in 1798, was another important precursor to Darwin. According to Malthus, in an industrial economy the population growth regularly outstrips the growth of food production. The inevitable result of this phenomenon is mass misery, which can only be prevented by birth control measures. This economic hypothesis of a ceaseless struggle for existence had a profound effect on Darwins thought.

A decisive influence on Darwin was the Scottish geologist Charles Lyell (1797-1875), both through his work and his friendship. Lyell became famous with the publication of his Principles of Geology in three volumes from 1830 onwards. In it he postulated the theory of uniformitarianism, according to which the present is the key to the past. The work describes how geological processes occur through minute changes over immense periods of time, thus providing the temporal context for biological evolution. This view was clearly opposed to the traditional Christian view that the Earth was around 6,000 years old. Darwin would apply Lyells insights while journeying on the Beagle, and on his return to England they became close friends. Some years later, in 1863, the Scotsman published Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man, in which he discussed evolution among other topics. Although being supportive of Darwin and his work, Lyell was also a devout Christian, struggling to reconcile his faith in Divine providence with natural selection.

In 1844 a controversial work named Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation was published by another Scotsman, Robert Chambers. He argued that the solar system, the Earth, and all life on Earth came into being through evolution. This did not happen by chance, as the Darwinian tradition would later proclaim. Although all beings evolved from simpler forms through increasing levels of organisation as well as adaptation to environment, it all occurred under divine Providence.55 This radical idea, for its time, would exercise a profound influence on the young Alfred Wallace, among others. It also anticipated the Christian evolutionary model of Teilhard de Chardin in the twentieth century.
Darwin and Darwinism

After many years of zoological and botanical research, the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) published his findings in 1859 in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. According to Darwins theory, all life-forms on Earth have evolved from common ancestors over immense periods of time, also called deep time. From the outset this view appeared to oppose the prevailing belief that all species of plants and animals had been created separately by Divine edict. Instead, nature was now seen as a continuum, in which all life-forms are descended from less than four or five progenitors. He summarised this view as follows: Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.56 It is of interest to note that Darwin did not concern himself with the origin of life itself.57 In principle his theory could therefore be accommodated within a theistic perspective, with God recognised as the ultimate Cause of life.

Although Darwin emphasised the role of natural selection in the evolutionary process, he never taught natural selection to have been the sole cause of evolutionary changes. On the contrary, in the introduction to The Origin of Species he wrote that natural selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.58 This caveat has apparently been lost on the ultra-Darwinists of our time. Another aspect of Darwins theory that is often neglected, with so much emphasis placed on the struggle for existence, is the complementary view of the mutual relatedness of all organic beings. Darwin wrote of how plants and animals are bound together by a web of complex relations. This relatedness pertains especially to structure:  the structure of every organic being is related, in the most essential yet often hidden manner, to that of all other organic beings, with which it comes into competition for food or residence, or from which it has to escape, or on which it preys.59 Although Darwin thus recognised the organic relatedness of all life, it was in his view based on competition rather than a shared genetic inheritance.

Darwin concluded his epoch-making book with a statement that could have come from one of the Greek Church fathers quoted earlier: There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.60 It should be mentioned that from the second edition of the work onwards, Darwin added the phrase by the Creator after the words originally breathed. He later admitted to have done this for two reasons: firstly, to placate his wife Emma, who was a devout Christian; and secondly, to soften the impact of his theory among the public. The reference to a Creator thus appears to have been a tactical maneuver, with Darwin himself believing that natural selection does not require any Divine influence to operate efficiently.

The evolutionary understanding of the origin and diversity of life would eventually become the dominant scientific paradigm. Evolution is in fact the unifying theory in the life sciences, providing as it does a rational explanation of the diversity of life. We should also note that Darwins discovery of evolution did not occur outside the larger orbit of scientific thought. It was situated within the context of empirical evidence from the disciplines of astronomy (demonstrating the immensity of space) and geology (demonstrating the immensity of time). The concept of evolution is therefore not limited to biological theory, but is encountered throughout the natural sciences.

The main weakness of Darwins theory at the time was the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, as admitted by the naturalist himself. It should be kept in mind that he postulated evolution by means of natural selection before palaeontology became established as a scientific discipline. However, within two years of The Origin of Species being published, a fossil of a bird-like reptile called Archaeopteryx was discovered (in 1861). This provided empirical evidence of a probable transition from reptiles to birds, although this link has not been accepted by all scientists. Towards the end of the nineteenth century the first hominid fossils were discovered, providing evidence of human descent from ape-like ancestors as Darwin had suggested in The Descent of Man (1871). Thanks to the labour of numerous palaeontologists a number of intermediate forms have been discovered during the course of the twentieth century. These include vertebrate species showing the transition from marine to terrestrial life, from reptiles to mammals, and from terrestrial to marine mammals.

Darwins theory could feasibly describe the diversity of the natural world, but could not explain where it came from. Kuraev employs manufacturing terminology to comment that natural selection only works in already existing diversity, deciding which forms will go into mass production and which will be discarded. In other words, natural selection can be seen as natures quality control, but not as manufacturer.61 In the aftermath of Darwins pioneering work the mechanism for the transformation from one species to another awaited clarification, and the evidence from genetics would fulfil this conceptual need.

The variations in animal and plant species that Darwin observed takes place according to the laws of heredity, which were discovered and formulated by the Austrian botanist Gregor Mendel (1822-1884). Through years of work involving thousands of plant crossings and artificial fertilisations, this Augustinian monk observed the hereditary changes, or mutations, that occurred from generation to generation. His theory of heredity showed that the inherited characteristics of each parent remained intact rather than blend with the other. Mendel would later deservedly come to be called the father of genetics.

After years of neglect Mendels pioneering work was rediscovered by the Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries (1848-1935). He had already in 1889 published a book in which he argued that specific traits in organisms are inherited, carried along by particles he called pangenes. This term would eventually become genes. During the 1890s De Vries conducted a series of experiments with plant hybrids that confirmed the results of Mendels earlier work. He published his work in 1900, initially neglecting to mention Mendel. In an early anticipation of punctuated equilibrium, De Vries postulated a mutation theory according to which new species arose suddenly, rather than gradually as in Darwinism. Another step forward was taken by the geneticist Thomas Morgan, whose experimental work with fruit flies led him to the conclusion that mutations increase the genetic variation among a given population, but do not create new species in a single step.

A key link in the conceptual chain of evolutionary thought was provided by the discipline of population genetics, established by the researchers Fisher, Haldane and Wright. In a number of papers and books published between 1918 and 1932, highly mathematical in nature, they demonstrated the compatibility of genetics on the one hand and evolution driven by natural selection on the other. In 1937 a landmark work called Genetics and the Origin of Species was published by the Ukrainian-born geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1976), who had been a co-worker with Morgan in research on fruit flies. He now brought together the theoretical arguments of population genetics and the empirical evidence of naturalists in a more accessible form. Dobzhansky showed that the real world contains far more genetic variability than was assumed earlier. Therefore, natural selection not only drives evolutionary change but also maintains genetic diversity. This combination of the evolutionary mechanisms of genetic variation and natural selection would become known as the Neo-Darwinian synthesis, or the modern evolutionary synthesis.

The important discipline of paleontology also became drawn into the emerging paradigm. George Simpson published Tempo and Mode in Evolution in 1944, arguing that natural selection was in fact compatible with the paleontological evidence. Instead of showing linear progression, the fossil record demonstrated the evolutionary process as being irregular and branching: precisely as the modern synthesis had predicted. As if to crown the matter, botany was drawn into the synthesis by Ledyard Stebbins, who published Variation and Evolution in Plants in 1950. During the first half of the twentieth century, therefore, the disciplines of genetics, paleontology and botany were all added to the Darwinian legacy in order to form the modern evolutionary synthesis.

continued...

----------


## TER

Punctuated equilibrium

The most significant scientific challenge to the modern evolutionary synthesis is the theory of punctuated equilibrium, of which the American palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) has been the leading exponent. With his colleague Niles Eldredge he postulated the theory of punctuated equilibrium in a 1972 paper. They argued that the fossil record does not agree with the Darwinian thesis of gradual transformation, but rather indicates long periods of stasis followed by the sudden appearance of new forms.62 This speciation occurs when small segments of a population are isolated at the geographic periphery of the bulk of a species. Under environmental pressure favourable genetic variations spread quickly, until they have become established as new species. To be fair, Darwin himself did note the sudden appearance of species and their lack of substantial change in the fossil record, but thought that it was due to the incompleteness of the latter.63 However, according to Gould the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts in the light of punctuated equilibrium.

The oldest rocks to retain fossils, being those of prokaryotic cells (such as bacteria) and stromatolites, date back to around 3.5 billion years. This age implies that life remained exclusively unicellular for five sixths of its history on Earth, since multicellular organisms only began appearing around 600 million years ago. In this time the vital transition from simple prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic cells containing nuclei and mitochondria took place. Gould remarked on the phenomenon that all the major stages in the organisation of multicellular architecture for animal life occurred between 600 and 530 million years ago. This was followed by the remarkable Cambrian explosion starting around 530 million years ago, during which in the space of a mere five million years all but one modern phylum of animal life appeared in the fossil record. In Goulds view the past 500 million years of animal life amounts to little more than variations on anatomical themes established during the Cambrian explosion.64

Another pertinent contribution by Gould is his view that science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), as postulated in his book Rocks of Ages (1999). Science deals with empirical facts and the theories to explain them, while religion deals with questions of meaning and value. Both science and religion are therefore necessary and meaningful human endeavours. Gould pleaded for a respectful concordat between the magisteria of religion and science, arguing that NOMA is based on moral and intellectual grounds, and does not represent a merely diplomatic solution.65 This position of Gould implies that both atheistic scientists and religious fundamentalists are in the wrong with their misguided attacks on each other.

Convergent evolution

The English palaeontologist Simon Conway Morris (born 1951) achieved scientific renown with his detailed work on the fascinating Burgess Shale fossils in Canada. His research there earned him the admiration of Gould, although the two drew divergent conclusions from the evidence. In his book The Crucible of Creation (1998) Conway Morris argues that the Burgess Shale fossils became extinct because they were ill adapted to their environment. The latter is always the result of physical and biochemical laws, and this constrains the types of organisms to develop within certain limits. These laws will therefore ensure that the carbon atoms found in stars will eventually combine into long molecules capable of replication, that these molecules will build bodies sensitive to heat and light, and that these bodies will be capable of movement in their environment, with their sense organs situated towards the front end.66 In other words, there appears to be a limited number of pathways that evolution can follow.

As a result of his research on the fossils of soft-bodied fauna in many parts of the world, Conway Morris has become the leading thinker on evolutionary convergence in our time. Convergence is the phenomenon that similar biological characteristics occur in unrelated life forms. A well-known instance of convergence is the wings of birds and bats, with similarity in construction. Another example is that of the marsupial mammals in Australia filling similar ecological niches as their placental counterparts in Africa and Eurasia. In his thought-provoking book Lifes Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe (2003), Conway Morris discusses the conditions for the development of intelligent life. These include a planet of the right size and distance from the local star, in order to prevent freezing or frying; a large satellite to ensure suitable tidal action of the planets waters; protection against wandering comets (the role played by Jupiter in our case); and an atmosphere to allow safe amounts of radiation to reach the planets surface. It appears that these conditions are so precise and varied, that intelligent life perhaps arose only once in the vast universe.67 The other side of the coin is that the constraints of life make the emergence of various biological properties highly probable, if not inevitable.68

Conway Morris discusses numerous cases of convergence in the animal and plant kingdoms in Lifes Solution. From all this evidence, he concludes that the entire evolutionary process from the birth of the cosmos inevitably led to the appearance of intelligence-bearing humans on Earth. Thus, if repeated, evolution would produce more or less the same results and not infinite possibilities of variation, as Gould insisted. It is not surprising that Conway Morris has been accused by the ultra-Darwinists of reviving the ghost of teleology in biology. After all, a scientific admission of purpose in nature would be a blow to the atheistic claim that all the evolutionary processes are ruled by contingency alone.

This recognition of widespread convergence in evolution should not be seen as counter to the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection. Rather, Conway Morris argues, convergence is a product of natural selection. He suggests that convergence actually confirms the reality of organic evolution, against the claims of the so-called creation scientists. Furthermore, the organic world has a rational structure, implying that both simplicity and complexity will arise through adaptation.69 In postulating a rational structure for the world, Conway Morris echoes the teaching of the Greek Church fathers that the cosmos is grounded in the divine Logos, Who creates the world through the reasons (logoi) that indwells all things.

Towards the end of Lifes Solution, a number of facts about evolution that are congruent with Divine creation are listed.70 Firstly, there is the underlying simplicity of evolution, based on a handful of building blocks. Secondly, in a vast universe of possibilities, life keeps navigating to the minimum that works. In the third place there is the adaptive sensitivity of the process and the product. Next, complexity arises as much through modification of pre-existing building blocks as through novelties. Furthermore, the vastness of biological diversity is balanced by widespread evolutionary convergence. Finally, the emergence of sentience among animals appears to be inevitable. This is indeed an impressive range of congruence.
A hypothetical synthesis

We have surveyed the Biblical and Patristic testimony to Gods creative activity on the one hand, and the scientific arguments for the evolution of life on Earth on the other hand. One approach uses theological language and the other uses scientific language, but they are not necessarily in conflict with each other. As Dobzhansky wrote in a highly influential 1973 essay,71 I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is Gods, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts.

Evolutionary theory explains our biological descent from primate ancestors living in Africa, but it cannot explain the origin of a God-consciousness in human beings, as manifested in religion, philosophy, mathematics and the arts. This inability is to be expected, since the scientific methodology limits its field of study to the empirical realm, and the spiritual-intellectual realm falls outside of that boundary. Likewise theology deals with our spiritual consciousness, but it does not explain our biological descent and our relatedness to the rest of the natural world, except in symbolical language as in Genesis. Both science and theology can therefore benefit from a mutual illumination in this regard.

Yet a pertinent question arises: can the scientific evidence of humankind, or **** sapiens, being around 200 000 years old be reconciled with the Biblical record that Adam and Eve lived at a much later date, probably after the end of the last Ice Age? In addition, the evidence from palaeontology and genetics point to an African origin for humankind, while the story of Adam and Eve is clearly set in Mesopotamia. This apparent dilemma in terms of time and space needs to be resolved before we can declare compatibility between creation and evolution.

It is our contention that the two accounts of the creation of humankind in Genesis refer to the evolutionary descent of **** sapiens out of hominid ancestors (Genesis 1) and the granting of a God-consciousness, or spiritual soul, to Adam and Eve (Genesis 2). Viewed in this light Adam and Eve were not the first humans, but rather the first to receive a Divine revelation and thus obtain a God-consciousness. We know from the archaeological evidence that both the Cro-Magnon humans and their Neanderthal relatives believed in magic. Their rituals, among others to ensure successful hunting, were probably led by shamans. They buried their dead with offerings, pointing to a belief in an afterlife. This magic-based forerunner of religion, known to us as shamanism, developed in different parts of the world, and still exists in parts of Africa, Asia and Australasia. Although it entailed a much closer link between humans and nature than in so-called civilised societies, there was no inkling of a transcendent God with whom one can enter into a personal relation.

By the time of Adam and Eve, the human species had been living on Earth for approximately two thousand centuries72. They were capable of high levels of socialisation, like their closest animal relatives, the anthropoid primates. Whether they were able to communicate in an articulated language is unknown but it is doubtful, given the absence of any written records before the fourth millennium before Christ. Although non-literate human societies have existed until fairly recently in parts of the world, in many other parts spoken language sooner or later found expression in writing. However, the pre-Adamic humans had not yet risen to the level of a spiritual consciousness.

With the creation of Adam and Eve a new dawn broke over **** sapiens. The Creator of the universe revealed Himself to humankind, and thus for the first time humans were enabled to worship God and invited to enter into a personal relation with Him. Even though Adam and Eve failed in this by choosing an autonomous existence instead of living in obedience to the Divine will, they still retained the spiritual souls that God had blown into them. From Adam and Eve this spiritual consciousness gradually spread from the Near East to other parts of the world inhabited by humans, not only through their offspring but also through a process of spiritual diffusion. This latter process would explain the presence of higher spirituality in early times in countries as far apart as India, China, and Greece, where we do not find evidence of direct contact with the Adamic progeny. Interestingly, the earliest writing systems other than pictographs are represented by Sumerian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyph, both dating from the fourth millennium before Christ and therefore some time after Adam and Eve.

Through the offspring of Adam and Eve the Divine revelation would periodically unfold when the time was ripe. Thus Abraham received the revelation of living with wholehearted faith in God and the righteousness it brings about; Moses received the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai as ethical foundation for the covenant between God and people; and the Israelite prophets received further revelations as preparation for the Messiah who would come in the fullness of time: Jesus of Nazareth, the Saviour of the world. It is significant that St Paul the Apostle refers to Christ as the second Adam, who came into the world to reverse the adverse effects of the first Adams disobedience. Likewise the early Church began referring to the Holy Virgin Mary as the second Eve, who through her birth-giving to the Son of God became the Mother of God, thus reversing the effects of the first Eves disobedience.73

Our hypothesis of evolutionary descent as depicted in Genesis 1 and the first Divine revelation as recorded in Genesis 2 also resolves the matter of time and place, since it accepts both the scientific evidence that humankind appeared in Africa around 200,000 years ago, and the Biblical witness of Adam and Eve living in Mesopotamia at a much later date. The former was the result of an evolutionary process stretching back at least 3.5 billion years, while the latter represented an act of God in the historical process. We are thus dealing with evolution and revelation, respectively  the one preparing the way for the other. In other words, Genesis 1 depicts the unfolding of the Divine energies in the sequence Earth, plants, marine animals, terrestrial animals, and humans  precisely the sequence confirmed by evolution. Genesis 2 portrays the self-revelation of God to Adam and Eve, granting them a spiritual soul and inviting them to personal communion with Him and each other. Genesis 3 describes the human choice for an autonomous existence rather than obedience to God, and its disastrous results.

Furthermore, our hypothesis accommodates the immense variation in the level of spiritual consciousness among humans. As the radical German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (who in spite of his avowed atheism often displayed inklings of the truth) declared in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, humankind is evolved from the ape and the worm, but even today there are many who are more ape and more worm than human.74 The cause of this vast variation is that a spiritual consciousness did not evolve spontaneously among **** sapiens, but was granted by God to Adam and Eve. From them it gradually spread through humankind, a process that is still continuing. Hence the immense divergence in spirituality between luminaries like Abraham, Akhenaton, Moses, Zarathustra, Lao-Tzu, the Buddha, Plato and many of the great saints, philosophers, theologians, artists and composers on the one hand, and the numerous tyrants, mass murderers, sadists towards humans and animals, and similar depraved creatures throughout history on the other hand. The majority of human beings would naturally fall somewhere between these extremes.

We are not at all suggesting that our hypothetical synthesis of Divine creation and biological evolution resolves the issue of compatibility between these theological and scientific paradigms. It is rather offered as an invitation to further reflection and debate on this most important matter.

*     *     *
_for footnotes and the link to the original article, click here._

----------


## TER



----------


## KCIndy

Well, they say a picture is worth a thousand words.  Now I believe it!

----------


## TER

I don't usually spend much time debating evolution versus creation because, frankly, I have more important things to worry about and for me and my understanding, the two are not mutually exclusive.  

That being said, this article, while long, is a very good read for everyone interested in the topic and I posted it to share with everyone here.

----------


## KCIndy

> That being said, this article, while long, is a very good read for everyone interested in the topic and I posted it to share with everyone here.



On the serious side, yes, it's actually a very good article.   I read the whole thing on the original site you had linked to, and I've got to say that it was one of the more well balanced and researched articles I've seen on the creation/evolution debate.  

I was particularly intrigued by the author's postulation that the Genesis account of Adam and Eve is an account of a theological revelation and awareness rather than a literal creation event.  In my opinion that is probably about as fair a "live and let live" balance between staunch Creationists and staunch Evolutionists as we're likely to get.

So I thank you for sharing, in spite of my earlier flippant comment!

----------


## peacepotpaul

> rather than a literal creation event.


That is not creationism by definition.

If you don't believe the Genesis account is a literal event, then you're not a creationist. 





> In my opinion that is probably about as fair a "live and let live" balance between staunch Creationists and staunch Evolutionists as we're likely to get.
> 
> So I thank you for sharing, in spite of my earlier flippant comment!


I can't "let live" if non-scientists are using political power to subvert our education system and promote false attitudes towards the scientific method.

----------


## TER

> I was particularly intrigued by the author's postulation that the Genesis account of Adam and Eve is an account of a theological revelation and awareness rather than a literal creation event.  In my opinion that is probably about as fair a "live and let live" balance between staunch Creationists and staunch Evolutionists as we're likely to get.


If you found this notion intriguing, your mind may be blown away by this read: The Six Dawns


 As a person of faith and a person educated in the sciences, I found this read simply astounding and highly recommend you read it for your own edification. 

I promise you, you will never look at the story of creation the same again.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> I promise you, you will never look at the story of creation the same again.


I'll believe you when theocrat changes

----------


## jmdrake

> That is not creationism by definition.
> 
> If you don't believe the Genesis account is a literal event, then you're not a creationist.


So members of non-semetic religions aren't creationists?




> I can't "let live" if non-scientists are using political power to subvert our education system and promote false attitudes towards the scientific method.


If you're a libertarian (and I know some people at RPF are not) then why do you want an "education system" at all?

----------


## TER

> I'll believe you when theocrat changes


I wasn't speaking to Theocrat.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> So members of non-semetic religions aren't creationists?


Not in this context no.

Or more specifically, they're not young earth Biblical creationists. 




> If you're a libertarian (and I know some people at RPF are not) then why do you want an "education system" at all?


I'm not a libertarian. I want an educational system because all civilized societies have it. (can you name me a country economically freer than us, with less education forced down their people?)

----------


## Fox McCloud

> I'm not a libertarian. I want an educational system because all civilized societies have it. (can you name me a country economically freer than us, with less education forced down their people?)


I'm not familiar with Hong Kong or Australia's educational systems, but this is really a moot point; any state is going to get heavily involved in education for one simple reason; it's a way to ensure perpetuation of itself; if something as important as education were fully handled by private entities, people might start questioning other "public" goods and attempt to privatize them, as well. Indoctrination best starts at a young age, and the educational system is probably the best way to do it.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> I'm not familiar with Hong Kong or Australia's educational systems, but this is really a moot point;


No its not.

Because 3rd world countries don't have good educational systems, certainly no money to force it on people either. Not sure about india.






> any state is going to get heavily involved in education for one simple reason; it's a way to ensure perpetuation of itself; if something as important as education were fully handled by private entities, people might start questioning other "public" goods and attempt to privatize them, as well.


and what stops that from corrupting into completely pro-corporate brainwashing? or is that nothing bad to you?





> Indoctrination best starts at a young age, and the educational system is probably the best way to do it.


so your parents indoctrinated you to behave?

----------


## Fox McCloud

> No its not.
> 
> Because 3rd world countries don't have good educational systems, certainly no money to force it on people either. Not sure about india.


Third world countries have governments to, ya know =p I know of no system which has a 100% private school system; I think the closest you could come to that would be a one-room schoolhouse system that existed in the USA in the 1700 and 1800s.





> and what stops that from corrupting into completely pro-corporate brainwashing? or is that nothing bad to you?


I find it highly unlikely that this would happen; I'm sure there would be schools that are attached to certain corporations and would definitely instruct in their way of thinking, but I don't think this would happen on the whole; people aren't so stupid that this is completely lost on them, nor would a school that instructed that way survive , in the long term, against schools that were fairly independent. 

Also, even if we make it as black and white as you've suggested, which is better? Being indoctrinated into a corporate mindset (which means supporting a corporation which has to provide the general public with a service they want, to survive) or the State mindset (which will just perpetuate that idea that collectivized theft and coercion is ok and legit as long as a "government" does it).





> so your parents indoctrinated you to behave?


There's a case for paternalism, I personally believe, but it's not the role of the state to be paternalistic; it's the role of private citizens and parents to instruct their children in the manner they deem proper. Again, there's a distinction between the _state_ and private individuals.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Third world countries have governments to, ya know =p


Yes, but they dont all have government schools, why not?

*BECAUSE THEY CANT AFFORD IT.* They can't even borrow or defraud money to brainwash people into perpetuating the system, I suppose you believe those countries are better?




> I know of no system which has a 100% private school system;


but you and I can both think of countries with no education at all, am I wrong?




> I think the closest you could come to that would be a one-room schoolhouse system that existed in the USA in the 1700 and 1800s.


So your utopia doesn't exist. 





> I find it highly unlikely that this would happen; I'm sure there would be schools that are attached to certain corporations and would definitely instruct in their way of thinking, but I don't think this would happen on the whole; people aren't so stupid that this is completely lost on them, nor would a school that instructed that way survive , in the long term, against schools that were fairly independent.


so according to your thinking, government schooling can't overcome common sense either. 





> Also, even if we make it as black and white as you've suggested, which is better? Being indoctrinated into a corporate mindset (which means supporting a corporation which has to provide the general public with a service they want, to survive) or the State mindset (which will just perpetuate that idea that collectivized theft and coercion is ok and legit as long as a "government" does it).


I don't believe they're mutually exclusive. 
I believe we're all indoctrinated at different levels, for competing interests. 
So my answer isn't going to be constant, I'd be biased towards my own team.
Countries where there is less order, more crime, tend to have less stability in education, do you think that's better? It's freedom, am I wrong?




> There's a case for paternalism, I personally believe, but it's not the role of the state to be paternalistic; it's the role of private citizens and parents to instruct their children in the manner they deem proper. Again, there's a distinction between the _state_ and private individuals.


you missed my point, you were INDOCTRINATED by your parents at young age. How unfortunate.

----------


## jmdrake

> Not in this context no.
> 
> Or more specifically, they're not young earth Biblical creationists.


Gotcha.  Thinking the earth is a giant turtle = scientific and ok.  Thinking God created it in 6 days is not.




> I'm not a libertarian. I want an educational system because all civilized societies have it. (can you name me a country economically freer than us, with less education forced down their people?)


You sound like my tax professor who said "Peru has lower taxes than America and a lower standard of living.  Therefore lower taxes equals a lower standard of living.  Therefore when conservatives say you should be able to keep more of your money they're lying to you because it's not your money."

Look here in the U.S. at the kids being educated the best.  Many go to private school.  The best go to home school.  And most of them learn...you guessed it...creationism.  For some odd reason that doesn't hurt them on the standardized tests.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Gotcha.  Thinking the earth is a giant turtle = scientific and ok.  Thinking God created it in 6 days is not.


Being unscientific doesn't guarantee you're a Biblical creationist. But being a creationist with beliefs that are not scientific, is unscientific, and the same goes for any other belief that is not scientific. 

But wait, who here says giant turtle is scientific? Did you make that up? Or better yet, do you know it's unscientific? What do you use to conclude that? (I'd like to hear you use the same standards to show why the belief that the Biblical God made the Earth in 6 days is not unscientific)




> You sound like my tax professor who said "Peru has lower taxes than America and a lower standard of living.  Therefore lower taxes equals a lower standard of living.


I didn't say THEREFORE, I did say "show me an exception because I think I see a trend, I'd LOVE to be wrong". 




> Therefore when conservatives say you should be able to keep more of your money they're lying to you because it's not your money."


Did you forget a beginning quote? 

When conservatives say "keep your money" they mean money they care about and have an interest in keeping. When liberals say pay taxes for services, they mean services they care about having with other people's money. 





> Look here in the U.S. at the kids being educated the best.  Many go to private school.


Private school? A luxury third world countries don't have. 
Unless they call it something else. 
Do you realize countries first become self sufficient, then prosperous, then have a stable government, then have government schooling, THEN they can afford luxuries such as private schooling?

*Or do you believe private schooling can come in anytime, anywhere and always beat government schooling?*




> The best go to home school.


That's abundant in third world countries. Are they the best in their country?
Ever consider the possibility that being educated or not, and where, is not as important as what country you live in, what socio-economy condition your country is in, and how good your country is in technology, GDP...etc.

Thought experiment : 
Force education on Somalians.
Then ban education for Swedish.
Which one do you think would be more affected?

Why wouldn't Swedish want to perpetuate their status quo?
And why would Somalians want to keep their status quo?

Are Poland, Russia and East Germany hurt more by communism?
Or has the United States been hurt more by multiculturalism, immigration and ignorance to science? 




> And most of them learn...you guessed it...creationism.  For some odd reason that doesn't hurt them on the standardized tests.


standardised tests such as SAT?
What about MCAT, DAT?

Would you encourage Somalians to remain home schooled? Or Mexicans?
Do you believe home schooling & private schooling works for everybody, everywhere? *(I don't, if you do, you got some explaining to do)*

*Or please, let's get back on topic. 
Is libertarianism for everybody? Or do you even advocate it for Americans?* (If you don't, I don't either, no point in adding to this)

----------


## peacepotpaul

In fairness, I don't think anybody denies that racism, has always been the similar tale of believing one group is better than another, based on skin color or geographical location.

I also don't think anybody thinks it's more OK or less OK if the justification for racism entailed "how" and "why" group A is more civilized or superior to group B. Whether it was because one took more time to evolve or one was created with more blessings by God. The details of a belief hardly matter when the result is treating people differently (and with force). 

This is not different than a person who commits murder, and his excuse being either "God told me to do it" or "evolution taught me to do it". However absurd an excuse is, societies generally chose what is justifiable, as societies decide what is criminal and acceptable. Society has decided abortion is acceptable, and killing Matthew Shepard is not, regardless of the intent & personal beliefs. 

This is to say, our society does not say Christians are less allowed to have abortions, or if a criminal wasn't aware of Matthew being gay, it's not a hate crime. When we've made abortion acceptable, killing abortion doctors a crime, hurting gay people a hate crime, and racism a thought crime, *we don't give excuses based on why you do something.*

----------


## jmdrake

> Being unscientific doesn't guarantee you're a Biblical creationist. But being a creationist with beliefs that are not scientific, is unscientific, and the same goes for any other belief that is not scientific.


Ah.  So now you've changed it to *Biblical creationist*.  Big difference from being a *Biblical creationist* and being a creationist.  There are creation beliefs from around the world.




> But wait, who here says giant turtle is scientific? Did you make that up? Or better yet, do you know it's unscientific? What do you use to conclude that? (I'd like to hear you use the same standards to show why the belief that the Biblical God made the Earth in 6 days is not unscientific)


I never said the turtle theory was scientific or unscientific.  Just pointing out your logical fallacy in your claim that anyone who doesn't believe the Genesis account is somehow not a creationist.  Now if you want to say anyone who doesn't believe the Genesis account is not a *Biblical* creationist then that's a horse of a different color. 




> I didn't say THEREFORE, I did say "show me an exception because I think I see a trend, I'd LOVE to be wrong".


I was quoting my *professor* at that point.  No your statements weren't exactly the same, but followed the same trend.  You've shown that further by your continued (bad) analogies to third world countries.  Both of you missed the fact that correlation does not equal causation.  Is Mexico poor and corrupt because they spend little on their education system?  Or does Mexico spend little on their education system because they are poor and corrupt?  You should compare apples to apples.  Here in the states some school districts that spend the most money have the worst results.  And you can't (honestly) look at some broken down third world kleptocracy and call that a "free market".




> Private school? A luxury third world countries don't have. 
> Unless they call it something else.


Ummm....there are private schools in every country on the planet.  I'm not sure how that even fits into your argument, but your statement is easily and provably false.  Maybe you meant to say that many people in third world countries can't afford to send their children to the private schools available to them?  Even that's not always true.  You have self supporting schools and mission schools that take children who can't pay.




> Do you realize countries first become self sufficient, then prosperous, then have a stable government, then have government schooling, THEN they can afford luxuries such as private schooling?


No.  I don't "realize" that because it's simply not true.  I know people who used to live in Haiti and attended *private school* there.  Haiti is one of the most (if not the most) impoverished country on the planet.  A country may be too poor to have public schools, but it's *impossible for a country to be too poor to have private schools*.  Some countries may be too poor to have *government* schools.  I suspect that Somalia has no government schools since it has no government.  But even Somalia has private schools.

http://www.unicef.org/somalia/education_1372.html

Haiti does have a public school system but it's *really* bad.  If you want your child to have an decent education in Haiti you have to send him to private school or home school.




> *Or do you believe private schooling can come in anytime, anywhere and always beat government schooling?*


Well private schools do better than the government schools in Haiti (a very poor country) and in the U.S. (a very rich country) I suppose that's possible.  It's hard to generalize to every single scenario, but I don't see any reason why that can't be the case.




> That's abundant in third world countries. Are they the best in their country?
> Ever consider the possibility that being educated or not, and where, is not as important as what country you live in, what socio-economy condition your country is in, and how good your country is in technology, GDP...etc.


Again, compare apples to apples.  A reasonably educated parent in a third world country could certainly do better teaching her child at home than sending him or her to some third rate government school.  Foreign missionaries often homeschool with very good results.  In general the best results in third world countries are those who send their children to private schools.  (I know.  You don't think private schools exist in third world countries.)




> Thought experiment : 
> Force education on Somalians.
> Then ban education for Swedish.
> Which one do you think would be more affected?


Who said anything about banning education?  That's a stupid thought experiment.  Maybe you think that if the government isn't providing something it's been "banned"?  The government in the U.S. now gives people free cell phones.  If we got rid of that program would that mean we were "banning" cell phones?  Or maybe your thought experiment is based on the misguided notion that private school is a "luxury" that doesn't exist in third world countries despite all of the evidence tot he contrary.

A better thought experiment.  Instead of spending billions on education, the government provides resources and financial incentives in the form of tax credits for parents to teach their own kids.  What result?




> Are Poland, Russia and East Germany hurt more by communism?
> Or has the United States been hurt more by multiculturalism, immigration and ignorance to science?


Are you advocating for communism?   Anyway, that's an easy question to answer.  West Germany was an economic powerhouse until it had to absorb the socioeconomic basket case that was East Germany.  Also Poland, Russia and East Germany didn't have an immigration problem *because nobody wanted to move there!  They had to put up walls to keep their own people IN*.  And if "multiculturalism" bugs you so much, ask yourself where are you most likely to find it?  In a public school or a private school?  Even if some private schools are heavily into multiculturalism, do you think you wouldn't be able to find one that wasn't if you shopped around?  And if you choose your own homeschool curriculum to you believe you'd not be able to find one free of multiculturalism?





> standardised tests such as SAT?


Yes.

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200105070.asp
_
The average SAT scores of home-schooled students were 568 Verbal and 532 Math, above the national averages of 505 Verbal and 514 Math._




> What about MCAT, DAT?


The MCAT and the DAT are test taken *after college*.  And the application form only has check boxes for "public or private".  So how would you compile information about homeschoolers and the MCAT?  And what would be the point since the MCAT measures what you learned in college?

See: http://www.msuiit.edu.ph/admissions/...sferees%5D.pdf





> Would you encourage Somalians to remain home schooled? Or Mexicans?
> Do you believe home schooling & private schooling works for everybody, everywhere? *(I don't, if you do, you got some explaining to do)*


I would encourage Haitians who could to send their children to private school since everyone who knows anything about Haiti knows the public schools their suck.  If Mexico is anything like Haiti then the children in question are better off in private school too.  There are no public schools in Somalia, but if Somalia is anything like Haiti and Mexico then the private schools there are better then the public schools the government might set up.

As for homeschooling, that depends on the individual parent.  If you have a reasonable level of education yourself, you can likely do a better job of educating your own child then the government school where you live.  Perhaps the government school in Sweden would do a better job than you would in Haiti, but if you live in Haiti you don't live in Sweden.  (I know that's obvious.  But you seem to miss some obvious stuff).




> *Or please, let's get back on topic. 
> Is libertarianism for everybody? Or do you even advocate it for Americans?* (If you don't, I don't either, no point in adding to this)


I definitely advocate the free market.  Do I consider myself libertarian?  No.  But this is one area where the free market has already proven itself.  Comparing apples to apples private education has beat the pants off public education.  Private education in America (especially home schooled) has beat the pants off of public education in America.  Private education in Haiti has beat the pants off public education in Haiti.  Are there public school in America that beat private schools in Haiti?  Certainly.  But that's like pointing out that a 3 legged dog can outrun a sloth with all of its limbs.  That doesn't mean the sloth would be faster if you cut one leg off.

----------


## jmdrake

> In fairness, I don't think anybody denies that racism, has always been the similar tale of believing one group is better than another, based on skin color or geographical location.
> 
> I also don't think anybody thinks it's more OK or less OK if the justification for racism entailed "how" and "why" group A is more civilized or superior to group B. Whether it was because one took more time to evolve or one was created with more blessings by God. The details of a belief hardly matter when the result is treating people differently (and with force). 
> 
> This is not different than a person who commits murder, and his excuse being either "God told me to do it" or "evolution taught me to do it". However absurd an excuse is, societies generally chose what is justifiable, as societies decide what is criminal and acceptable. Society has decided abortion is acceptable, and killing Matthew Shepard is not, regardless of the intent & personal beliefs. 
> 
> This is to say, our society does not say Christians are less allowed to have abortions, or if a criminal wasn't aware of Matthew being gay, it's not a hate crime. When we've made abortion acceptable, killing abortion doctors a crime, hurting gay people a hate crime, and racism a thought crime, *we don't give excuses based on why you do something.*


 Trying to see the connection to the thread?

----------


## Todd

> Trying to see the connection to the thread?


No joke....

Too much pot.

----------


## moostraks

> No joke....
> 
> Too much pot.


lol...I read it several times and and left puzzled. I thought maybe it was me!

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Ah.  So now you've changed it to *Biblical creationist*.  Big difference from being a *Biblical creationist* and being a creationist.  There are creation beliefs from around the world.


Yeah. I did. Or I didn't specify it to begin with. 

Yes, there are various creation beliefs in the world, but when Americans say creationist, they usually mean 6 day young earth Biblical creationist.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> I definitely advocate the free market.  Do I consider myself libertarian?  No.  But this is one area where the free market has already proven itself.  Comparing apples to apples private education has beat the pants off public education.  Private education in America (especially home schooled) has beat the pants off of public education in America.  Private education in Haiti has beat the pants off public education in Haiti.  Are there public school in America that beat private schools in Haiti?  Certainly.  But that's like pointing out that a 3 legged dog can outrun a sloth with all of its limbs.  That doesn't mean the sloth would be faster if you cut one leg off.


No, not only are there SOME public schools in America that beat Haiti's private schools, but almost 100% of them do.

Why? Because we're a country that's economically better, we have a better society, education alone cannot change this. 

*What makes Haiti a sloth?*

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Haiti does have a public school system but it's *really* bad.  If you want your child to have an decent education in Haiti you have to send him to private school or home school.


So bad, that it's not even enforced, so it's practically nonexistent. 
Being able to afford private school is a luxury, staying at home and be homeschooled or not schooled, is probably the norm. 
According to you, public education is always worse, so Haiti must be better as they  don't have a good one. 




> Well private schools do better than the government schools in Haiti (a very poor country) and in the U.S. (a very rich country) I suppose that's possible.  It's hard to generalize to every single scenario, but I don't see any reason why that can't be the case.


Yep, me neither. 




> Again, compare apples to apples.  A reasonably educated parent in a third world country could certainly do better teaching her child at home than sending him or her to some third rate government school.


aha! that wasn't so hard to get out of you.

So you must admit that homeschool isn't for everybody. 
You must admit homeschooling, is like unemployment, it doesn't tell whether a person is too rich or too poor, only that he's not attending a government school, some are better off, some are worse.




> Foreign missionaries often homeschool with very good results.  In general the best results in third world countries are those who send their children to private schools.  (I know.  You don't think private schools exist in third world countries.)


More specifically, I don't believe there are good enough private schools that I'd want to send my children to a foreign country for. In contrast, immigrants come to the US for public schools. Why is that? 




> Who said anything about banning education?  That's a stupid thought experiment.  Maybe you think that if the government isn't providing something it's been "banned"?  The government in the U.S. now gives people free cell phones.  If we got rid of that program would that mean we were "banning" cell phones?  Or maybe your thought experiment is based on the misguided notion that private school is a "luxury" that doesn't exist in third world countries despite all of the evidence tot he contrary.


My bad, I meant eliminate it as a free service. Not ban.





> A better thought experiment.  Instead of spending billions on education, the government provides resources and financial incentives in the form of tax credits for parents to teach their own kids.  What result?


That depends on how well the parents are educated to begin with.




> Yes.
> 
> http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200105070.asp
> _
> The average SAT scores of home-schooled students were 568 Verbal and 532 Math, above the national averages of 505 Verbal and 514 Math._


So you mean to tell me they didn't count science? How convenient!




> The MCAT and the DAT are test taken *after college*.  And the application form only has check boxes for "public or private".  So how would you compile information about homeschoolers and the MCAT?  And what would be the point since the MCAT measures what you learned in college?
> 
> See: http://www.msuiit.edu.ph/admissions/...sferees%5D.pdf


Thanks for admitting you don't have evidence of that.
*And furthermore, homeschool can't replace college education!
*

----------


## moostraks

> .
> *And furthermore, homeschool can't replace college education!
> *


Why not? Homeschooling in Ohio you may not get a diploma but they are still educated. So you are saying the only way one can get higher education (meaning more in depth than a typical high school level) is by seeking instruction in a structured school environment?

Just because the system has been established to promote channeling of funds to those who will have the capacity to handle documentation of completion does not mean they are the only source of material.

----------


## Todd

foget high school grads.....In my experience Homeschoolers lay waste to most 'college' grads.





But anyway....I thought this was TER's thread on things like Genesis, Evolution, and Creation.

Don't mean to get in the way of a good derailment.

----------


## TER

The story of Genesis was written by Moses after being granted an immense vision by God.  If one reads the Genesis story in the point of view of someone standing on surface of the earth, the 'days' of creation are remarkably accurate with how one would have experienced the evolving changes around them, though in super fast motion.  As the earth changed from its original state of molten form/gaseous foggy atmosphere to its eventual hardened crust and expansive oceans, to the clearing of the skies and establishment of an atmosphere conducive to life, to the life that started from the oceans and spread to the lands and air, even including the 'whales' which may refer to the dinosaurs as Moses saw them in the vision.  All up until the creation of man.  It is utterly amazing how someone thousands of years ago could paint a picture of the creation of the world with such accuracy and insight.  What other creation story from the ancients come close to such a wonderful visual description of what science has confirmed up until now?  

For more information and a more detailed discussion about this, I again submit  "The Six Dawns" for everyone to read.  I think we all, Christian, atheist, creationist, evolutionist could have an interesting debate about this interesting writing.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, not only are there SOME public schools in America that beat Haiti's private schools, but almost 100% of them do.


You really are ignorant about the rest of the world aren't you?  I know doctors who went to private schools in Haiti.  And I know of American public schools where the average graduate can't read.




> Why? Because we're a country that's economically better, we have a better society, education alone cannot change this.


Huh?  As someone else asked, are you smoking pot?  Because your responses are very disjointed.  The fact that education alone can't transform Haiti into a better society does not automagically turn the worst inner city school in America into a school which can send its graduates to some of the best universities in the world.  (I.e. The best private schools in certain 3rd world countries including Haiti).




> *What makes Haiti a sloth?*


Haiti is run by a cleptocracy and has been for 100 years or more.  But again your response is disjointed from the actual conversation.  The point is that even if every private school in Haiti was worse that every public school in the U.S. (and that's NOT true) that Haitians *still* would be better off sending their children to the island's private schools than to the island's public schools.  But I'm not sure why you're even trying to debate this because *until this thread you were under the illusion that there were no private schools in third world countries*.  Clearly you don't know what you are talking about, so why do you continue to argue as if you were an expert?

----------


## peacepotpaul

> You really are ignorant about the rest of the world aren't you?  I know doctors who went to private schools in Haiti.  And I know of American public schools where the average graduate can't read.


While I admit to be ignorant of the world, let's compare apples to apples again.

Doctors who went to medical school in Haiti? Or elementary school in Haiti?
Average college graduate is skewed down by the losers, but the handful (by handful I mean a dozen) of best schools in the US (here's a discount, the public ones) can't fit on Haiti. 




> Huh?  As someone else asked, are you smoking pot?  Because your responses are very disjointed.  T*he fact that education alone can't transform Haiti into a better society does not automagically turn the worst inner city school in America into a school which can send its graduates to some of the best universities in the world.*  (I.e. The best private schools in certain 3rd world countries including Haiti).


And what are inner cities? They're 3rd world countries within the United States.
Why is it that inner cities complain they don't get enough education.
Whereas Bible belt county complain their children are forced education they happen to disagree a bit with?





> The point is that even if every private school in Haiti was worse that every public school in the U.S. (and that's NOT true) that Haitians *still* would be better off sending their children to the island's private schools than to the island's public schools.


Would you ever wonder why Haiti's schools, elementary level, college level, professional level, are worse than US schools? Do you want to count the hundreds of unaccredited online diploma mills in the US as schools?





> But I'm not sure why you're even trying to debate this because *until this thread you were under the illusion that there were no private schools in third world countries*.  Clearly you don't know what you are talking about, so why do you continue to argue as if you were an expert?


I'm not an expert, but I got you to admit what I wanted.

----------


## MelissaWV

I was going to post something about Genesis, Creation and Evolution...

... but I see this thread is about Haiti and education, so I'm not going to.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Why not? Homeschooling in Ohio you may not get a diploma but they are still educated. So you are saying the only way one can get higher education (meaning more in depth than a typical high school level) is by seeking instruction in a structured school environment?


For subjects such as medicine, engineering, biology, law, unless your parents are privileged and experts in the field, yes. 

I meant to say, the best homeschools can't replace the best universities.
But the best homeschools can probably exceed the worst of colleges if you're including ghetto community colleges and online diploma mills.





> Just because the system has been established to promote channeling of funds to those who will have the capacity to handle documentation of completion does not mean they are the only source of material.


it doesn't, it DOES mean, that they're established to be more credible judges, as the money is there. according to you guys, private corporate funded schools are better anyway, so why shouldn't money rule?

----------


## peacepotpaul

> I was going to post something about Genesis, Creation and Evolution...
> 
> ... but I see this thread is about Haiti and education, so I'm not going to.


what's wrong with that?

----------


## jmdrake

> So bad, that it's not even enforced, so it's practically nonexistent. 
> Being able to afford private school is a luxury, staying at home and be homeschooled or not schooled, is probably the norm. 
> According to you, public education is always worse, so Haiti must be better as they  don't have a good one.


  Yes.  That fine public education has made you a logic genius.

One more time. *Compare freaking apples to freaking apples*!  The public school system in Haiti is worse than the public school system in America.  (And the American public school system is not compulsory either.  When you get some time go read Wisconsin v. Yoder).  The public school system in America is worse than the private school system in America.  And *many* people in America can't afford private school tuition here either!  What do you think the "school voucher" debate is about?







> aha! that wasn't so hard to get out of you.
> 
> So you must admit that homeschool isn't for everybody. 
> You must admit homeschooling, is like unemployment, it doesn't tell whether a person is too rich or too poor, only that he's not attending a government school, some are better off, some are worse.


Huh?  Have you moved up from smoking weed to smoking crack?  I never said homeschooling *was* for everybody.  That said I've worked with public school children who were in the 5th grade and couldn't read words like "cat" or "dog".  I can't see how *anybody* who had a real desire to teach her own child could do worse than that.  And no these children weren't at all retarded.  Their parents were gullible enough to believe that the public school would actually do the job we taxpayers pay it to do.




> More specifically, I don't believe there are good enough private schools that I'd want to send my children to a foreign country for. In contrast, immigrants come to the US for public schools. Why is that?


Immigrants come to the U.S. for economic opportunities.  I've met many immigrants who complain about the quality of the schools here.  And if you don't think there are private schools outside the U.S. that are "good enough" for you to send your children there, then you just need to get out more.





> My bad, I meant eliminate it as a free service. Not ban.


Ok.





> That depends on how well the parents are educated to begin with.


When you get a chance you should read the book "Gifted Hands" by the noted neuroscientist Dr. Ben Carson.  His mother was illiterate.  Most of his friends were growing up not learning how to read and he was headed that way.  While she didn't homeschool him per se, she did decide to take his education into his own hands and she forced him and his siblings to giver her a book report every week which she pretended to read.  The results speak for themselves.  So even uneducated parents can take charge of their children's education.  Even if all a parent did was buy some reading videos and made her children watch them, those kids would be light years ahead of the 5th graders I've met who couldn't read "cat" or "dog".




> So you mean to tell me they didn't count science? How convenient!


Only a complete idiot would think that you have to take an MCAT or DAT to measure science.  If you wanted to know about science grades why didn't you ask about the ACT?  Homeschoolers kick but on that test too.

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000017.asp
_Research has shown that homeschoolers on average do better than the national average on standardized achievement tests for the elementary and secondary grade levels. Statistics demonstrate that homeschoolers tend to score above the national average on both their SAT and ACT scores.

For example, the 2219 students reporting their homeschool status on the SAT in 1999 scored an average of 1083 (verbal 548, math 535), 67 points above the national average of 1016. In 2004 the 7858 homeschool students taking the ACT scored an average of 22.6, compared to the national average of 20.9.

According to the 1998 ACT High School Profile Report, 2610 graduating homeschoolers took the ACT and scored an average of 22.8 out of a possible 36 points. This score is slightly higher that the 1997 report released on the results of 1926 homeschool graduates and founding homeschoolers maintained the average of 22.5. This is higher than the national average, which was 21.0 in both 1997 and 1998._




> Thanks for admitting you don't have evidence of that.


Thanks for giving me the opportunity *TO PROVE THAT YOU ARE CLUELESS!*  Homeschoolers kick butt on the science section of the ACT.




> *And furthermore, homeschool can't replace college education!
> *


Ummm....who said that it did?  Actually people do graduate from online colleges everyday *and even Harvard offers degrees online* so once again you don't know what you are talking about.

http://www.extension.harvard.edu/

----------


## jmdrake

> While I admit to be ignorant of the world, let's compare apples to apples again.
> 
> Doctors who went to medical school in Haiti? Or elementary school in Haiti?
> Average college graduate is skewed down by the losers, but the handful (by handful I mean a dozen) of best schools in the US (here's a discount, the public ones) can't fit on Haiti.


Elementary schools in Haiti and medical school in the U.S.




> And what are inner cities? They're 3rd world countries within the United States.
> Why is it that inner cities complain they don't get enough education.


And in these "3rd world countries within the U.S." more money is spent on children per capita than anywhere else.  You're point?





> Would you ever wonder why Haiti's schools, elementary level, college level, professional level, are worse than US schools? Do you want to count the hundreds of unaccredited online diploma mills in the US as schools?


I don't wonder.  Haiti is a cleptocracy.  I've told you that time and time again in this thread and you keep ignoring that.  Why?

Anyway some Haitian private schools are better than some U.S. public schools despite all of the resource we throw at them.




> I'm not an expert, but I got you to admit what I wanted.


That not everybody can homeschool?  I never argued otherwise.  But parents who are unfit to homeschool often have children that grow up illiterate anyway even if they send them to public school.

----------


## jmdrake

> foget high school grads.....In my experience Homeschoolers lay waste to most 'college' grads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But anyway....I thought this was TER's thread on things like Genesis, Evolution, and Creation.
> 
> Don't mean to get in the way of a good derailment.


The tie in to Genesis is that some "evil homeschoolers" don't want their kids to learn evolution so they teach their children themselves and that's bad even though homeschoolers are kicking butt on standardized tests *including the science portion of the ACT*.

----------


## MelissaWV

> what's wrong with that?





> 1.  derailing a thread   
> The act of throwing a thread in a discussion forum off topic, oftentimes so much so that the original discussion is unable to continue.


* * *

Just because I like them, I'm adding a platypus.

----------


## jmdrake

> * * *
> 
> Just because I like them, I'm adding a platypus.


At least a platypus fits into the debate over origin of species.  Are you trying to re-rail this topic?

----------


## MelissaWV

> The tie in to Genesis is that some "evil homeschoolers" don't want their kids to learn evolution so they teach their children themselves and that's bad even though homeschoolers are kicking butt on standardized tests *including the science portion of the ACT*.


The science portion of the ACT was a joke, and was mostly about methodology and not rote memorization of factoids.  It wouldn't have mattered much if you believed in Cthulhu, at least from the version I took of it.

Home schooling and community schooling also increase the amount of time the instructor spends with the student (versus public school) and allow that instructor to tailor their teaching to the student, rather than going by some pre-approved playbook.  Additionally, home schooling removes a lot of procedural time-wasters (think assemblies, announcements, and so on).  There are, of course, other benefits, but there's no need to go into them here.

The point is that home schooling is generally going to be better than public school for a variety of reasons, but I don't believe the religious aspect enters into it.  

As for home schooling universities, the parents are no longer necessarily expert enough to teach, nor are available teaching materials good enough to make them sound like professors.  This leaves the student to either learn on their own (and some do, and do an awesome job), or to move on to a situation where they are exposed to professors who are hopefully experts.  Ideally, the fact that a college education must be paid for is an additional motivator (or that a certain GPA must be maintained in order to keep a scholarship).  There's no such thing, or the maturity to understand that kind of arrangement, in much of a child's elementary years.

So... yeah... Haiti's poor, but it has standouts, but I'm still not entirely sure what on earth it has to do with the OP except to be a strange mutation of it.

----------


## TER

This thread is proof of diverging evolutionary processes!  How one OP has evolved into two different species of posts!

----------


## moostraks

> For subjects such as medicine, engineering, biology, law, unless your parents are privileged and experts in the field, yes. 
> 
> I meant to say, the best homeschools can't replace the best universities.
> But the best homeschools can probably exceed the worst of colleges if you're including ghetto community colleges and online diploma mills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't, it DOES mean, that they're established to be more credible judges, as the money is there. according to you guys, private corporate funded schools are better anyway, so why shouldn't money rule?


Your response is an opinion and relevant to only to the fact that money controls power (in our society) and demands certification in many cases to prove authenticity of one's education thus creating a closed system to those who might be skilled but not degreed. It does not guarantee that one is competent, but that one has done the work of program xyz. Depending on the manner of certification it may be attendance or achievement that is acknowledged. This does not preclude one from being able to achieve a tremendous level of education outside the confines of the universities.

It is the interest of the student and the appropriate material that determines whether or not a student achieves. The teacher is the facilitator. There are various ways this can be achieved. One can either pass on their own knowledge or help the student seek the proper means to obtain it.   

You need to realize this forum is diverse. Not all of us believe that money should be the standard bearer for all things.

I am still trying to figure out where this reasoning is coming from on a thread regarding Genesis,Creation, and Evolution???

----------


## jmdrake

> The science portion of the ACT was a joke, and was mostly about methodology and not rote memorization of factoids.  It wouldn't have mattered much if you believed in Cthulhu, at least from the version I took of it.


It's been a while since I took the ACT.  Back then you did at least have to work out some physics problems (simple ones admittedly).  But I have heard it's been watered down.  And religious belief has anything to do with how well you do in science.  It doesn't matter if you're taking the ACT or the MCAT or if you're doing scientific research.  There was a thread I posted a while back about medical school professors complaining that a growing number of their students being creationists.  Clearly these students were good enough to get in.  And their were no complaints about school performance.  Just complaints about personal beliefs.  




> Home schooling and community schooling also increase the amount of time the instructor spends with the student (versus public school) and allow that instructor to tailor their teaching to the student, rather than going by some pre-approved playbook.  Additionally, home schooling removes a lot of procedural time-wasters (think assemblies, announcements, and so on).  There are, of course, other benefits, but there's no need to go into them here.
> 
> The point is that home schooling is generally going to be better than public school for a variety of reasons, but I don't believe the religious aspect enters into it.


Oh sure.  I never said otherwise.  The point is that students are not being *hurt* academically just because they are being taught a curriculum that (some) people here don't approve of.




> As for home schooling universities, the parents are no longer necessarily expert enough to teach, nor are available teaching materials good enough to make them sound like professors.  This leaves the student to either learn on their own (and some do, and do an awesome job), or to move on to a situation where they are exposed to professors who are hopefully experts.


In some online schools professors interact more with students than in traditional classrooms.  How often have you sat in a classroom with over 100 students where most never raise their hands and ask a question?  And most never go to office hours.  If an online college student sends his professor 1 question per week he's having more real interaction than the average student.  (I don't count passively listening to a lecture as interaction.)  But yes, this is something where the student has to have some self motivation.




> Ideally, the fact that a college education must be paid for is an additional motivator (or that a certain GPA must be maintained in order to keep a scholarship).  There's no such thing, or the maturity to understand that kind of arrangement, in much of a child's elementary years.
> 
> So... yeah... Haiti's poor, but it has standouts, but I'm still not entirely sure what on earth it has to do with the OP except to be a strange mutation of it.


LOL.   It's that cross pollination of religion, science, education and liberty.  (Do you have the personal liberty to allow your religion to influence your child's science education, especially when the results of others who have done the same has been as good as those who go along with the state.)

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Elementary schools in Haiti and medical school in the U.S.


Good, that's what I thought.




> And in these "3rd world countries within the U.S." more money is spent on children per capita than anywhere else.  You're point?


I was lead to believe we don't spend enough on them, so they remain inner cities, but if that's true.....

*Ha! That's exactly my point! Education doesn't work for everybody, what kind of people live in inner cities?*

The same point I made with Sweden wanting to preserve its status quo and Haiti not wanting to.

How come education hasn't brainwashed these inner city kids to become government agents, but rather, government dependents? 

So I will correct myself here, that I wanted public education for smart Americans because they can benefit from it. Not inner city Americans where they won't. 

In the same breath, education, homeschooling, socialism and freedom is NOT FOR EVERYBODY.* I'm not for the belief that education is always good, I'm against the belief that government schooling is always harmful.
*



> That not everybody can homeschool?  I never argued otherwise.  But parents who are unfit to homeschool often have children that grow up illiterate anyway even if they send them to public school.


fair enough!

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Your response is an opinion and relevant to only to the fact that money controls power (in our society) =


please give me an example of a comparably civil society, with equally preferable living conditions, that doesn't hold this value.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> I am still trying to figure out where this reasoning is coming from on a thread regarding Genesis,Creation, and Evolution???


jmdrake dragged it in, with telling me that homeschool kids are not less smart because they've been taught creationism (how many of their parents are scientists?)

----------


## peacepotpaul

> The science portion of the ACT was a joke, and was mostly about methodology and not rote memorization of factoids.  It wouldn't have mattered much if you believed in Cthulhu, at least from the version I took of it.
> 
> Home schooling and community schooling also increase the amount of time the instructor spends with the student (versus public school) and allow that instructor to tailor their teaching to the student, rather than going by some pre-approved playbook.  Additionally, home schooling removes a lot of procedural time-wasters (think assemblies, announcements, and so on).  There are, of course, other benefits, but there's no need to go into them here.
> 
> The point is that home schooling is generally going to be better than public school for a variety of reasons, but I don't believe the religious aspect enters into it.  
> 
> As for home schooling universities, the parents are no longer necessarily expert enough to teach, nor are available teaching materials good enough to make them sound like professors.  This leaves the student to either learn on their own (and some do, and do an awesome job), or to move on to a situation where they are exposed to professors who are hopefully experts.  Ideally, the fact that a college education must be paid for is an additional motivator (or that a certain GPA must be maintained in order to keep a scholarship).  There's no such thing, or the maturity to understand that kind of arrangement, in much of a child's elementary years.
> 
> So... yeah... Haiti's poor, but it has standouts, but I'm still not entirely sure what on earth it has to do with the OP except to be a strange mutation of it.


so you don't disagree that though home schooling is effecient in costs for elementary to high school level, it's insufficient to replace higher education (private or public, for clarity, I'm not counting community colleges, but only 4 year degrees).

----------


## peacepotpaul

> I never said homeschooling *was* for everybody.


and I never said I was a libertarian.

We happy now?

To answer your question : WHy do I want public schools?

I want public schools for smart Americans, not dumb Americans. 
I want benefits for people who know how to use them, not wasted on inner cities. 
I don't advocate going to Haiti.
I don't think you'd disagree with public education either if they taught everything you believe in.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> I don't think you'd disagree with public education either if they taught everything you believe in.


considering that what I was likely going to say to you has already been (mostly) addressed, I'll leave it that that....that said, I will address this statement.


I kinda doubt people here would advocate public education, even if it taught "creationism"--I know I wouldn't--for one, it still violates the NAP, and secondly, it'd still perpetuate the ideology of blind loyalty to the State.

If you're attempting to argue that public schools _could_ refuse to teach State-loyalty, I'll disagree with you, fundamentally because I'd strongly suggest this doesn't exist anywhere.

----------


## moostraks

> please give me an example of a comparably civil society, with equally preferable living conditions, that doesn't hold this value.


THat is subjective and argumentative as no matter what I answer you will contest as being infeasible.

For giggles Hutterites. Go ahead and attack...

----------


## moostraks

> jmdrake dragged it in, with telling me that homeschool kids are not less smart because they've been taught creationism (how many of their parents are scientists?)


And you insisted creationism refers to 6 days young earth, right?

Many, dare I say most, creationists are not 6 dayers btw...

Isn't evolution still a theory or did that become fact while I was off teaching my children today???

----------


## MelissaWV

> so you don't disagree that though home schooling is effecient in costs for elementary to high school level, it's insufficient to replace higher education (private or public, for clarity, I'm not counting community colleges, but only 4 year degrees).


No, I'm saying that the professors must change.  Home schooling for elementary and middle school, especially, will be the parents.  Most parents are fairly qualified for this, with the assistance of classroom materials.  However, in late high school and throughout college, the courses become more specific and the knowledge more esoteric.  This means that it's highly unlikely the parents will know what they're talking about on all the subjects required to get a degree, and therefore the teaching must be done by someone else.

The options become:

1. Professors at a traditional college/university.
2. Professors via a series of online training courses/materials.
3. The student via a series of online training courses/materials.
4. A combination of mentoring, online courses, work experience, and other things (though that's not going to net you a degree, necessarily).

A student can "home school" themselves in options 2, 3, and most of 4 using outside materials, which is actually what most parents would do to home school their children.  Even in option 1, the student is ultimately in charge of their learning experience.  

The only thing changing is the person in charge of the curriculum.  Oh and of course, it's not going to work for everyone.  I have a distinct suspicion, though, that it works for WAY more people than Government schools do, if only for the reasons I stated earlier (and the increased parental involvement; I left that one out somehow).

----------


## peacepotpaul

> considering that what I was likely going to say to you has already been (mostly) addressed, I'll leave it that that....that said, I will address this statement.
> 
> 
> I kinda doubt people here would advocate public education, even if it taught "creationism"--I know I wouldn't--for one, it still violates the NAP, and secondly, it'd still perpetuate the ideology of blind loyalty to the State.


Creationism, NAP, loyalty to the State?

How do you connect them?





> If you're attempting to argue that public schools _could_ refuse to teach State-loyalty, I'll disagree with you, fundamentally because I'd strongly suggest this doesn't exist anywhere.


but they can fail at it, am i wrong?

----------


## peacepotpaul

> And you insisted creationism refers to 6 days young earth, right?


I insisted that when Americans use the term creationism, they mean Biblical Creationism in 6 days, as that's the most popular form of it.

When people discuss the "controversy", they mean creationism in 6 days according to the Bible, as unless they mean ID, which they'd specify, or other creation myths from other countries, they'd need to specify as well.




> Many, dare I say most, creationists are not 6 dayers btw...


I don't think it's fit to call them creationists, how broad is that definition?




> Isn't evolution still a theory or did that become fact while I was off teaching my children today???


It's both. A theory is an explanation of facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact

----------


## peacepotpaul

> THat is subjective and argumentative as no matter what I answer you will contest as being infeasible.
> 
> For giggles Hutterites. Go ahead and attack...


No, I'll let you tell me what's an equally preferable place to live, and go from there.

I'll only laugh at you if you tell me Detroit is equally preferable to Beverly Hills, but I can't say you're wrong.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> Creationism, NAP, loyalty to the State?
> 
> How do you connect them?


You totally diverted the attention of the topic here; please take note of what I quoted--you stated that a number of us here would probably support public education if they taught the things "we wanted"---I said they probably wouldn't, even if they did, then outlined the reasons.







> but they can fail at it, am i wrong?


given the fact there's less than 1% of the population that is even remotely anarcho-capitalist, I'd say they haven't failed at it, at all.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> given the fact there's less than 1% of the population that is even remotely anarcho-capitalist, I'd say they haven't failed at it, at all.


are you blaming the low percentage of people agreeing with you on public education?

I don't think you're saying that, anybody who doesn't agree with an-cap, is a loyal Statist (because that's ridiculous).

People can be pro-Statist, without being blindly loyal to the State they're living in. 
People can also be anti-State, without being an-cap (shouldn't this be common sense?).

----------


## jmdrake

> Good, that's what I thought.


Oh brother.    I beginning to think you'd say "That's what I thought" no matter what I write.  If I said "They went to medical school in Haiti" then you'd say "See!  That proves that people who graduate from private schools in Haiti can't hack it in the U.S."  If I say "They went to med school in the U.S." you'll say "See!  That proves that...." well I'm not sure what you think that proves.  

For the record there are medical schools in Haiti and there are people from Haiti who go to medical school in the U.S.  Also there are people in the U.S. that go to medical school in the Caribbean.  Is that "what you thought"?




> I was lead to believe we don't spend enough on them, so they remain inner cities, but if that's true.....
> 
> *Ha! That's exactly my point! Education doesn't work for everybody, what kind of people live in inner cities?*


Take these same kids from the inner cities and put them in private, charter or home schools and many of them *excel*.  It's got *little if anything* to do with the people in the inner cities.




> The same point I made with Sweden wanting to preserve its status quo and Haiti not wanting to.


Me being nitpicky -- you were talking about Somalia and the status quo, not Haiti.

Me not being nitpicky -- how is this the same point about the inner cities?  It seems that sometimes you just throw random sentences together.





> How come education hasn't brainwashed these inner city kids to become government agents, but rather, government dependents?


"How come" you think that being a government agent and a government dependent is mutually exclusive?  And why do you think creating government dependents (and thus an excuse for bigger government) might not be a goal of brainwashing?




> So I will correct myself here, that I wanted public education for smart Americans because they can benefit from it. Not inner city Americans where they won't.


Taking taxes from everybody to fund education for some is (or should be) illegal.  




> In the same breath, education, homeschooling, socialism and freedom is NOT FOR EVERYBODY.* I'm not for the belief that education is always good, I'm against the belief that government schooling is always harmful.
> *


If you are going to ration education dollars (only letting the people who are "worthy" have it) then the government shouldn't be involved.  Let the market allocate education dollars just like the market should regulate healthcare dollars.  Seriously, just about every argument you're making can be applied to universal healthcare.  Do you support that too?  If not, why not?

----------


## jmdrake

> jmdrake dragged it in, with telling me that homeschool kids are not less smart because they've been taught creationism (how many of their parents are scientists?)


Don't put that on me.  You're the one that brought education into the debate.

----------


## jmdrake

> and I never said I was a libertarian.


I never said I was either.  But I am for the free market when it's been proven.




> We happy now?


I've never been unhappy.




> To answer your question : WHy do I want public schools?


I don't recall asking that, but I suppose you'll tell me anyway.




> I want public schools for smart Americans, not dumb Americans.


What's your definition of "smart Americans"?  Do you consider yourself a "smart American"?  At what age is this "smartness" revealed?  And why should "dumb Americans" have to pay for "smart Americans"?  Considering that the best test scores are from areas of the country were people can afford to pay for private school, and considering your (new found) belief that these are the only people who deserve public school, then why do we need public school at all?  Note I'm not advocating abolishing public schools.  I'm on the fence on that issue.  But you are making a very strong case as to why public schools aren't needed.




> I want benefits for people who know how to use them, not wasted on inner cities.


So tax everybody to pay for good public schools for the people who can actually afford to send their children to private schools.  That makes sense.    What's next?  Free government healthcare to everybody that already has insurance? 




> I don't advocate going to Haiti.


Ummmm....who said anything about going to Haiti?




> I don't think you'd disagree with public education either if they taught everything you believe in.


What part of "the outcomes in private and home school are currently better than public school outcomes" do you *not* understand?

----------


## peacepotpaul

> I never said I was either.  But I am for the free market when it's been proven.
> 
> I've never been unhappy.
> 
> I don't recall asking that, but I suppose you'll tell me anyway.


I misunderstood you then

_If you're a libertarian (and I know some people at RPF are not) then why do you want an "education system" at all?
_

Do you want an education system?




> What's your definition of "smart Americans"?  Do you consider yourself a "smart American"?  At what age is this "smartness" revealed?  And why should "dumb Americans" have to pay for "smart Americans"?


The same reason dumb people pay taxes.





> Considering that the best test scores are from areas of the country were people can afford to pay for private school, and considering your (new found) belief that these are the only people who deserve public school, then why do we need public school at all?


As I said before, to perpetuate the status quo.




> Note I'm not advocating abolishing public schools.  I'm on the fence on that issue.  But you are making a very strong case as to why public schools aren't needed.


They aren't needed everywhere.




> So tax everybody to pay for good public schools for the people who can actually afford to send their children to private schools.  That makes sense.    What's next?  Free government healthcare to everybody that already has insurance?


if you're not saying you want to abolish all public schools, we don't disagree much. 





> Ummmm....who said anything about going to Haiti?
> 
> What part of "the outcomes in private and home school are currently better than public school outcomes" do you *not* understand?


Are you saying inner cities are better off if they had no public schooling, and leave them to homeschooling? I think they already do that, it's called selling drugs and pimping children.

Do online diploma mills without accreditation outperform the best public schools?
Do you see doctors who didn't go to an accredited medical school?

WHy am I qualifying every generalization you give? Because I believe homeschooling statistics always only count the best, not the worst (those who fail at homeschooling don't get further, so how'd you know about them?)

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Don't put that on me.  You're the one that brought education into the debate.


What I said was :
_I can't "let live" if non-scientists are using political power to subvert our education system and promote false attitudes towards the scientific method._ 

I suppose you don't think that's a problem.

----------


## jmdrake

> I misunderstood you then
> 
> _If you're a libertarian (and I know some people at RPF are not) then why do you want an "education system" at all?
> _
> 
> Do you want an education system?


I want results.  And the best results in education have come from the free market.  I guess I should ask you "Do you want results?  Or are you just pushing an anti religion agenda?"




> The same reason dumb people pay taxes.


Those "dumb people" get services.  Being forced to pay taxes for a service you can't get is immoral and unconstitutional.  See Brown versus Board of Education.  Besides, the people that you call "smart" can afford to pay for private schools.





> As I said before, to perpetuate the status quo.


But you're not for "perpetuating the status quo".  You want to end the education system in the inner city wear people are less likely to be able to afford private education and keep public education in the suburbs where people are more likely to be able to afford private education.  That just "dumb".  




> They aren't needed everywhere.


*By the way that YOU have currently framed the issue they aren't needed ANYWHERE*!

Think this through.  You say don't fund education for the inner city because those people are "dumb".  But people in the suburbs do not *need* the service because they can afford to send their children to private schools.  You want to give a public benefit to people who have enough money that they don't need it.  That's just silly.





> if you're not saying you want to abolish all public schools, we don't disagree much.


How about this?  I'll agree to abolish it for everyone who can pay for it (the suburbs) you agree to abolish it for everyone that you think is just "dumb" (the inner cities) and we'll see what's left.





> Are you saying inner cities are better off if they had no public schooling, and leave them to homeschooling? I think they already do that, it's called selling drugs and pimping children.


First off this discussion started with regards to *private versus public*.  I threw in homeschool as a bonus.  Second the most obvious solution to people trapped in bad public school systems is school vouchers.  You know, those wonderful things that let people who can't afford it send their kids to private schools?  You act like you've never heard of that.  Third if you think that most people in the inner cities "pimp their children" and "teach them to sell drugs" then you know nothing about the inner cities.  Maybe you should volunteer for an inner city school.  Public, private, homeschool learning center, it doesn't matter.  Just get out from behind your computer and actually meet some real people.




> Do online diploma mills without accreditation outperform the best public schools?
> Do you see doctors who didn't go to an accredited medical school?


Are you calling Harvard an "online diploma mill"?  And I don't know of any online medical schools because there is a hands on component to medical school.  But I'd take an MBA online from Harvard over an MBA from any state university.  




> WHy am I qualifying every generalization you give? Because I believe homeschooling statistics always only count the best, not the worst (those who fail at homeschooling don't get further, so how'd you know about them?)


And people drop out of HS and never take the ACT either so that evens out.  Really you're just looking for cheap excuses to get around a conclusion that your prejudice against religious people won't allow you to fathom.  That's why you threw in the MCAT and DAT even though *nobody* uses those tests as a measure of K-12 education!  Really, can you tell me which state's high schoolers do the best on the MCAT?   But it's easy to find ACT and SAT rankings by state.

http://www.gsci.org/documents/2006%2...by%20State.pdf

If the results what you want to believe you'd be all over them.  Forget homeschool since you are so hung up due to your prejudice.  Just look at public versus private.  You have the same results (private outscoring public) and that's true *even for those "dumb" inner city kids*.

Bottom line.  I'm for the free market.  In a free market some people might choose to teach their children at home.  Others might choose a traditional school setting.  All of those are free market choices.  The current "status quo" arrangement has subverted the free market and the country as a whole is suffering because of that.  You recognize this but your "solution" (stealing from the poor to give to the rich) is worse than the disease.

----------


## jmdrake

> What I said was :
> _I can't "let live" if non-scientists are using political power to subvert our education system and promote false attitudes towards the scientific method._ 
> 
> I suppose you don't think that's a problem.


Right.  You brought up education.  Glad I got you to admit that.    And I have a problem public policy being driven by prejudice instead of by results.  There is no results based evidence that what you call "false attitudes towards science" hurts anybody educationally.  Provide some actual results that fit your side, rather making lame attempts to knock down proven results that go against your argument.

----------


## moostraks

> I insisted that when Americans use the term creationism, they mean Biblical Creationism in 6 days, as that's the most popular form of it.
> 
> When people discuss the "controversy", they mean creationism in 6 days according to the Bible, as unless they mean ID, which they'd specify, or other creation myths from other countries, they'd need to specify as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's fit to call them creationists, how broad is that definition?
> 
> 
> ...


Although some may argue, ID is a form of creationism. Also some don't ascribe to the macro evolution but do agree with micro evolution and believe the time frame to be longer than 6 days. So the definition is pretty broad and you are the one limiting the discussion for your arguments sake. 

Rather than wiki which is user disputable how about the American Heritage Science dictionary version.

"theory (th-r, thîr)
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

So a theory is the explanation of facts. Meaning the area is more subjective based upon the phenomena being utilized to support the hypothesis. Henceforth why there are several theories utilizing similar phenomena and until definitive will remain theories despite the ardent following of their supporters.

----------


## moostraks

> No, I'll let you tell me what's an equally preferable place to live, and go from there.
> 
> I'll only laugh at you if you tell me Detroit is equally preferable to Beverly Hills, but I can't say you're wrong.


I answered. Even though the question was completely subjective...

BTW I completely anticipated you mocking me.

----------


## Natalie

I don't want to read this whole thread.  But I don't believe in evolution.  And neither does Ron Paul!  Pow Pow!

----------


## TER

> I don't want to read this whole thread.  But I don't believe in evolution.  And neither does Ron Paul!  Pow Pow!


No need to read the whole thread.  Most of it has nothing to do with evolution!

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Right.  You brought up education.  Glad I got you to admit that.    And I have a problem public policy being driven by prejudice instead of by results.  There is no results based evidence that what you call "false attitudes towards science" hurts anybody educationally.  Provide some actual results that fit your side, rather making lame attempts to knock down proven results that go against your argument.


I supposed I can't find any evidence that lack of Christian moral education hurts a society's morality, or that recognizing gay marriage degrades a society's cohesion, I can't even find evidence that militaries are weakened by allowing women.

*You got me there, I should really wait for things to happen.*

By the way, all the "results" you've given about comparing public & private schools have been high school and below. Not only have you not provided any universities that teach creationism, somebody here even admitted that university education can't be replaced by homeschooling. 

Sounds like you're saying : either a person can live and work fine without knowledge of evolution (and I agree). Or that whatever they've been taught up to high school, can be corrected in college and later (so it doesn't matter if you lie to them about history or math). *The only "results" you've cited were testing on VERBAL AND MATH. 
* (do failed homeschooling kids get counted, or are required to take standardized tests? if not, that's unfair to public school statistics which are forced to report the losers, not just their bests who desire to go to college) 

Next you'll be asking if there's any evidence that teaching creationism in colleges hurts a person's education.

Maybe I should ask you if you can cite a Biblical creationist in the past 20 years  who rejects the theory of evolution (put narrowly, that humans are monkeys), and has produced any advancement in biochemistry, genetics, medicine, anthropology?

Otherwise, don't make lame attempts to knock down the body of scientific education with the belief that "it doesn't hurt anybody educationally" while only talking about high school or younger. (on a tangent, you had to tell me a doctor went to elementary school in Haiti but medical school in the US).

----------


## peacepotpaul

> That's why you threw in the MCAT and DAT even though *nobody* uses those tests as a measure of K-12 education!  Really, can you tell me which state's high schoolers do the best on the MCAT?   But it's easy to find ACT and SAT rankings by state.


so you admit you can't argue with people after they're in college. 



*Unless you're saying college is useless. Results!!* 

Where do lawyers, doctors and engineers come from?
Where do teachers, nurses, accountants and architects come from?

Where are the best colleges in the US? Blue states?
Where do these high scoring SAT students go to college? In their own State?
Which States have the highest median family income? (with the exception of TX, FL, they're mostly blue states)

If I can find you a high school that lets their graduates take MCAT, you can bet it's a private school, can you guess whether they taught evolution?

You seem to be conflating homeschools and private schools as if they're one entity. 
You tell me that private schools in Haiti are better than public schools in Haiti.
Just as private schools in US are better than public schools in US.
*But wait, are homeschooled children in Haiti better than those in public schools of Haiti?
Or Mexico for the matter.*

----------


## TER

Albert Einstein: "I never found anything in my field of science that contradicted Religion"

Max Planck: "Wherever and however deep we may focus our attention, nowhere will we find any contradiction between religion and the natural sciences; on the contrary, in precisely the most crucial points, we discover a full accord

Werner Heisenberg: "In the history of science, since the time of Galileos trial, they have repeatedly claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world.  Although I am now convinced that scientific truth stands on solid ground, I never did manage to ever reject the content of religious thought as though it were supposedly a part of an obsolete phase of mankinds conscience; a part that we should abandon from now on.  Thus, during my lifetime, I have repeatedly found myself needing to speculate on the relationship between those two areas of thought, because I never succeeded in doubting the reality towards which they point."

----------


## jmdrake

> so you admit you can't argue with people after they're in college.


The above statement has no relation to anything I said in particular or to this thread in general.




> *Unless you're saying college is useless. Results!!* 
> 
> Where do lawyers, doctors and engineers come from?
> Where do teachers, nurses, accountants and architects come from?



The above statement has no relation to anything I said in particular or to this thread in general.
Do you just randomly make stuff up?




> Where are the best colleges in the US? Blue states?


The above statement has no relation to anything I said in particular or to this thread in general.

I see you still haven't addressed the fact that Harvard has an online degree program.  Also some of the top universities are in red states.  I go to one.  And there are many homeschoolers in blue states.




> Where do these high scoring SAT students go to college? In their own State?
> Which States have the highest median family income? (with the exception of TX, FL, they're mostly blue states)


The above statement has no relation to anything I said in particular or to this thread in general.




> If I can find you a high school that lets their graduates take MCAT, you can bet it's a private school, can you guess whether they taught evolution?


The above statement has no relation to anything I said in particular or to this thread in general.
  Further it's not up to the high school to "let" their graduates take the MCAT.  That's between the student and the testing center.  I don't even know of any high schools public or private that encourage their students to take the MCAT.  Do you?  Do you have a link, or will you continue to just throw up random statements hoping something will stick?  I can tell you for certain that there are religious colleges that don't teach evolution and yet have high MCAT scores.  Evolution isn't on the MCAT.




> You seem to be conflating homeschools and private schools as if they're one entity.


No.  That would be *YOU*.  Homeschools are a subset of private schooling.   It's part of the free market.  If you don't send your kids to public school you might homeschool, send them to a parochial school, send them to a non catholic private schools, send them to non religious private schools, etc.  You can choose Montessori, Waldorf, Amish (if you happen to be Amish) or a whole host of other non government schools.




> You tell me that private schools in Haiti are better than public schools in Haiti.


I said *some are*.  And going by people I've met from Haiti and their education level I'm certain that's true.  Have you ever met any doctors or lawyers from Haiti?  Have you met any people from Haiti period?  Or do you base all of your "knowledge" from TV?




> Just as private schools in US are better than public schools in US.


In general that's true.




> *But wait, are homeschooled children in Haiti better than those in public schools of Haiti?
> Or Mexico for the matter.*


Most kids in Haiti go to the bad public schools.  The homeschoolers I know of are missionaries kids.  I'm certain they are getting a better education that Haitian public schoolers and probably better than many U.S. public school kids.

----------


## jmdrake

> I supposed I can't find any evidence that lack of Christian moral education hurts a society's morality, or that recognizing gay marriage degrades a society's cohesion, I can't even find evidence that militaries are weakened by allowing women.
> 
> *You got me there, I should really wait for things to happen.*


So this is really about your personal war against Christianity and not about what's best for the students?  Ok.  The small government solution to gay marriage is to cut out any federal role period (end income taxes or at least give the heath insurance tax benefit to individuals instead of to employers, privatize social security and medicare etc).  Also the original idea was for a militia based army instead of our current standing army system.  (Similar to what's in Switzerland).  Under those circumstances who is/is not "allowed" to be in the military largely goes away.




> By the way, all the "results" you've given about comparing public & private schools have been high school and below. Not only have you not provided any universities that teach creationism, somebody here even admitted that university education can't be replaced by homeschooling.


Loma Linda university teaches creationism and it made the USA Today's top 100 list for medical schools.  But really, this has nothing to do with the initial question.  Private (even religious) universities can already get federal subsidies in the form of student aid, research grants and GSLs.  Also you never asked for those "results".




> Sounds like you're saying : either a person can live and work fine without knowledge of evolution (and I agree). Or that whatever they've been taught up to high school, can be corrected in college and later (so it doesn't matter if you lie to them about history or math). *The only "results" you've cited were testing on VERBAL AND MATH. 
> *


*

Now you are flat out lying!  I gave you ACT results and those count science as well!  Quit wasting time with stupid games.

As for what I'm saying it's this.  The origin of species only makes up a TINY fraction of science and it's possible to do well in the scientific field without believing that point!  Did believing creation prevent Dr. Ben Carson from becoming the first neurosurgeon to separate Siamese twins joined at the head?  Oh yeah, he was one of those "dumb" (according to you) people from the inner city.







*


> (do failed homeschooling kids get counted, or are required to take standardized tests? if not, that's unfair to public school statistics which are forced to report the losers, not just their bests who desire to go to college)


*Nobody is forced to take the ACT!*  And *a greater percentage of homeschoolers go on to college than non homeschoolers*.  We know the percentages because some states require homeschoolers to register with the state. 




> Next you'll be asking if there's any evidence that teaching creationism in colleges hurts a person's education.


No.  I'm not the one asking stupid questions.  That would be you.





> Maybe I should ask you if you can cite a Biblical creationist in the past 20 years  who rejects the theory of evolution (put narrowly, that humans are monkeys), and has produced any advancement in biochemistry, genetics, medicine, anthropology?


http://www.advice-with-dr-julia.com/...arson-bush.jpg

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/af...ges/carson.jpg

http://teamhoku.com/sitebuilderconte...s/IMG_3515.JPG

Next?




> Otherwise, don't make lame attempts to knock down the body of scientific education with the belief that "it doesn't hurt anybody educationally" while only talking about high school or younger. (on a tangent, you had to tell me a doctor went to elementary school in Haiti but medical school in the US).


I go to church with one.  If you ever come to Nashville you can meet him.  That is unless you're afraid you will spontaneously combust if you enter a house of worship.  Also if you want a documented example of someone being educated in private schools in a third world country and competing at top universities in the U.S., here you go.

http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/reporte...x.html?ID=8657

No that's not Haiti, but it is Kenya which has the same "third world" status as Haiti.

As for "lame attempts" that would be all you.  You have dishonestly jumped from one argument to the next in order to avoid facing the fact that people who aren't being taught evolution in school are outperforming those who are.  The quickest way to boost science learning in this country would be to let people opt out of the failing public school system.

Lastly, I'm getting tired of your stupid requests for proof upon proof *when you have yet to provide a single link to back up ANY of your points!*  The burden is on you now.  Post a link to prove that creationism has hurt education or shut up already.  And don't just say "Well there are these top universities that support it."  There are top universities that support Keynesian economics and any Ron Paul supporter worth his salt knows Keynesianism is a load of crap.  If you don't come up with any objective evidence I'll assume  you are just blowing smoke (pun very much intended) and leave you to argue with yourself.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> The above statement has no relation to anything I said in particular or to this thread in general.
> 
> The above statement has no relation to anything I said in particular or to this thread in general.
> Do you just randomly make stuff up?
> 
> The above statement has no relation to anything I said in particular or to this thread in general.


*Translation : I can't admit I've been pwnd, so I have to ignore what you said and dismiss it as irrelevant.
*




> I see you still haven't addressed the fact that Harvard has an online degree program.


Harvard is accredited, nice try.




> Also some of the top universities are in red states.  I go to one.  And there are many homeschoolers in blue states.


Some, many, how about some specifics?





> The above statement has no relation to anything I said in particular or to this thread in general.
> 
> The above statement has no relation to anything I said in particular or to this thread in general.


*Translation : I can't admit I've been pwnd, so I have to ignore what you said and dismiss it as irrelevant.
*




> Further it's not up to the high school to "let" their graduates take the MCAT.  That's between the student and the testing center.  I don't even know of any high schools public or private that encourage their students to take the MCAT.  Do you?


No, and that's my point.

*Your stats only compare verbal & math. FAIL
*




> Do you have a link, or will you continue to just throw up random statements hoping something will stick?  I can tell you for certain that there are religious colleges that don't teach evolution and yet have high MCAT scores.


Give me an example, I'm sure you can.




> Evolution isn't on the MCAT.


I won't challenge you on that. 






> No.  That would be *YOU*.  Homeschools are a subset of private schooling.   It's part of the free market.  If you don't send your kids to public school you might homeschool, send them to a parochial school, send them to a non catholic private schools, send them to non religious private schools, etc.  You can choose Montessori, Waldorf, Amish (if you happen to be Amish) or a whole host of other non government schools.


So then you admit not all alternatives to public schooling is equal, and not all are superior to public schools?





> I said *some are*.  And going by people I've met from Haiti and their education level I'm certain that's true.  Have you ever met any doctors or lawyers from Haiti?  Have you met any people from Haiti period?  Or do you base all of your "knowledge" from TV?


I dont get any knowledge from TV about Haiti. I don't know any lawyers or doctors from Haiti, that's why I asked you to find me examples. Yeah, SOME ARE, yet you're the one asking for statistics. 




> In general that's true.


I agree, if you don't count homeschoolers. 




> Most kids in Haiti go to the bad public schools.  The homeschoolers I know of are missionaries kids.


*
Aha! So you don't count the kids who get neither and have to help with work to feed themselves.*




> I'm certain they are getting a better education that Haitian public schoolers and probably better than many U.S. public school kids.


*But not the ones who get NEITHER, that's your whole strategy, that when you count homeschoolers, you never count the worst of them.* Soon as I show you the poor, uneducated "homeschoolers" you say "they're not really homeschooled".

Using your line of logic, I can prove that unemployed people are happier than workers. *I'll just pick the best against the worst.*

----------


## peacepotpaul

> So this is really about your personal war against Christianity and not about what's best for the students?  Ok.  The small government solution to gay marriage is to cut out any federal role period (end income taxes or at least give the heath insurance tax benefit to individuals instead of to employers, privatize social security and medicare etc).  Also the original idea was for a militia based army instead of our current standing army system.  (Similar to what's in Switzerland).  Under those circumstances who is/is not "allowed" to be in the military largely goes away.


I thought you were already putting the words in my mouth about how this is all for my hatred against Christianity, not whats best for society.

In other words, in my utopia, everything would be perfect, so don't ask me what's happening outside of my utopia. Is that right Mr Drake?




> Loma Linda university teaches creationism and it made the USA Today's top 100 list for medical schools.  But really, this has nothing to do with the initial question.  Private (even religious) universities can already get federal subsidies in the form of student aid, research grants and GSLs.  Also you never asked for those "results".


Top 100? there's less than 150 in the country! 

*FAIL!*

Give some results if you have them!





> *Now you are flat out lying!*  I gave you ACT results and those count *science as well*!  Quit wasting time with stupid games.
> 
> As for what I'm saying it's this.  *The origin of species only makes up a TINY fraction of science and it's possible to do well in the scientific field without believing that point*!


Oh, I agree with you. 

There's a lot you can do well without understanding a fraction of the subject. 
I suppose under your line of logic, unless a person is going to become a policy maker, breakthrough researcher, it's OK to teach lies, falsehoods and otherwise harmless information. 




> Did believing creation prevent Dr. Ben Carson from becoming the first neurosurgeon to separate Siamese twins joined at the head?  Oh yeah, he was one of those "dumb" (according to you) people from the inner city.


It didn't, and I'm curious how much he believes it. 





> *Nobody is forced to take the ACT!*  And *a greater percentage of homeschoolers go on to college than non homeschoolers*.  We know the percentages because some states require homeschoolers to register with the state.


And some don't. Gotcha!
Do some states require all children be registered and counted regardless of whether they're actually homeschooled? Can a teenager be neither and uncounted?





> No.  I'm not the one asking stupid questions.  That would be you.


So the questions you've asked aren't stupid? or you didn't ask them?

----------


## peacepotpaul

> I go to church with one.  If you ever come to Nashville you can meet him.  That is unless you're afraid you will spontaneously combust if you enter a house of worship.


I can take your word for it.






> Also if you want a documented example of someone being educated in private schools in a third world country and competing at top universities in the U.S., here you go.
> 
> http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/reporte...x.html?ID=8657


When did I deny this??





> No that's not Haiti, but it is Kenya which has the same "third world" status as Haiti.


Agreed.




> As for "lame attempts" that would be all you.  You have dishonestly jumped from one argument to the next in order to avoid facing the fact that people who aren't being taught evolution in school are outperforming those who are.  *The quickest way to boost science learning in this country would be to let people opt out of the failing public school system.*


I don't confuse K-12 with college education.

Public schools K-12 fail for many reasons, but no homeschool can replace college education (private or public).

Funny you should bring up the Keynesian analogy, I'm not aware of any evidence that economists, financial advisors are hurt by being taught Keynesian economics, against people who get no formal economic education at all.

----------


## jmdrake

[QUOTE=peacepotpaul;2727768]*Translation : I can't admit I've been pwnd, so I have to ignore what you said and dismiss it as irrelevant.
*

  How long have you been beating your mother?  You quit saying anything relevant several posts ago.  You keep throwing up random crap that has nothing to do with anything I've said in a vain hope that something sticks.




> Harvard is accredited, nice try.


I know that.  *That's the point.*  You tried to claim all online schools were "diploma mills".  I gave you an example of an online school that isn't.  There are others.  And there are "brick and mortar" schools that aren't accredited.




> Some, many, how about some specifics?


How about some specifics from *YOU*?  Seriously.  You make false claim after false claim *and you never back up ANYTHING you say*!  Anyone with half a brain (I know that excludes you) knows that homeschoolers are distributed across the U.S.  If you want to make the "red state/ blue state" argument *then the burden is on YOU to come up with the specifics*!  You owe me about 50 links at this point based on the number of links I've given you and the *0 links you've given me*





> *Translation : I can't admit I've been pwnd, so I have to ignore what you said and dismiss it as irrelevant.
> *



  How long have you been beating your mother?  You quit saying anything relevant several posts ago.  You keep throwing up random crap that has nothing to do with anything I've said in a vain hope that something sticks.




> No, and that's my point.
> 
> *Your stats only compare verbal & math. FAIL
> *


Liar.  

_How Are Homeschoolers Scoring on College Entrance Exams?

Research has shown that homeschoolers on average do better than the national average on standardized achievement tests for the elementary and secondary grade levels. Statistics demonstrate that homeschoolers tend to score above the national average on both their SAT and ACT scores.

For example, the 2219 students reporting their homeschool status on the SAT in 1999 scored an average of 1083 (verbal 548, math 535), 67 points above the national average of 1016. In 2004 the 7858 homeschool students taking the ACT scored an average of 22.6, compared to the national average of 20.9.

According to the 1998 ACT High School Profile Report, 2610 graduating homeschoolers took the ACT and scored an average of 22.8 out of a possible 36 points. This score is slightly higher that the 1997 report released on the results of 1926 homeschool graduates and founding homeschoolers maintained the average of 22.5. This is higher than the national average, which was 21.0 in both 1997 and 1998.

The 1996 ACT results showed that in English, homeschoolers scored 22.5 compared to the national average of 20.3. In math, homeschoolers scored 19.2 compared to the national average of 20.2. In reading, homeschoolers outshone their public school counterparts 24.1 to 21.3. In science, homeschoolers scored 21.9 compared to 21.1.

Iowa State University's admissions department data shows that homeschoolers had a 26.1 mean ACT composite score as compared to a 24.6 mean score for all entering freshmen beginning fall 2003. The University of Iowa and the University of Northern Iowa (UNI) have also seen higher ACT and SAT averages from homeschoolers in comparison to the total school population. The cumulative admissions data from UNI reveals that the average ACT score for homeschoolers was 2 points higher than that of regular freshmen: 25 versus 23.5_




> Give me an example, I'm sure you can.


*I asked YOU for an example so YOU need to give ME one!*  I'm not going to just keep giving link after link while you sit back and don't provide any evidence to back up *YOUR* point!  You can't keep ignoring the fact that your argument is intellectually bankrupt by always asking me for proof *especially on a point where I SPECIFICALLY ASKED YOU for a reference!*





> I won't challenge you on that.


Well that's a surprise.





> So then you admit not all alternatives to public schooling is equal, and not all are superior to public schools?


Oh for crying out loud, quit being stupid.  First in my statement that you quoted I said nothing about which alternatives were better or worse.  I simply said that there are *different* alternatives.  What is your obsession with putting words in my mouth?  Second I never said any of the alternatives I listed were not better than public schools.  Let's just take two alternatives I listed, Waldorf and Montessori.  Both use a similar idea but were founded by different people using different curriculums.  *And both have achieved better results than public school*.  Now why don't you do yourself a favor and actually Google Montessori and Waldorf and find out more if you're curious.  And no I will *NOT* provide you any additional information because you don't deserve any more of my time.





> I dont get any knowledge from TV about Haiti. I don't know any lawyers or doctors from Haiti, that's why I asked you to find me examples. Yeah, SOME ARE, yet you're the one asking for statistics.


*You are the one who's been demanding statistics!  Quit lying!* 




> I agree, if you don't count homeschoolers.


Why do you hate homeschoolers so much?  Seriously?  Are you intimidated by them or something?  Did some homeschooler beat you out in a spelling be?  The stats on this are in whether you want to accept them or not.




> *
> Aha! So you don't count the kids who get neither and have to help with work to feed themselves.*


I don't know who you are talking about *since all kids in Haiti can go to their failing public schools!  I mean that's why they are called PUBLIC schools!*  Really, you admit you know nothing about Haiti and yet you continue to try to pass yourself off as an expert.  Why is that?




> *But not the ones who get NEITHER, that's your whole strategy, that when you count homeschoolers, you never count the worst of them.* Soon as I show you the poor, uneducated "homeschoolers" you say "they're not really homeschooled".


The worst of who?  Where?  What is your criteria?  As I pointed out to you earlier many states require homeschoolers to register.  So there isn't this "undercounting problem" that you keep deceitfully trying to bring up.  Also many public school kids drop out so that "undercounts" the ACT scores there.  But you don't want to consider any facts that don't fit your prejudice view against homeschoolers.




> Using your line of logic, I can prove that unemployed people are happier than workers. *I'll just pick the best against the worst.*


Once again you're just flat out lying.  Is that what you do every time you are losing an argument?  You don't want to count public schoolers that drop out, but you'll try to go around the world to find "homeschoolers" that fit your definition of failure so you can avoid the painful fact that here *in the United States* homeschoolers are accademically beating the pants off of public schoolers.  And failing that you want to shift the conversation to college.  But when you do that you want to ignore people who take college courses at home from accredited universities.  *Are you ignorant of the fact that many K-12 homeschool programs are also accredited*?  Or are you just playing dumb?

----------


## peacepotpaul

> I know that.  *That's the point.*  You tried to claim all online schools were "diploma mills".  I gave you an example of an online school that isn't.  There are others.  And there are "brick and mortar" schools that aren't accredited.


Nope, never said that.

----------


## jmdrake

> I can take your word for it.


Surprising.





> When did I deny this??


You've argued against everything else and said "show me proof".  So I was giving this to you before you asked.




> I don't confuse K-12 with college education.


You've confused an argument over K-12 with college education.  There isn't any move in this country from the right to challenge evolution being taught in colleges and universities.  The free market already works (well somewhat anyway).  You can take your federal subsidy and go to a public state university or a private religious university or a private secular university.




> Public schools K-12 fail for many reasons, but no homeschool can replace college education (private or public).


A) Nobody made that argument that homeschool can replace college education *but*

B) I've already proven to you that homeschool can indeed replace college education when you consider accredited online degree programs.

Still, that's not even the point.




> Funny you should bring up the Keynesian analogy, I'm not aware of any evidence that economists, financial advisors are hurt by being taught Keynesian economics, against people who get no formal economic education at all.


You're contradicting yourself (again).  You're the one making the argument that one group is being hurt or could be hurt by not being taught what you consider to be important science principles.  And you were trying to use the prevalence of evolution in universities to prove your point.  (It must be important that all scientists believe this since that's what's taught at these top universities).  Using your logic then, all economists need to be indoctrinated in Keynesianism and they shouldn't be taught Austrian Economics because that might "pollute their minds" or whatever it is you think happens to someone who learns the creationism side of the argument.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Once again you're just flat out lying.  Is that what you do every time you are losing an argument?  You don't want to count public schoolers that drop out, but you'll try to go around the world to find "homeschoolers" that fit your definition of failure so you can avoid the painful fact that here *in the United States* homeschoolers are accademically beating the pants off of public schoolers.


Nope, I never denied that homeschoolers do better than public schoolers if you're only talking about K-12, and I'm aware of how they're counted. 

You actually believe 100% of Haitians go to public schools (unless they go to private schools, none that go to neither). 

The best result you've presented was 21.9 vs 21.1 , you don't deny that this doesn't count the losers, the worst of worst that are homeschooled (you dont consider them homeschooled, do you?





> And failing that you want to shift the conversation to college.


Nope. Never shifted the conversation to college as if we were talking about K-12 to begin with. You're the one who started out with the homeschool/public school comparisons. 




> But when you do that you want to ignore people who take college courses at home from accredited universities.  *Are you ignorant of the fact that many K-12 homeschool programs are also accredited*?  Or are you just playing dumb?


*People who take accredited university courses are home are called HOMESCHOOLED??* 

You're further proving my point, that you have a smart way of counting what you want. If I showed you inner city kids who are sent to public schools because their parents are incapable of teaching them, you say that's a failure of the system, if the kid is taken home to be "schooled" you'll never want him part of your success statistics.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Surprising.
> 
> You've argued against everything else and said "show me proof".  So I was giving this to you before you asked.
> You've confused an argument over K-12 with college education.  There isn't any move in this country from the right to challenge evolution being taught in colleges and universities.  The free market already works (well somewhat anyway).  You can take your federal subsidy and go to a public state university or a private religious university or a private secular university.
> 
> 
> 
> A) Nobody made that argument that homeschool can replace college education *but*
> 
> ...


so basically, homeschooling is a person going home when he's learning, so doing homework would be by your definition homeschooling.

Or if we just played with words a little, and counted students who live in dorms (which are part of schools), that'd be another HOMESCHOOL.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> You're contradicting yourself (again).  You're the one making the argument that one group is being hurt or could be hurt by not being taught what you consider to be important science principles.  And you were trying to use the prevalence of evolution in universities to prove your point.  (It must be important that all scientists believe this since that's what's taught at these top universities).  Using your logic then, all economists need to be indoctrinated in Keynesianism and they shouldn't be taught Austrian Economics because that might "pollute their minds" or whatever it is you think happens to someone who learns the creationism side of the argument.


No, I'm not contradicting myself.

You thought I advocate Austrian economics?

----------


## Theocrat

There are many physicians who attend my church, and *none of them* believe evolution is a viable theory. More to the point, none of them *need* evolution to perform their medical work.

So, anyone trying to reconcile evolution to the Bible is doing a disservice to both. There is no reason for us to believe in evolution, and it has not contributed anything to practical medical sciences, for starters. Here, take a look at this video:

YouTube - Darwinism: Medical Doctor's Evidence Against Evolution

----------


## MelissaWV

> There are many physicians who attend my church, and *none of them* believe evolution is a viable theory. More to the point, none of them *need* evolution to perform their medical work.
> 
> So, anyone trying to reconcile evolution to the Bible is doing a disservice to both. There is no reason for us to believe in evolution, and it has not contributed anything to practical medical sciences, for starters. Here, take a look at this video:


In all fairness, it could easily be argued that the use of certain animals to test medications and the adverse effects of certain chemicals finds its root in evolutionary theory.  That can be taken as a good, or bad, thing.

----------


## Theocrat

> In all fairness, it could easily be argued that the use of certain animals to test medications and the adverse effects of certain chemicals finds its root in evolutionary theory.  That can be taken as a good, or bad, thing.


No, it could just be that there is another school of thought to explain how chemicals in the body work to create the formula for medications.

----------


## jmdrake

> I thought you were already putting the words in my mouth about how this is all for my hatred against Christianity, not whats best for society.
> 
> In other words, in my utopia, everything would be perfect, so don't ask me what's happening outside of my utopia. Is that right Mr Drake?


Whether you hate Christianity or not is up to you to answer.  But you've clearly shown an agenda that has more to do with trying to thwart what you perceive as a "Christian threat" than looking at actual education outcomes.




> Top 100? there's less than 150 in the country!


Whatever.  It still outranks a *lot* of state universities.  

http://www.residentphysician.com/Med...l_rankings.htm

Besides you only asked for one.  You got one.  There could be more but I'm not familiar with the curriculum of all medical schools.




> Give some results if you have them!


You asked for one and I gave you one.  It outranks over 20 of your precious publicly funded medical schools.  If you want more, learn to use Google.  I'm done doing research for you.





> Oh, I agree with you. 
> 
> There's a lot you can do well without understanding a fraction of the subject. 
> I suppose under your line of logic, unless a person is going to become a policy maker, breakthrough researcher, it's OK to teach lies, falsehoods and otherwise harmless information.


Rather it's ok for people to agree to disagree on non essential elements of a subject.  That's called "academic freedom".  Google that if the term is unfamiliar to you.




> It didn't, and I'm curious how much he believes it.


You can buy his books if you want to know more about him.  Creationism (literal 6 day) is central to the Christian denomination he belongs to.





> And some don't. Gotcha!
> Do some states require all children be registered and counted regardless of whether they're actually homeschooled? Can a teenager be neither and uncounted?


Sure.  You can always break the law.  But the vast majority don't.  And anyway, your line of questioning on this is irrelevant *since dropouts from high school don't get counted in ACT statistics either*.  I'm not sure why you continue to ignore that.





> So the questions you've asked aren't stupid? or you didn't ask them?


I made that comment in response to this from you.

_Next you'll be asking if there's any evidence that teaching creationism in colleges hurts a person's education._ 

Sorry but that's a stupid question.  And no I didn't ask it and I have no intention of asking it.  If you were going to make a ridiculous assertion like "Teaching creationism in college hurts a person's education" then I would ask for evidence, but so far I haven't seen you make that particular ridiculous assertion.  Or did I miss something?

----------


## jmdrake

> No, I'm not contradicting myself.
> 
> You thought I advocate Austrian economics?


Yes you are contradicting yourself and the contradiction has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with Austrian economics.  (Unless you're saying that you think it shouldn't even be allowed to be taught.  In which case I *seriously* wonder what you are even doing here.)

----------


## peacepotpaul

> You've confused an argument over K-12 with college education.  There isn't any move in this country from the right to challenge evolution being taught in colleges and universities.  The free market already works (well somewhat anyway).  You can take your federal subsidy and go to a public state university or a private religious university or a private secular university.


and ALL I EVER SAID from that in the beginning is, I won't "let live" if people are going to use political power to force that against what's scientifically supported, in a science classroom (I apologize that I didn't specify where I see the problem and I should say here, that I'd be more concerned at the college level than at the K-12 level). Somebody else brought up "get them while young", another issue for another time.

Free market isn't always the answer either, a society doesn't advance, prosper or develop because people chose it, when it comes to education & science, free market is as sensible as democracy, if you let people chose, don't complain what they get. 

From a "free market" perspective
Americans have "chosen" to go to college for useless degrees in English, theatre, sports, philosophy, psychology.

From a "democratic" "choice" perspective
People have been misled to go to college "because everybody does", resulting in going to college for things they can't use, and most in unnecessary debt. The market forced people to "keep up", by going to college, regardless of the specifics.

Medical advancement, drug discovery, scientific breakthroughs, were not always  achieved by people wanting to profit, a lot of research was only made possible because people are willing to waste money doing things they see no benefit for.

If you want "free market" , would you complain if people stop being educated and became dependent on social services?

If you believe "free market" works because everybody wants to profit, then can you complain if people put their time and labor into financial services, and the whole country's economic conditions are swayed by the selfishness of 'experts'?

----------


## peacepotpaul

> There are many physicians who attend my church, and *none of them* believe evolution is a viable theory.


I don't think you even know what evolution is.





> More to the point, none of them *need* evolution to perform their medical work.


They definitely don't need the strawman beliefs you're calling "evolution".




> So, anyone trying to reconcile evolution to the Bible is doing a disservice to both.


Thanks, been waitin for you to say that.




> There is no reason for us to believe in evolution, and it has not contributed anything to practical medical sciences, for starters. Here, take a look at this video:


wrong. 

drug discovery, drug resistance, is dependent on understanding of mutations and genetic variation.

Oh, you'll just say "but that doesn't say one kind of creature becomes another kind of creature" (this strawman is not evolution.)

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Rather it's ok for people to agree to disagree on non essential elements of a subject.  That's called "academic freedom".  Google that if the term is unfamiliar to you.


I think I'm familiar with it, if you're talking about the "academic freedom bills".

Do you advocate teaching both sides on everything? Or only the ones that are harmless, or only the ones that are useful?

----------


## peacepotpaul

> No, it could just be that there is another school of thought to explain how chemicals in the body work to create the formula for medications.


you've proven my point.

the moment we point out what's evolution essential for, you'll say "my theory works just as well", in which case you'd be forced to strawman what evolution IS, and your OWN perspective, to fit the facts. 

By the time you assemble your "medically compatible" creationism, we can ask "how is that not evolution? how is that Biblical creationism? or what good has this theory done?"

----------


## Theocrat

> you've proven my point.
> 
> the moment we point out what's evolution essential for, you'll say "my theory works just as well", in which case you'd be forced to strawman what evolution IS, and your OWN perspective, to fit the facts. 
> 
> By the time you assemble your "medically compatible" creationism, we can ask "how is that not evolution? how is that Biblical creationism? or what good has this theory done?"


Every time some flaw is exposed in the evolution story, evolutionists are quick to say "You don't know what evolution is." That tactic is getting old, peacepot. The fact of the matter is I know exactly what evolution is. I'm not stupid. I've studied it many times, and as a Christian apologist, I've debated many evolutionists on the subject. So you can dispense with the "That's not evolution" evasion. It's not going to work. *Your theory is dead.*

----------


## jmdrake

> Nope, I never denied that homeschoolers do better than public schoolers if you're only talking about K-12, and I'm aware of how they're counted.


You've denied that time after time and you've tried to look for some lame excuse to back up your point.  (Oh they aren't counting those that don't take the ACT. _you ignore public school kids that don't take it_.  Oh the stats don't show science.  _you ignore the science stats on the same webpage_).  On and on.




> You actually believe 100% of Haitians go to public schools (unless they go to private schools, none that go to neither).


Show me evidence to prove that a significant number do not go to public school.




> The best result you've presented was 21.9 vs 21.1 , you don't deny that this doesn't count the losers, the worst of worst that are homeschooled (you dont consider them homeschooled, do you?


You don't deny that this doesn't count the losers in *public school that drop out and never take the test*.  And you will continue to ignore that (dishonestly at this point) because it hurts your argument.




> Nope. Never shifted the conversation to college as if we were talking about K-12 to begin with. You're the one who started out with the homeschool/public school comparisons.


You were the one who started talking about some "assault" on science in the education system.  Show evidence of an "assault" at the university level or admit you shifted the topic.





> *People who take accredited university courses are home are called HOMESCHOOLED??*


PEOPLE WHO TAKE ACCREDITED K-12 COURSES AT HOME ARE CALLED HOMESCHOOLED!  SO WHY DO YOU THINK THAT UNIVERSITY IS ANY DIFFERENT?  SERIOUSLY DO YOU JUST MAKE UP DEFINITIONS AS YOU GO ALONG?




> You're further proving my point, that you have a smart way of counting what you want.


No.  I'm just proving that you make up new definitions as you go along and you are intellectually dishonest.  Counting everybody who takes the ACT and SAT  is not some "smart" way of counting.  *That's how public schools are ranked compared across the nation!  When California's test scores are compared to Tennessees nobody asks "Well how many people in each state dropped out and/or never took the test?"*  You are simply looking for an excuse to get around a result that you can't stand because of your own prejudice.




> If I showed you inner city kids who are sent to public schools because their parents are incapable of teaching them, you say that's a failure of the system,


How do you know their parents are incapable of teaching them?  Oh that's right.  You know that everyone in the inner city is "dumb".  I went to an inner city private school graduation ceremony last night.  (It included one home schooler who was allowed to graduate with them).  This was a K-8 school.  97 percent of these students went on to graduate high school and 98 percent went on to college.  (A few got their GED which is why the college attendance was higher than the high school graduation rate).  And this was a school with few resources and (comparatively) low tuition.  The money spent per pupil was likely much less than what is spent in public school.  The public schools in that area, by contrast, have a *50% graduation rate*.  So while you are pontificating about whether or not private schoolers and home schoolers are doing better than public schools, I'm looking at real life examples.




> if the kid is taken home to be "schooled" you'll never want him part of your success statistics.


Quit being dishonest.  Seriously.  I'll never want him to be part of my statistics?  *They aren't MY statistics!  I'm not the ones compiling them!  And YOU aren't counting the 50% of kids (in some areas) who never graduate from HS at all so they never have a NEED to take the ACT!*

Here's the bottom line.  In many areas the public school system is failing.  And it's not failing because the people in the inner cities are "dumb" or because the schools aren't being funded.  They are failing under *stifling* bureaucracy.  Various forms of private schooling offer a way out.  You hate homeschoolers so much that you want to ignore there success rates when comparing apples to apples (people from homeschool and public school who *choose* to take the ACT), fine.  Just look at traditional private schools then.  You still lose.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Every time some flaw is exposed in the evolution story, evolutionists are quick to say "You don't know what evolution is."


Because it's true.

Let's hear you give a good representation of what evolution is, until then, don't "expose" anything.





> That tactic is getting old, peacepot. The fact of the matter is I know exactly what evolution is. I'm not stupid. I've studied it many times, and as a Christian apologist, I've debated many evolutionists on the subject. So you can dispense with the "That's not evolution" evasion. It's not going to work. *Your theory is dead.*


*then tell us what it is, PLEASE.*

----------


## peacepotpaul

> You hate homeschoolers so much that you want to ignore there success rates when comparing apples to apples (people from homeschool and public school who *choose* to take the ACT), fine.  Just look at traditional private schools then.  You still lose.


I don't hate homeschoolers, I hate creationism.

----------


## Theocrat

> Because it's true.
> 
> Let's hear you give a good representation of what evolution is, until then, don't "expose" anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *then tell us what it is, PLEASE.*


The belief that living organisms change over time, from nonliving material (because nonliving matter was here before any living organism evolved) and are all related unilaterally by impersonal and random processes of nature, brought about through death to the advancement of a "species" (however evolutionists choose to define a "species," since they can't all agree on its meaning anyway).

----------


## peacepotpaul

> PEOPLE WHO TAKE ACCREDITED K-12 COURSES AT HOME ARE CALLED HOMESCHOOLED!  SO WHY DO YOU THINK THAT UNIVERSITY IS ANY DIFFERENT?  SERIOUSLY DO YOU JUST MAKE UP DEFINITIONS AS YOU GO ALONG?


so people who don't live at school would be homeschooled 50% of the time because they do homework at home?

Wait, how did I miss this one.

*IF A HOMESCHOOL COURSE IS ACCREDITED, HOW COULD IT BE TEACHING CREATIONISM???*

I'll be the first to admit I'm FOR homeschooling as long as it teaches correct information (such as evolution, which is true at this time)
I'm AGAINST public education if it's teaching bad information (such as Biblical 6 day creationism, which is not scientific at this time).
I put what is right to teach above whether something is public or private.

----------


## Theocrat

> I don't hate homeschoolers, I hate creationism.


Then you hate science.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> The belief that living organisms change over time, from nonliving material (because nonliving matter was here before any living organism evolved)


AhA! I knew you didn't know.

Where did you get that abiogenesis was part of evolution?






> and are all related unilaterally by impersonal and random processes of nature,


Define "related unilaterally" 

and "random processes".




> brought about through death to the advancement of a "species" (however evolutionists choose to define a "species," since they can't all agree on its meaning anyway).


actually, we DO agree on species. Speciation is when two creatures are unable to interbreed. Being about to breed amongst each other, can still have variations, and being UNABLE to breed amongst another, can still have common ancestry. 

Correct your statements, or you don't understand evolution. Making strawman arguments is not "exposing" evolution.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Then you hate science.


Hardly.

From a guy who doesn't even get evolution?

----------


## Theocrat

> AhA! I knew you didn't know.
> 
> Where did you get that abiogenesis was part of evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "related unilaterally" 
> ...


It doesn't shock me that you disagree with my definition, but here is where evolution is exposed: where do we observe it happening in nature today?*

If you can't produce that in a scientific experiment, then it is a myth, a fairy tale, a philosophy of man.

*Note: Pointing to fossils is not allowed because fossils happened in the past. I'm asking for an observational claim that evolution happens, where we see a dog evolve into a cat, an ape into a human, or at least some living transitional organism between two animals believed to be related.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> I don't hate homeschoolers, I hate creationism.


I don't understand the secular scientists hatred of creationists to be honest; at the end of the day believing one theory or the other, from an economic, political, and sociological perspective, has very little impact.

Both sides understand natural selection very well, and IMHO, that's the only thing one needs to understand to be able to work in the field where its most relevant (immunology).




> or at least some living transitional organism between two animals believed to be related.



be careful with this argument theocrat, as the evolutionist _will_ argue that all living organisms today are merely transitional forms to some completely different animals in the very distant future, and that changes happen very slowly, over time, in hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of generations...therefore, it wouldn't suddenly be ape, then bam, the next generation there's an ape with some human-like features. 

Either way, this is my chief complaint about creationists (despite being one myself, though I don't personally think the earth is 6,000 years old)---most out there don't fully understand their own positions or how it works--in part, I can't blame them, considering that the more consistent creationist information is very difficult to come by, and, often-times it's intertwined with a boatload of theology (AiG is quite the perpetrator of this--they have interesting arguments, but I feel they focus on theological passages a bit too much instead of focusing on the scientific material...it's there, just hard to sift through)...this is why I personally think it'll be a very very long time before we'll start seeing really good creationists debating really good evolutionists, because the vast majority of Creationists don't know all their facts, while evolutionists know all their "facts"--so, given the situation, they have a clear upper hand.

dunno how long it'll be before both can reach a level where they can debate on a consistent level, but I doubt it'll be within the next 10-20 years.

----------


## jmdrake

> and ALL I EVER SAID from that in the beginning is, I won't "let live" if people are going to use political power to force that against what's scientifically supported, in a science classroom (I apologize that I didn't specify where I see the problem and I should say here, that I'd be more concerned at the college level than at the K-12 level). Somebody else brought up "get them while young", another issue for another time.


Do you have any evidence of any movement that seeks to use political power to force evolution out of college and university classrooms?  Because I've never seen that.  I have seen evidence of hostility by evolutionists against their students that are creationists even though the students put down the answers the teachers want to hear on the test.  We talked about that in a previous thread.




> Free market isn't always the answer either, a society doesn't advance, prosper or develop because people chose it, when it comes to education & science, free market is as sensible as democracy, if you let people chose, don't complain what they get.


Stalin would be proud.    At any rate, we do have (somewhat) of a free market in science and education already.  I thought you were all for the "status quo"?  Right now students can choose from *accredited* religious and secular, private and public universities.  Some teach evolution, some do not.  Students from all of these schools go on to excel in their fields.  (And no I'm not going to list every Christian college and university for you.  If you want to know, Google it.)




> From a "free market" perspective
> Americans have "chosen" to go to college for useless degrees in English, theatre, sports, philosophy, psychology.


And you think that choice should be denied?  Without anyone with a degree in English, who's going to teach future doctors and scientists how to properly write research papers?  And psychology is a science degree.  I thought you were all for science?  




> From a "democratic" "choice" perspective
> People have been misled to go to college "because everybody does", resulting in going to college for things they can't use, and most in unnecessary debt. The market forced people to "keep up", by going to college, regardless of the specifics.


So you think the government should block qualified applicants from going to college?




> Medical advancement, drug discovery, scientific breakthroughs, were not always  achieved by people wanting to profit, a lot of research was only made possible because people are willing to waste money doing things they see no benefit for.


Wait a sec.  You just went on a tirade about people going to college for things that you think are "useless" such as psychology degrees.  But psychologists have made important breakthroughs in various fields including computer science.  (Artificial intelligence).  So make up your mind.  Either people should be "free" to pursue what *they* think is important or they shouldn't.

Also there "free market" doesn't just mean money.  It also means the "free marketplace of ideas."  In other words people should be free to pursue what they think is important even if someone else doesn't think so.  For every good idea there are 100 flops.




> If you want "free market" , would you complain if people stop being educated and became dependent on social services?


That's actually not free market.  Free market includes the "freedom to fail" and the "freedom to work for less than minimum wage".  Regardless *right now people do have the ability to stop being educated and become dependent on social services!  It happens all the time!*  You can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink.




> If you believe "free market" works because everybody wants to profit, then can you complain if people put their time and labor into financial services, and the whole country's economic conditions are swayed by the selfishness of 'experts'?


If you think our current system is "free market" then you don't understand the federal reserve or the concept of government created "moral hazard" or the role that government sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had on this collapse.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> It doesn't shock me that you disagree with my definition, but here is where evolution is exposed: where do we observe it happening in nature today?*


YOUR definition, exactly.

You don't get to make up your own definitions if you want to a discussion on science. So you admit YOU disagree with SCIENTISTS on evolution. 

ENough said. I don't need to answer whether I've observed your strawman

----------


## jmdrake

> so people who don't live at school would be homeschooled 50% of the time because they do homework at home?
> 
> Wait, how did I miss this one.
> 
> *IF A HOMESCHOOL COURSE IS ACCREDITED, HOW COULD IT BE TEACHING CREATIONISM???*
> 
> I'll be the first to admit I'm FOR homeschooling as long as it teaches correct information (such as evolution, which is true at this time)
> I'm AGAINST public education if it's teaching bad information (such as Biblical 6 day creationism, which is not scientific at this time).
> I put what is right to teach above whether something is public or private.




Because you don't have to teach evolution to be accredited!  Most private religious schools, Catholic, protestant or otherwise, are accredited and they teach creationism!

Seriously, how do you know so little about the education system?

----------


## peacepotpaul

> And you think that choice should be denied?  Without anyone with a degree in English, who's going to teach future doctors and scientists how to properly write research papers?  And psychology is a science degree.  I thought you were all for science?


ohhhh , so now somebody's thinking about LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES.

I rest my case.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't hate homeschoolers, I hate creationism.


I see.  So if most homeschoolers were atheists then you'd be all for it and you'd quit trying to weasel your way out of stats that show homeschoolers doing better than public schoolers.  Gotcha.

----------


## jmdrake

> ohhhh , so now somebody's thinking about LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES.
> 
> I rest my case.




Yes.  Please rest it.  *Because you've never actually had a case to begin with!*  I've thought about long term consequences all along.  And long term we are better off with more students performing like homeschoolers and private school kids are.  Unlike you I'm not blinded by hatred from seeing positive results that don't fit my world view.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Because you don't have to teach evolution to be accredited!  Most private religious schools, Catholic, protestant or otherwise, are accredited and they teach creationism!
> 
> Seriously, how do you know so little about the education system?


WHAT?

*WOW, if that's true, then we REALLY agree our system is $#@!ed.* 

That teaching creationism can be accredited, or that teaching evolution isn't a requirement for accreditation!

Does Loma Linda really have a medical textbook with creationist beliefs in it?
I'm not talking about whether they require you to be religious, or founded by people of highly religious backgrounds, I'm just curious how a medical school teaches creationism.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> I see.  So if most homeschoolers were atheists then you'd be all for it and you'd quit trying to weasel your way out of stats that show homeschoolers doing better than public schoolers.  Gotcha.


yep!

but I wouldn't try to say that homeschoolers are better BECAUSE they believe in evolution or are smarter on average, unless I was aware of the sample size and who is/isn't counted.

----------


## Theocrat

> YOUR definition, exactly.
> 
> You don't get to make up your own definitions if you want to a discussion on science. So you admit YOU disagree with SCIENTISTS on evolution. 
> 
> ENough said. I don't need to answer whether I've observed your strawman


I don't disagree with scientists. I just disagree with the scientists (priests) that you admire.

And you, nor any other evolutionary priest, cannot just postulate that apes evolved into humans when it's *never* observed in nature. If anyone looks at nature, studying apes or humans, no one would have any reason to believe humans evolved from apes. We see apes having apes, and humans having humans. *That is it.*

Evolutionists, because of the secular, government-funded schools, has *brainwashed* people to see apes as ancestors to humans, but nature never tells us that story.

So, your fairy tale is exposed, and it will continue to be exposed until it becomes the fossil that it needs to be. Oh, wait. Evolution is already a fossil.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> I don't understand the secular scientists hatred of creationists to be honest; at the end of the day believing one theory or the other, from an economic, political, and sociological perspective, has very little impact.
> 
> Both sides understand natural selection very well, and IMHO, that's the only thing one needs to understand to be able to work in the field where its most relevant (immunology).


Anybody who understands natural selection can't say he's a Biblical creationist.
Anybody who modifies his creationist beliefs to be compatible with natural selection must really have a strawman for what evolution is.





> be careful with this argument theocrat, as the evolutionist _will_ argue that all living organisms today are merely transitional forms to some completely different animals in the very distant future, and that changes happen very slowly, over time, in hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of generations...therefore, it wouldn't suddenly be ape, then bam, the next generation there's an ape with some human-like features.


Thank you, that's pretty good!

----------


## peacepotpaul

> I don't disagree with scientists. I just disagree with the scientists (priests) that you admire.


No. 
You disagree with the scientific community on their use of the word EVOLUTION.
And yes, a definition IS up for a vote, in fact, it's based on usage.
That would be creating a dishonest strawman, if you made your own definition.

*So my point stands YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION, EXPOSE WHAT?*

----------


## Fox McCloud

> Anybody who understands natural selection can't say he's a Biblical creationist.
> Anybody who modifies his creationist beliefs to be compatible with natural selection must really have a strawman for what evolution is.


If you want to go with a strict definition of  "evolution", then even the most educated of Creationists are evolutionists--the area where Creationists differ is in the area of the limitations of natural selection and the time frame the world/universe exists in--for example, if it were proven, without a shadow of doubt, that say, the universe was 1 million years old, then evolutionary theory would be chucked out the door completely because there's not a large enough time frame for it to happen on the scale evolutionists claim, in.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Yes.  Please rest it.  *Because you've never actually had a case to begin with!*  I've thought about long term consequences all along.  And long term we are better off with more students performing like homeschoolers and private school kids are.  Unlike you I'm not blinded by hatred from seeing positive results that don't fit my world view.


if you thought of long term consequences, you'd not be asking about high school statistics. KNOWING that SAT  & ACT are at best indications of where you to go college.

----------


## Theocrat

> No. 
> You disagree with the scientific community on their use of the word EVOLUTION.
> And yes, a definition IS up for a vote, in fact, it's based on usage.
> That would be creating a dishonest strawman, if you made your own definition.
> 
> *So my point stands YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION, EXPOSE WHAT?*


Peacepot, the evidence is against you. Do I have to repost videos again? Must I use logical reasoning again to show how evolution is fallacious? If you are not convinced, then I leave you to your faith. But don't call it science.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> If you want to go with a strict definition of  "evolution", then even the most educated of Creationists are evolutionists--the area where Creationists differ is in the area of the limitations of natural selection and the time frame the world/universe exists in--for example, if it were proven, without a shadow of doubt, that say, the universe was 1 million years old, then evolutionary theory would be chucked out the door completely because there's not a large enough time frame for it to happen on the scale evolutionists claim, in.


Creationists who claim there's limits to speciation cannot even support their case with mathematical hypothesis.

You are correct, if the universe is proven to be less than billions of years old, we'd probably have to reassess the rate or mutation to create species, or discard the possibility altogether.

----------


## jmdrake

> WHAT?
> 
> *WOW, if that's true, then we REALLY agree our system is $#@!ed.*


LOL.  I suppose in the same way that I agree with Dennis Kucinich that Obamacare is messed up.  But Kucinich would make healthcare worse IMO and you would make education worse.




> That teaching creationism can be accredited, or that teaching evolution isn't a requirement for accreditation!


It's a great country we live in!  Academic freedom!  If the state quit accrediting private schools that didn't follow your evolution mandate then most private schools would just opt out of accreditation altogether and the state would have no power at all.  Come to think of it, maybe you're on to something!   Now that would be interesting if non-accredited schools started kicking the butts of the accredited schools because of a state incompetently following your advice.




> Does Loma Linda really have a medical textbook with creationist beliefs in it?
> I'm not talking about whether they require you to be religious, or founded by people of highly religious backgrounds, I'm just curious how a medical school teaches creationism.


I'm not in medical school so I don't know.  But you can read this from their website.

http://www.llu.edu/news/today/today_story.page?id=843

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Peacepot, the evidence is against you. Do I have to repost videos again? Must I use logical reasoning again to show how evolution is fallacious? If you are not convinced, then I leave you to your faith. But don't call it science.


*
You don't know the first thing about logical reasoning : HONESTY AND DEFINITIONS.*

jmdrake and I have wasted lots of time in this thread because I lacked qualifiers and I had to change my definition time and time again.

So if you don't correct your definitions and arguments, there is no 'EVIDENCE' to speak of.

----------


## jmdrake

> if you thought of long term consequences, you'd not be asking about high school statistics. KNOWING that SAT  & ACT are at best indications of where you to go college.


The SAT & ACT are also *the main indicators that people use to compare high schools*.  If you want to compare something else *then go do the research and come up with the comparison*.  Seriously.  There's nobody doing research on MCAT and DAT scores based on HS and that would be pretty stupid anyway since there are too many intervening factors.  But if that's what you want to do, by all means *do it*.

----------


## jmdrake

> jmdrake and I have wasted lots of time in this thread


Something I totally agree with you on.

----------


## Theocrat

> *
> You don't know the first thing about logical reasoning : HONESTY AND DEFINITIONS.*
> 
> jmdrake and I have wasted lots of time in this thread because I lacked qualifiers and I had to change my definition time and time again.
> 
> So if you don't correct your definitions and arguments, there is no 'EVIDENCE' to speak of.


Peacepot, there is evidence for creation. The fact is you reject the evidence because of your evolutionary presuppositions about the universe. I can't force you to see the evidence. You just need to have your eyes opened by the enlightenment of God's Spirit.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Peacepot, there is evidence for creation. The fact is you reject the evidence because of your evolutionary presuppositions about the universe. I can't force you to see the evidence. You just need to have your eyes opened by the enlightenment of God's Spirit.


Would you admit :

a) there is evidence for evolution, you just refuse to see it
b) you don't agree with scientists on the definition of evolution?

Also, I just saw the doctor video you posted, he asked "Show me solid evidence for macroevolution", he's basically saying "prove to me that something you never said happened, happened!"

at least agree that until definitions are correct, there is no discussion.

----------


## Theocrat

> Would you admit :
> 
> a) there is evidence for evolution, you just refuse to see it
> b) you don't agree with scientists on the definition of evolution?
> 
> Also, I just saw the doctor video you posted, he asked "Show me solid evidence for macroevolution", he's basically saying "prove to me that something you never said happened, happened!"
> 
> at least agree that until definitions are correct, there is no discussion.


a) No, there is no evidence for evolution. It's asinine to suppose things about nature that we never observe in nature.

b) I do agree with scientists on the definition of evolution. It's just that I don't agree with the scientists that you favor, just as you don't agree with the scientists that I favor.

The discussion has been settled. Evolution and creation are both religious interpretations about the natural world. It's just that the evidence in nature is better explained and comports with creationism. If you don't see that, then it's obvious you have some faulty presuppositions about the universe, and you need to have them checked.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> AhA! I knew you didn't know.
> 
> Where did you get that abiogenesis was part of evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "related unilaterally" 
> ...


He *lives* for making fallacious arguments.  Check out his posts in the Stateless society threads.

----------


## Theocrat

> He *lives* for making fallacious arguments.  Check out his posts in the Stateless society threads.


It's funny you say that because in those threads, my arguments against stateless societies are identical to other members, such as newbitech and torchbearer. So, once again, your tactic of "you don't know what you're talking about" when a hole or fallacy is exposed in your theory is not going to work.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> a) No, there is no evidence for evolution. It's asinine to suppose things about nature that we never observe in nature.


I'm sorry, I shouldn't have asked you that. since you've still not defined evolution correctly.





> b) I do agree with scientists on the definition of evolution. It's just that I don't agree with the scientists that you favor, just as you don't agree with the scientists that I favor.


Where did you get your definition of evolution then?






> The discussion has been settled. Evolution and creation are both religious interpretations about the natural world.


if that's what you believe, you can't call it a useless theory, nor expose what's flawed about it.




> It's just that the evidence in nature is better explained and comports with creationism. If you don't see that, then it's obvious you have some faulty presuppositions about the universe, and you need to have them checked.


Why don't you have faulty assumptions?
You've still not corrected your definition and understanding of evolution, so, you don't know what evolution is, quit using the strawman.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> It's funny you say that because in those threads, my arguments against stateless societies are identical to other members, such as newbitech and torchbearer. So, once again, your tactic of "you don't know what you're talking about" when a hole or fallacy is exposed in your theory is not going to work.


so I can make a strawman about Christianity and creationism, and whatever you reply with I'll say "that's not going to work"?

I can also cite Biblical Scholars and youtube Christians "just not the ones you admire".

----------


## moostraks

> I'll be the first to admit I'm FOR homeschooling as long as it teaches correct information (*such as evolution, which is true at this time*)
> I'm AGAINST public education if it's teaching bad information (such as Biblical 6 day creationism, which is not scientific at this time).
> I put what is right to teach above whether something is public or private.


So you are all for someone being "allowed" to raise their children in a manner as they see fit as long as it is compliant with current government mandated theories? How gracious of you. At one time society thought the world was flat so you would then believe that a family had done better service in raising their children by ingraining in them what was popular and the government would mandate this be taught so that everyone was raised compliant? Nice...

----------


## moostraks

> Anybody who understands natural selection can't say he's a Biblical creationist.
> Anybody who modifies his creationist beliefs to be compatible with natural selection must really have a strawman for what evolution is.


What made you the definer of one's religious beliefs as well as dictator of science?This argument could be as easily turned back at you to say anyone who is as slippery regarding what qualifies his argument while limiting his opposition to a narrowly defined term must not have enough weight to support his own argument.

Atheists have no right to define what qualifies one as a biblical creationist, PERIOD!

----------


## peacepotpaul

> What made you the definer of one's religious beliefs as well as dictator of science?


I don't define anybody's religious beliefs.

I'm DEFINITELY not a dictator of science.

If you want the definition of evolution, look it up on wikipedia, or any university's biology exhibition website. I go by the usage of the word most (if not all) scientists use, not because this is consensus or democracy, but because words are only meaningful if they mean what the person intends, so when a scientist intends to convey his meaning of evolution, we "take their word for it" until they disagree.

Those whom disagree with the definition of evolution are NOT the ones trying to support it, so all they do is erect a strawman to argue against it (not for it).




> This argument could be as easily turned back at you to say anyone who is as slippery regarding what qualifies his argument while limiting his opposition to a narrowly defined term must not have enough weight to support his own argument.
> 
> *Atheists have no right to define what qualifies one as a biblical creationist, PERIOD!*


Then I'd just ask a person to define his position, no need to argue there. 
I won't ever say "if you're a creationist, you must believe this"
Instead, I'd say "if you believe this, you're the person I'm referring to, if not, not now"

If we're talking about supporting a position scientifically, then we both have to agree on what terms to start with. Since theocrat cannot present the definition accurately, he cannot say he knows evolution.

I CERTAINLY don't claim to know creationism (enough to speak for a person), so I'd wait for somebody to state their position before arguing whether they are right, or whether there is evidence.

I stand by my claim though, that those who can understand natural selection would really need to explain to me how they reconcile that with Biblical creationism. What meaning is (left of) Biblical creationism if natural selection is invoked.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> So you are all for someone being "allowed" to raise their children in a manner as they see fit as long as it is compliant with current government mandated theories?


So you are all for someone being "allowed" to raise their children in a manner as they see fit as long as it is compliant with current government mandated laws, morals and behavior?




> How gracious of you. At one time society thought the world was flat so you would then believe that a family had done better service in raising their children by ingraining in them what was popular and the government would mandate this be taught so that everyone was raised compliant? Nice...


How gracious of you. At one time society thought the slavery was acceptable, so you would then believe that a family had done better service in raising their children by opposing the status quo & government rather than go with the flow? Nice..

----------


## moostraks

> I don't define anybody's religious beliefs.
> 
> I'm DEFINITELY not a dictator of science.
> 
> If you want the definition of evolution, look it up on wikipedia, or any university's biology exhibition website. I go by the usage of the word most (if not all) scientists use, not because this is consensus or democracy, but because words are only meaningful if they mean what the person intends, so when a scientist intends to convey his meaning of evolution, we "take their word for it" until they disagree.
> 
> Those whom disagree with the definition of evolution are NOT the ones trying to support it, so all they do is erect a strawman to argue against it (not for it).
> 
> 
> ...


Some folks take Genesis literally and some understand it to be allegory. There is a large rift between folks when this issue is discussed depending on one's p.o.v. Some of us here have been trying to explain to you that you are incorrect in stating in very limited terms that creationism is as easily categorized as those who hold absolutely to the tenets of macroevolution. 

You are quite simply arguing a fallacy because imo it makes it easier to direct this hatred you seem to have for creationists and insisting that your limited view defines all creationists. So it appears from your responses that you believe that those who disagree with you are either a)ignorant young earthers or b)inconsistent in their spiritual beliefs.

 If you approached someone with respect for the right to have their own beliefs and not impose your limited views upon others you might begin to understand the other side of the story. Life's too short to spend your time ridiculing others. Freedom is about respecting others right to be different and listening to them when they respond that your views are inaccurate when you are attempting to define *their* beliefs!

----------


## moostraks

> So you are all for someone being "allowed" to raise their children in a manner as they see fit as long as it is compliant with current government mandated laws, morals and behavior?


You are the one who was being so rude that homeschoolers should only be tolerated if they teach current popular scientific *theory*.






> How gracious of you. At one time society thought the slavery was acceptable, so you would then believe that a family had done better service in raising their children by opposing the status quo & government rather than go with the flow? Nice..


You are the one arguing for this sentiment. I believe that children are the responsibilty of the parents. It is their duty to raise them to be ethical, responsible individuals who think for themselves. You are the one who responded that people should not be allowed to educate their children unless they agree to popular scientific theory. Which would therefore require a government mandate for parents to attest to teaching said theories or their priviledges would be revoked.

Your argument about slavery is ignorant and meant to inflame there is no relation between the two so stay on topic. How exactly has creation science harmed you or another person? Why are you so threatened by someone believing in life coming from an intelligent creator rather than some useless black void???

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Some folks take Genesis literally and some understand it to be allegory.


And I only have a problem with the former. 




> There is a large rift between folks when this issue is discussed depending on one's p.o.v. Some of us here have been trying to explain to you that you are incorrect in stating in very limited terms that creationism is as easily categorized as those who hold absolutely to the tenets of macroevolution.


No. I defined what I mean by creationism and am willing to correct it.
I believe when I say creationism in the context of creation vs evolution, I used it as most do.

But if Theocrat wishes to have a scientific discussion, he has to use how scientists use it. 






> You are quite simply arguing a fallacy because imo it makes it easier to direct this hatred you seem to have for creationists and insisting that your limited view defines all creationists.


No, my hatred is for those who are of the limited views, those that are not are no problem to me.




> So it appears from your responses that you believe that those who disagree with you are either a)ignorant young earthers or b)inconsistent in their spiritual beliefs.


*No, just the opposite.*
Ignorant young earthers and those inconsistent with their beliefs are people I disagree with. 
But I recognize there are many other viewpoints I can disagree with and would not call names.





> If you approached someone with respect for the right to have their own beliefs and not impose your limited views upon others you might begin to understand the other side of the story.


I respect a person's right to believe what they like, but I won't respect their intelligence or character if they don't have it. 





> Life's too short to spend your time ridiculing others.


Wrong, life is too short to waste opportunities to ridicule others. 




> Freedom is about respecting others right to be different and listening to them when they respond that your views are inaccurate when you are attempting to define *their* beliefs!


I agree. Which is why theocrat fails to have a discussion. He made up his own definitions and then say "It's just not what you say it is, and that wont work"

----------


## peacepotpaul

> You are the one who was being so rude that homeschoolers should only be tolerated if they teach current popular scientific *theory*.


Answer my question : Should homeschooling be tolerated if it teaches to challenge or break our current government mandated laws?






> You are the one arguing for this sentiment. I believe that children are the responsibilty of the parents. It is their duty to raise them to be ethical, responsible individuals who think for themselves.


Who think so much for themselves they disrespect the law, their neighbors and even their parents?





> You are the one who responded that people should not be allowed to educate their children unless they agree to popular scientific theory.


I'm not confusing the most supported scientific theory for biological speciation, and laws for a safe society, but are you saying it should be allowed to teach behavior that is against our laws?






> Which would therefore require a government mandate for parents to attest to teaching said theories or their priviledges would be revoked.


*I'll ask you again, SHOULD PARENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO TEACH AND ENCOURAGE THEIR CHILDREN TO BREAK THE LAW?*





> Your argument about slavery is ignorant and meant to inflame there is no relation between the two so stay on topic. How exactly has creation science harmed you or another person?


I agree with you, if I can't find that teaching slavery, racism, violence or crime is harmful to you, then it should be allowed. 





> Why are you so threatened by someone believing in life coming from an intelligent creator rather than some useless black void???


I'm threatened by ignorance, but it's hard to explain that to a perpetrator.

----------


## moostraks

> Answer my question : Should homeschooling be tolerated if it teaches to challenge or break our current government mandated laws?


 Which laws are you refering to being mandated? 





> Who think so much for themselves they disrespect the law, their neighbors and even their parents?


  Wth are you talking about???




> I'm not confusing the most supported scientific theory for biological speciation, and laws for a safe society, but are you saying it should be allowed to teach behavior that is against our laws?


  Again what are you talking about? It is a theory. And what laws for a safe society? What behavior is being taught and against whose laws? You seem to be rambling and rather incoherently...





> *I'll ask you again, SHOULD PARENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO TEACH AND ENCOURAGE THEIR CHILDREN TO BREAK THE LAW?*


Stop yelling or I am done. What laws are being broken?




> I agree with you, if I can't find that teaching slavery, racism, violence or crime is harmful to you, then it should be allowed.


Did you do some mind altering drugs before this post as you are out in left field. None of this makes any sense... 




> I'm threatened by ignorance, but it's hard to explain that to a perpetrator.


 You are ridiculous and need to go back to HuffPo where you apparently trolled out from.

----------


## moostraks

> No. I defined what I mean by creationism and am willing to correct it.
> I believe when I say creationism in the context of creation vs evolution, I used it as most do.


Many would disagree with you...




> No, my hatred is for those who are of the limited views, those that are not are no problem to me.


But you seem unable to acknowledge a difference and are ignoring those who point out the error of your perceptions. 





> Wrong, life is too short to waste opportunities to ridicule others.


 Stupid and juvenile. Good luck in the real world...

----------


## Todd

> answer my question : Should homeschooling be tolerated if it teaches to challenge or break our current government mandated laws?



yes

----------


## moostraks

> yes

----------


## Todd

> 


Well we could have gone into a long drawn out diatribe...but what is it that pot doesn't understand about this.




> If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. 
> 
> - Thomas Jefferson

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Many would disagree with you...
> 
> 
> 
> But you seem unable to acknowledge a difference and are ignoring those who point out the error of your perceptions. 
> 
> 
> 
>  Stupid and juvenile. Good luck in the real world...


nope, I've happily acknowledged my mistakes. Unlike theocrat who says "I agree with scientists, just not the ones you admire"

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Which laws are you refering to being mandated?


Slavery is unacceptable, polygamy is not allowed, rape is illegal, child molestation and child pornography is prosecutable, theft is punishable, copyright infringement is illegal....all these laws are MANDATED, am I wrong?




> Wth are you talking about???


You've never seen children disobey their parents because they think too much for themselves?





> Again what are you talking about? It is a theory. And what laws for a safe society? What behavior is being taught and against whose laws? You seem to be rambling and rather incoherently...


Evolution is a theory, and the best theory in science to explain the diversity of life.

Do you believe laws that protect property, demand equality, punish discrimination, protect religious freedom, guard against fraud are laws that should be challenged if parents teach their children to do so? Or are certain things not allowed to be taught if it undermines soceity's cohesion and order?





> Stop yelling or I am done. What laws are being broken?


None, that's my point. So you agree they shouldn't teach children to commit acts against the law and parents have no right to teach what's illegal?




> Did you do some mind altering drugs before this post as you are out in left field. None of this makes any sense... 
> 
>  You are ridiculous and need to go back to HuffPo where you apparently trolled out from.


you claim that if I'm not harmed by ignorance or a person's beliefs, I shouldn't complain about it being taught or believed. Sounds like you'd have no problem with people who believe or teach that slavery, racism, violence or crime are good things, as long as you can't identify the direct harm against you. am I wrong?

----------


## moostraks

> Slavery is unacceptable, polygamy is not allowed, rape is illegal, child molestation and child pornography is prosecutable, theft is punishable, copyright infringement is illegal....all these laws are MANDATED, am I wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> You've never seen children disobey their parents because they think too much for themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You spew a bunch of crap and waste people's time. I believe I get the idea of where you are headed and you are just another hater who needs to get a grip and troll elsewhere.

Your ignorance by replying "you'd have no problem with people who believe or teach that slavery, racism, violence or crime are good things" when I said "I believe that children are the responsibilty of the parents. It is their duty to raise them to be ethical, responsible individuals who think for themselves" clearly indicates you can't follow a proper train of thought. I try to abide by the 'Harm None' motto to the best of my ability. 

In your perfect school they would never teach history. Nor would they tolerate outside of the box thinking. Lucky for you they have a name for that, public school! 

The fact that you believe that creationism is such a threat to your well being that we must mandate what can and can't be taught in homeschools really is on par with a theocracy with Atheism as the religion. You haven't the foggiest notion what freedom is about and will awaken when the boot is on your throat.

----------


## Todd

> In your perfect school they would never teach history. Nor would they tolerate outside of the box thinking. Lucky for you they have a name for that, public school! 
> 
> The fact that you believe that creationism is such a threat to your well being that we must mandate what can and can't be taught in homeschools really is on par with a theocracy with Atheism as the religion. You haven't the foggiest notion what freedom is about and will awaken when the boot is on your throat.


Yes.   That thought process is akin to the belief that the state is the overlord of a childs life and not the parent.  

I've always thought it funny that the public schools have been given oversight on the curriculum of some home schooled programs.  When we homeschooled my son, it was the same way.  We weren't about to teach the crap they wanted.
Our public school system today frowns on critical thinking in favor of making good "citizens".

----------


## moostraks

> Yes.   That thought process is akin to the belief that the state is the overlord of a childs life and not the parent.  
> 
> I've always thought it funny that the public schools have been given oversight on the curriculum of some home schooled programs.  When we homeschooled my son, it was the same way.  We weren't about to teach the crap they wanted.
> Our public school system today frowns on critical thinking in favor of making good "citizens".


Sorry you had a bad experience. In Ohio we are under more scrutiny than when we were in Georgia, but the realm of what to teach within the subject is open ended as long as a certified teacher will sign off on it  Then they also have the public school at home option which would be an absolute no go for me.

Parents are on the hook for what their children do and yet society wants parents to be rendered impotent when it comes to instilling values so they have some moral framework to work within. Quite frankly I could care less what one chooses to utilize as a framework but parents bring the children into the world and it should be up to them to make the decision for how they are raised. I fear what another generation or two will bring society at the rate we are going...

----------


## peacepotpaul

> You spew a bunch of crap and waste people's time. I believe I get the idea of where you are headed and you are just another hater who needs to get a grip and troll elsewhere.
> 
> Your ignorance by replying "you'd have no problem with people who believe or teach that slavery, racism, violence or crime are good things" when I said "I believe that children are the responsibilty of the parents. It is their duty to raise them to be ethical, responsible individuals who think for themselves" clearly indicates you can't follow a proper train of thought. I try to abide by the 'Harm None' motto to the best of my ability.


So I'll ask you again, *DO PARENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO TEACH CHILDREN TO BE UNETHICAL?* Should it be illegal for parents to teach children to commit criminal acts or immoral thoughts that can lead to it?






> In your perfect school they would never teach history. Nor would they tolerate outside of the box thinking. Lucky for you they have a name for that, public school!


Wrong. Public schools DO encourage thinking, and knowing history, as much as there is bias and limitations, I don't think it's perfect, nor perfectly bad. 





> The fact that you believe that creationism is such a threat to your well being that we must mandate what can and can't be taught in homeschools really is on par with a theocracy with Atheism as the religion.


Good thing we agree something is wrong.




> You haven't the foggiest notion what freedom is about and will awaken when the boot is on your throat.


and you get to call me strawman, when you say what I believe is no different than "theocracy with atheism as the religion"?

I definitely DON'T know what's freedom about in your world, or else why do I ask? Why do you not want to explain it to me so I can feel stupid?

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Yes.   That thought process is akin to the belief that the state is the overlord of a childs life and not the parent.


The logical alternative to that, is that there should be no state, no law above a parent's authority over their children. That parents shouldn't be stopped from teaching children to commit crimes, or commit crimes against their children on their own.





> I've always thought it funny that the public schools have been given oversight on the curriculum of some home schooled programs.  When we homeschooled my son, it was the same way.  We weren't about to teach the crap they wanted.
> Our public school system today frowns on critical thinking in favor of making good "citizens".


How much critical thinking is enough? 
Do you encourage skepticism to the point where morality and laws are ignored?

----------


## moostraks

> So I'll ask you again, *DO PARENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO TEACH CHILDREN TO BE UNETHICAL?* Should it be illegal for parents to teach children to commit criminal acts or immoral thoughts that can lead to it?


For someone who holds dearly the notion of evolution you sure don't have much faith in it.




> Wrong. Public schools DO encourage thinking, and knowing history, as much as there is bias and limitations, I don't think it's perfect, nor perfectly bad.


NEA member??? 




> and you get to call me strawman, when you say what I believe is no different than "theocracy with atheism as the religion"?


Guess I could have jumped to conclusions about where you were headed based upon irrational conclusions you were drawing but, doubt it. Go ahead and wrap up where you were going with your reasoning and prove me wrong. 





> I definitely DON'T know what's freedom about in your world, or else why do I ask? Why do you not want to explain it to me so I can feel stupid?


Either society raises the children and they are emancipated at birth or the parents raise the children. He who has the burden of responsibility gets the priviledge of educating the children. I have already raised one the way government felt was in her best interest and she is a disaster. I am not a non-profit for the state to house its children.

I am not about ridiculing others for sport, that is your deal.

----------


## Todd

> The logical alternative to that, is that there should be no state, no law above a parent's authority over their children. That parents shouldn't be stopped from teaching children to commit crimes, or commit crimes against their children on their own.
> 
> How much critical thinking is enough? 
> Do you encourage skepticism to the point where morality and laws are ignored?


Yes. I encourage skepticism.

No one in this thread has suggested they should teach someone something that violates human rights.  Yet you see a holocaust looming around every corner if this is allowed.

Explain to me exactly where this epidemic is that teaches a violation of basic human rights, and advocates the murder or violence of one person against another?  Where?  

I'd argue it's the current system we have.

I'm not sure what it is that prevents you from seeing how critical thinking skills and parental sovereignty is far more desirable and contributes to a more healthy society than what we currently have.  
Then, when that occurs, you can deal with the minor inconveniences that inevitably materialize in any human system that promotes free thinking and freedom.  

I, like Moosetracks, am weary of the strawman argument.

----------


## Todd

> Wrong. Public schools DO encourage thinking, and knowing history, as much as there is bias and limitations, I don't think it's perfect, nor perfectly bad.


LOL!   I used to be a TA teaching gifted resource programs, and my very close friend is a retired teacher who used to get bad evals for not being "a team player".  Wanna know why?  He refused to teach the common track bull$#@! without implementing critical thinking skills into the equation and it was frowned upon and met with ridicule because he wasn't following the guidelines.  And the guidelines don't include the critical thought process. 

Give me a break!

----------


## M House

If evolution is true it definitely has a unique sense of humor. We vary from our closest relative the chimp in every way that counts the most. Here's an example that only pervy scientists know... Humans have a very sophisticated prepuce, glans, and what is referred to as paired corpa cavernosa. The chimp lacks both the glans and has only a single corpus cavernosum(I hope that's the correct latin). And yes these features are present on both men and women.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Yes. I encourage skepticism.
> 
> No one in this thread has suggested they should teach someone something that violates human rights.  Yet you see a holocaust looming around every corner if this is allowed.


I'm suggesting it, and the fact you think it won't happen or can't give a straight "I don't want that" is laughable. 




> Explain to me exactly where this epidemic is that teaches a violation of basic human rights, and advocates the murder or violence of one person against another?  Where?


Never heard it exists, but would you be opposed to it if you saw it? On what grounds? 





> I'd argue it's the current system we have.
> 
> I'm not sure what it is that prevents you from seeing how critical thinking skills and parental sovereignty is far more desirable and contributes to a more healthy society than what we currently have.


No, I completely agree! You think I want the law over me when I abuse my children for my own selfish purposes? 





> Then, when that occurs, you can deal with the minor inconveniences that inevitably materialize in any human system that promotes free thinking and freedom.  
> 
> I, like Moosetracks, am weary of the strawman argument.


I didn't make any strawman, I was in fact ASKING YOU IF THERE'S A LIMIT* (you either deny it or can't give a direct opposition because it'll logically extend to your advocacy of laws, regulations and thought crime.)*

----------


## peacepotpaul

> LOL!   I used to be a TA teaching gifted resource programs, and my very close friend is a retired teacher who used to get bad evals for not being "a team player".  Wanna know why?  He refused to teach the common track bull$#@! without implementing critical thinking skills into the equation and it was frowned upon and met with ridicule because he wasn't following the guidelines.  And the guidelines don't include the critical thought process. 
> 
> Give me a break!


what level are we talking about?

are you suggesting that unless it's explicitly encouraged and rewarded to express critical thought, it's discouraged and not allowed? as if it's not implied that teaching something allows you to ask, think, observe, absorb, infer, imagine and create?

----------


## Todd

> I was in fact ASKING YOU IF THERE'S A LIMIT* (you either deny it or can't give a direct opposition because it'll logically extend to your advocacy of laws, regulations and thought crime.)*


Uh.......Who's the decider of the "limit".  It's a strawman.  What are you afraid of?




> are you suggesting that unless it's explicitly encouraged and rewarded to express critical thought, it's discouraged and not allowed? as if it's not implied that teaching something allows you to ask, think, observe, absorb, infer, imagine and create?



Yes.  I'm suggesting it is not allowed.  
No.   What goes for teaching in most schools does not imply questioning etc.

Most of our entire system is designed to tell people what to think and memorize facts.  

Something doesn't have to be "explicit" to foster a desired outcome.   

Start a new thread.  I'm actually sick of hijacking this one and I've participated in it.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Uh.......Who's the decider of the "limit".  It's a strawman.  What are you afraid of?


I think society is and should be, and usually through the help of the government.





> Yes.  I'm suggesting it is not allowed.  
> No.   What goes for teaching in most schools does not imply questioning etc.
> 
> Most of our entire system is designed to tell people what to think and memorize facts.  
> 
> Something doesn't have to be "explicit" to foster a desired outcome.   
> 
> Start a new thread.  I'm actually sick of hijacking this one and I've participated in it.


start one on your own, i'll be there.

----------


## reillym

> If evolution is true it definitely has a unique sense of humor. We vary from our closest relative the chimp in every way that counts the most. Here's an example that only pervy scientists know... Humans have a very sophisticated prepuce, glans, and what is referred to as paired corpa cavernosa. The chimp lacks both the glans and has only a single corpus cavernosum(I hope that's the correct latin). And yes these features are present on both men and women.


You're point? The entire basis of evolution is the creation and modification of new body parts. 

You are arguing the equivalent of: 

"Fish have scales and humans don't, therefore evolution is false. Also, I'm an idiot."

----------


## TER

Unbeknown to many of today's Christians, the patristic teachings of the Church is that our universe originated from a “seed”. Stars, plants, animals, and humans, all sprouted from the same original seed. All creatures appeared and grew according to their order, like the branches, the leafs and the fruits, in the trees.  

This is the teaching of the early fathers of the Church, and is found in the writings of St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Gregory of Nyssa, three of the most holy saints in the early, undivided, apostolic Church.

----------


## pacelli

Here's one for your consideration.  Gordon asserts that both organized religion AND evolution are adult fairy tales:

YouTube - George Gordon- Religion and Evolution are Fairy Tales

----------


## Todd

> Unbeknown to many of today's Christians, the patristic teachings of the Church is that our universe originated from a seed. Stars, plants, animals, and humans, all sprouted from the same original seed. All creatures appeared and grew according to their order, like the branches, the leafs and the fruits, in the trees.  
> 
> This is the teaching of the early fathers of the Church, and is found in the writings of St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Gregory of Nyssa, three of the most holy saints in the early, undivided, apostolic Church.


but where is the scriptural reference for this?

----------


## TER

> but where is the scriptural reference for this?


As the Bible is a book written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit, so are the writings of these divinely inspired saints of the Church.  These are men who lived holy lives, becoming living temples of the Holy Spirit, and who are considered to be amongst the greatest saints of the Church, both in the East and in the West. 

God's Word is not limited to the Bible.

----------


## TER

Here is the _Hexaemeron_, a classic Christian writing by St. Basil the Great.

----------


## Todd

> As the Bible is a book written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit, so are the writings of these divinely inspired saints of the Church.  These are men who lived holy lives, becoming living temples of the Holy Spirit, and who are considered to be amongst the greatest saints of the Church, both in the East and in the West. 
> 
> God's Word is not limited to the Bible.


Not denying the possibility that you are correct, but I tend to be much more careful about suggesting those things are gospel.

I personally am very skeptical of anyone claiming a truth about God and not have something tangible scripturally to reference.  That's where many Christians get into touble and the great arguments of what we know to be true and what will have to be left answered in the afterlife come from.

But I appreciate your insight and am open to it.

----------


## TER

> Not denying the possibility that you are correct, but I tend to be much more careful about suggesting those things are gospel.
> 
> I personally am very skeptical of anyone claiming a truth about God and not have something tangible scripturally to reference.  That's where many Christians get into touble and the great arguments of what we know to be true and what will have to be left answered in the afterlife come from.
> 
> But I appreciate your insight and am open to it.


  Thank you for this.

You are right that we should 'test the spirits' and have much discernment when reading the writings of men which are not included in the canonical Holy Bible.  But we must also remember that the books of the Holy Bible were determined to be canonical by men (which, coincidentally, included the saints I mentioned earlier) under the guidance of the Counselor, that is, the Holy Spirit.  This is the function of the Church, as the Body of Christ, to proclaim the Truth as God has revealed and to fight heresy wherever it may sprout up.

While the canonical Holy Bible is the greatest _written_ revelation of God to men, it is by no means the limit to God's Word.  St. John concludes his gospel with "there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."  The Holy Writ is our most dependable written guide, there is no doubt, but just as it has been the Church which has decided which books were divinely inspired and which weren't, likewise, it is the same Church which witnesses to the divine inspiration of the writings of the saints.  In fact, one could argue that the Holy Spirit (after Pentecost) is more active in the writings of the Christians saints than to the prophets of old now that Christ has sent the Counselor and has ascended and sits at the right hand of the Father.

I assure you Todd you will find much wisdom in the homilies posted above (the Hexameron by St. Basil the Great) and you will find no contradiction in these writings to the Holy Scriptures.  Rather, you will find a deeper and more fuller, complete understanding of the Genesis story as only a God-dwelling Christian saint could give.

I just started reading it again in fact since posting it and have not been able to stop!

----------


## Theocrat

> As the Bible is a book written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit, so are the writings of these divinely inspired saints of the Church.  These are men who lived holy lives, becoming living temples of the Holy Spirit, and who are considered to be amongst the greatest saints of the Church, both in the East and in the West. 
> 
> God's Word is not limited to the Bible.


St. Theocrat says you are wrong that God's word is not limited to the Bible. Now, by what authority do you go against the divinely inspired words of this saint?

----------


## TER

> St. Theocrat says you are wrong that God's word is not limited to the Bible. Now, by what authority do you go against the divinely inspired words of this saint?


Well, Theo, to begin with, the fact that you consider yourself a saint and believe that your words are divinely inspired shows how far you are from understanding the truth.  No saint considers themself to be so.  Had you had a fraction of the humility and grace of these saints you would know this, but rather you are in prelest.  These saints of which the entire Church has proclaimed are men and women who have lived the life in Christ, not only in words, but in deeds, filled with holiness and piety and love for their neighbors, sacrificing their own selves in Christ-like fashion.  These are people who are full of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, through whom miracles have been performed and multitudes saved by their teachings and efforts.  "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?" (1 Corinthians 6:2)

I have yet to hear anyone proclaiming you to be a saint other than yourself, and yet you compare yourself to these giants of the faith?  Learn humility Theo if you wish to be the salt of the earth, otherwise, you deceive yourself and mock the Body of Christ, which is the Church.

----------


## TER

Anyone who limits the Word of God to the Holy Bible worships not Christ but a book written by men.  How can the Word of God, Who is the Creator of the universe, be confined to the 500 pages of a book?  This is utterly ridiculous, to believe that the infinite, omnipotent, almighty God of creation is limited to the pages of a book.

Your Christian ancestors, if they go that far, would have laughed at such a notion.  Perhaps you believe you know more about Christ than they did, or is it because you consider your thoughts to be divinely inspired that you make such outrageous statements?

----------


## Theocrat

> Well, Theo, to begin with, the fact that you consider yourself a saint and believe that your words are divinely inspired shows how far you are from understanding the truth.  No saint considers them to be so.  Had you had a fraction of the humility and grace of these saints you would know this, but rather you are in prelest.  These saints of which the entire Church has proclaimed are men and women who have lived the life in Christ, not only in words, but in deeds, filled with holiness and piety and love for their neighbors, sacrificing their own selves in Christ-like fashion.  These are people who are full of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, through whom miracles have been performed and multitudes saved by their teachings and efforts.  "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?" (1 Corinthians 6:2)
> 
> I have yet to hear anyone proclaiming you to be a saint other than yourself, and yet you compare yourself to these giants of the faith?  Learn humility Theo if you wish to be the salt of the earth, otherwise, you deceive yourself and mock the Body of Christ, which is the Church.


Actually, I was being facetious about being a divinely inspired saint, TER. You seem to believe the words of the saints over the inspired words of the Holy Scriptures. Anytime you say that the Bible is not the final standard for our revelation of God, you open it up to any Christian's word to be of God. And how then would we discern the words of God from the words of men?

You did call the saints "divinely inspired," did you not? I'm sorry, but that stinks of Romanism, where they elevate the Pope to the level of "the Vicar of Christ," whose words are "divinely inspired" from God as truth for the entire Roman Church.

No, the only divinely inspired words from any saints are those whom God used to pen the words of the Holy Scriptures, for we're told in 2 Peter 1:20, 21 that "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

The Church, although she is the Bride of Christ, is not the Voice of Christ. She was created; the word was not. It already existed, breathed from the breath of the triune God Himself. If the Church speaks, it should only speak from the Spirit which comes from the word, not men's autonomous piety to be a separate word from God.

For as great as the saints of old were, they were only great because they heeded the word which was established from the beginning of the universe, derived sovereignly from their Lord.

----------


## Theocrat

> Anyone who limits the Word of God to the Holy Bible worships not Christ but a book written by men.  How can the Word of God, Who is the Creator of the universe, be confined to the 500 pages of a book?  This is utterly ridiculous, to believe that the infinite, omnipotent, almighty God of creation is limited to the pages of a book.
> 
> Your Christian ancestors, if they go that far, would have laughed at such a notion.  Perhaps you believe you know more about Christ than they did, or is it because you consider your thoughts to be divinely inspired that you make such outrageous statements?


Anyone who does not allow the Bible to speak on its own authority limits God to the image of his own mind. Our God is a covenant God, and He has always given His people an inscribed law by which it instructs them of Who He is. It's not that Christians worship the paper and ink of the Bible. That would be idolatry. We worship what the words in the book tell us about God, and we believe that its words come from God.

It is *you* who limits God, because you presuppose that our God, Who created the entire universe, could not communicate to His people and the world perfectly by means of a holy Book. You believe God can create mountains and valleys and govern seas and airways, but He can't write a Book as He intends it to be? How foolish is that, my brother? If we have no final standard to appeal to God's voice from the imaginations of men, then how do we even know Who God is, and what His purpose is for the world in Jesus Christ?

More importantly, show me any apostle who took the stance which you share that God does not speak through "500 pages of a book," as you put it. You know who you sound like when you talk like that, my brother-in-Christ? You sound just like a humanist. They make those same false arguments against God and His word all of the time! You need to come out from among them, and "be ye separate," TER. (2 Corinthians 6:17)

----------


## TER

> Actually, I was being facetious about being a divinely inspired saint, TER. You seem to believe the words of the saints over the inspired words of the Holy Scriptures. Anytime you say that the Bible is not the final standard for our revelation of God, you open it up to any Christian's word to be of God. And how then would we discern the words of God from the words of men?


The Holy Scriptures are the greatest written revelation of God.  I am not arguing that.  We both agree here.  This is orthodox teachings.  But you are wrong in saying that it is the 'final standard'.

 Jesus Christ is the final standard for our revelation of God.




> You did call the saints "divinely inspired," did you not? I'm sorry, but that stinks of Romanism, where they elevate the Pope to the level of "the Vicar of Christ," whose words are "divinely inspired" from God as truth for the entire Roman Church.


Romanism?  What are you talking about?  What does the Pope have to do with this conversation?



> No, the only divinely inspired words from any saints are those whom God used to pen the words of the Holy Scriptures, for we're told in 2 Peter 1:20, 21 that "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."


It is ironic that you use this verse which in fact does nothing more the disprove your argument.  Where else, but in the Protestant Church and all its 30,000 denominations, where sola scriptura is held as doctrine, that private interpretation of the Holy Scriptures runs more rampant than anywhere else? Do you not see the foolishness of your statement?  Of course there should be no private interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.  Only through the lens of the Church do the meanings of the scriptures find their understanding. 




> The Church, although she is the Bride of Christ, is not the Voice of Christ.


Not only the voice, but the Body of Christ.




> She was created; the word was not. It already existed, breathed from the breath of the triune God Himself. If the Church speaks, it should only speak from the Spirit which comes from the word, not men's autonomous piety to be a separate word from God.


What are you talking about?




> For as great as the saints of old were, they were only great because they heeded the word which was established from the beginning of the universe, derived sovereignly from their Lord.


Wrong.  Not simply because they 'heeded the Word', but rather lived the Word.  They were great because Christ dwelled within them, the very Spirit of God within them, deifying and glorifying them by the Grace of God.

----------


## TER

Theo, how was the bible written?  By men or did if fall from the sky?

----------


## TER

The Apostles were establishing in the year 33 in the Church of Jerusalem that is today the Orthodox Church. In the year 1000 as result of schism, the Catholic Church split from the Church and came into being. In the year 1500+ Protestantism came into being. Today there are 30000 protestant groups, everyone with its own truths.

From historical perspectives, a normal protestant family would have been 1000 years in the Orthodox Church, 500 years in the Catholic Church, and 500 years in the Protestant Church. If one generation = 50 years, a Protestant family would have been 20 generations as Orthodox , 10 generations as Catholic, and 10 generations as Protestants fighting against many of the teachings of their ancestors in the Church and contradicting the Apostolic witness.

----------


## TER

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to re-marry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England, founded by Samuel Senbury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1606.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed Church, you recognize Michelis Jones as founder because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, New York, in 1829.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as "Church of the Nazarene, Pentecostal Gospel," "Holiness Church," or "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past hundred years.

If you are Orthodox Christian, your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It has not changed since that time. The Orthodox Church is now almost 2,000 years old. And it is for this reason, that Orthodoxy, the Church of the Apostles and the Fathers is considered the true "one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."

----------


## reillym

You guys need to stop arguing over fairy tales that were written by a bunch of people thousands of years ago and rewritten many times. It's silly, really.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> TodaysEpistleReading;2745829]If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are Orthodox Christian, your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It has not changed since that time. The Orthodox Church is now almost 2,000 years old. And it is for this reason, that Orthodoxy, the Church of the Apostles and the Fathers is considered the true "one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."


Is that why there is more than one Orthodox Christian Church?  How do you know which is the "right" one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Orthodox_Churches




> *Orthodox Churches* (in full communion) 
> 
> Orthodox Church of Constantinople 
> Finnish Orthodox Church
> Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church
> Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe
> Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada
> Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria
> Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch 
> ...


Are only people who belong to the "correct" Church "saved"?  Is one church "supperior" to the others and closer to God?  Or does God welcome all who celebrate in His name?

"When two or more are gathered in my name, I will be there".  I don't think He cares which church.

----------


## TER

> Is that why there is more than one Orthodox Christian Church?  How do you know which is the "right" one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Orthodox_Churches


I will try to explain this as well as I can, but I am sure I will do it injustice, so i urge you to learn more and dig a little deeper if this doesn't make sense to you.

The vast majority of the churches you listed are in fact members of the the same Church, that is, they are in communion with one another, holding the same Divine Liturgy every Sunday and share the same tenents of the faith.  The only difference being cultural, that is, the language spoken and certain ethnic traditions (cuisine, etc).  The location of the churches are the reason why they have different names, since historically, only one bishop should be in one geographic area for the Christian Church.  Aside from the ethnic differences, the churches are exactly the same.  The same feasts are celebrated, the priests serve the same liturgical services, the parishoners say the same prayers, and all share the same Apostolic faith and teachings which have been handed down and preserved by the faithful for 2000 years.  

For example, if someone is from the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, they can walk into a Russian Orthodox Church, a Finnish Orthodox Church, a Greek Orthodox Church, etc, etc, and know exactly what service is being done, which prayers are being said, what the beliefs are of the people around him, and share from the same Holy Eucharist.  So you see, though your list contains many different 'churches', they are in fact all the same Church.





> Are only people who belong to the "correct" Church "saved"?  Is one church "supperior" to the others and closer to God?  Or does God welcome all who celebrate in His name?


The Orthodox teaching is that only God knows who is saved and who is not.   While it is the understanding that there is one Church as there is one Body of Christ and salvation only comes through Jesus Christ, where the limits are to the Church is known only to God.  There is an Orthodox saying that goes 'while we know where the Church is, we do not know where it isn't', in other words, out of humility and in awe of the great mercy and love of God, while we believe the Orthodox Church to be the One, Holy, Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, we do not presume to know the limits of the Church and who will be saved and who will not be, as only God knows the hearts of men.  

That being said, the faithful believe the Orthodox Church to be the purest of the Christian faiths and surest one for salvation.  This of course does not mean that being Orthodox means automatic salvation!

Also, this doesn't mean Christians from other faiths, or even people of other religions (!), will not find salvation.  Therefore, you will not hear an Orthodox ask someone 'are you saved?', because no one knows that except for God.

In fact, the more Orthodox approach would be that I myself am living a life headed towards perdition and I pray to the Lord for mercy and forgiveness for my many sins and transgressions.  That is why the greatest Christian prayer of them all is: ' Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

----------


## TER

> "When two or more are gathered in my name, I will be there".  I don't think He cares which church.


The question is, what does Christ mean by 'in my Name?'.

Were not the Arians gathered together in His Name?

Or the Nestorians?

Or the multitude other heretical sects who taught things which contradicted the teachings of Christ and His Apostles?

 I would say that they in fact were not in His Name, but only claimed to be.

I suggest you read the epistles of St. Paul again to remind yourself that even from the very beginning of the Church, various groups were heading down the wrong path and spreading teachings contrary to the Apostolic witness.  Whole epistles were written trying to correct those who were being led astray.

----------


## WaltM

> Theo, how was the bible written?  By men or did if fall from the sky?


LOLz

----------


## Gimme Some Truth

> You guys need to stop arguing over fairy tales that were written by a bunch of people thousands of years ago and rewritten many times. It's silly, really.


Amen

----------


## jmdrake

> You guys need to stop arguing over fairy tales that were written by a bunch of people thousands of years ago and rewritten many times. It's silly, really.


I still am amazed at how obsessed atheists are with the religion subforum.

----------


## jmdrake

> Anyone who limits the Word of God to the Holy Bible worships not Christ but a book written by men.  *How can the Word of God, Who is the Creator of the universe, be confined to the 500 pages of a book?*  This is utterly ridiculous, to believe that the infinite, omnipotent, almighty God of creation is limited to the pages of a book.
> 
> Your Christian ancestors, if they go that far, would have laughed at such a notion.  Perhaps you believe you know more about Christ than they did, or is it because you consider your thoughts to be divinely inspired that you make such outrageous statements?


The essence of Christianity can be summed up in a mere sentence.  

_"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself._

That said, of course God can give revelations about Himself that go beyond the Bible.  But everything needed for salvation is in those 500 pages (or less).  Anyone telling you otherwise is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.  Also (and this might have been covered before) any "new revelation" that goes against what is already known in scripture is dangerous for the Christian to follow IMO.  It's like "reinterpreting the constitution".  You have to have some solid rule of thumb or there is no limit to what some "anti-Christ" can put forward as a "revelation from God".

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I still am amazed at how obsessed atheists are with the religion subforum.


As am I.

----------


## seb12

There is an important difference between science and religion. Science is based on proofs, religion is based on beliefs. There has never been any scientific proof for the religious idea of how man was created - it is simply something believe in or you don't.

----------


## The Patriot

> You guys need to stop arguing over fairy tales that were written by a bunch of people thousands of years ago and rewritten many times. It's silly, really.


QFTW

You think they would figure out the New Testament was nonsense when Matthew started talking about zombies rising from their graves after Jesus was supposedly resurrected. How could any smart person, or intellectually honest person believe such tripe, particularly when there is no recorded evidence of such an absurd thing occurring?

Matthew 27:51-53

“And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...3&version=NKJV

----------


## jmdrake

> QFTW
> 
> You think they would figure out the New Testament was nonsense when Matthew started talking about zombies rising from their graves after Jesus was supposedly resurrected. How could any smart person, or intellectually honest person believe such tripe, particularly when there is no recorded evidence of such an absurd thing occurring?
> 
> Matthew 27:51-53
> 
> “And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”
> 
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...3&version=NKJV


You're singling out the New Testament for contempt?  Do you believe the Old?  Just curious.

----------


## idirtify

> I still am amazed at how obsessed atheists are with the religion subforum.


Obsessed is obviously a negative term used to criticize the basic process of disagreeing with opinions that have less merit. Why are you amazed that anyone on LF (including yourself) would be passionate about doing what discussion forums invite? Are you also amazed at how obsessed freedom fighters are with big government topics? Unless you are ready to debate the whole principle behind legitimate debate, please understand that religious beliefs are only opinions; and are just as vulnerable to dispute as any.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There is an important difference between science and religion. Science is based on proofs, religion is based on beliefs. There has never been any scientific proof for the religious idea of how man was created - it is simply something believe in or you don't.


There's also no scientific proof (empirical, observable, repeatable evidence in accordance with the scientific method) of Darwinian/Lamarckian evolution, yet this is called "science" all the time. lolz

It should also be noted that in its early days, natural science assumed a creator deity and sought to explain creation through scientific method.(even Gregor Mendel, father of cell theory, was a monk)

----------


## jmdrake

> Obsessed is obviously a negative term used to criticize the basic process of disagreeing with opinions that have less merit. Why are you amazed that anyone on LF (including yourself) would be passionate about doing what discussion forums invite? Are you also amazed at how obsessed freedom fighters are with big government topics? Unless you are ready to debate the whole principle behind legitimate debate, please understand that religious beliefs are only opinions; and are just as vulnerable to dispute as any.


Oh by all means "dispute away".  But it's laughable that an atheist feels the need to inject himself into a discussion between two believers with a silly insult about "fairy tales".  Do you find that to be "legitimate debate"?  I don't, but that's just me.  I wouldn't go into a discussion between Shia and Sunni Muslims just for the purpose of injecting my own childish insult either, but that's just me.  And if I saw some people on another board discussing the merits of "Obama" versus "Bush" I don't think a childish "You are both stupid" comment would be legitimate debate.  But I will readily admit that I could be wrong about what constitutes legitimate debate.

----------


## MelissaWV

As long as these discussions appear under the "New Posts" search, people will stumble into them at will.  There is always the option of ignoring the stupidity and continuing on with the valid discussion.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> As long as these discussions appear under the "New Posts" search, people will stumble into them at will.  There is always the option of ignoring the stupidity and continuing on with the valid discussion.


But, but, but......we LOVE to argue about how OTHER PEOPLE should believe!

----------


## The Patriot

> You're singling out the New Testament for contempt?  Do you believe the Old?  Just curious.


I don't know, do I? Why do I have do I have to provide an old testament criticism along with every old testament one?

You don't believe in zombies do you? Didn't you get over that when you were 7 years old?

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't know, do I? Why do I have do I have to provide an old testament criticism along with every old testament one?


Yes.  You do.  Zionists are always complaining about "balance" when it comes to criticizing Israel.  Since you are a zionist (atheist zionist?  What an oxymoron) you should balance your attack on the Christian religion with attacks on the Judaic religion that preceded it.




> You don't believe in zombies do you? Didn't you get over that when you were 7 years old?


I simply asked a yes or no question.  Now here's another one.  Since Ron Paul believes in the New Testament do you think that disqualifies him to be president?    Really the hatred against Christians given by those who claim to support Ron Paul is beyond baffling.  What's wrong?  You can't convince Gillette Penn to run for president?

----------


## jmdrake

> As long as these discussions appear under the "New Posts" search, people will stumble into them at will.  There is always the option of ignoring the stupidity and continuing on with the valid discussion.


Maybe I should flood the forum with a bunch of other posts to keep this thread from showing up in "new posts".

----------


## idirtify

> Oh by all means "dispute away".  But it's laughable that an atheist feels the need to inject himself into a discussion between two believers with a silly insult about "fairy tales".  Do you find that to be "legitimate debate"?  I don't, but that's just me.  I wouldn't go into a discussion between Shia and Sunni Muslims just for the purpose of injecting my own childish insult either, but that's just me.  And if I saw some people on another board discussing the merits of "Obama" versus "Bush" I don't think a childish "You are both stupid" comment would be legitimate debate.  But I will readily admit that I could be wrong about what constitutes legitimate debate.


So you have never injected yourself into a discussion? Of course you have! Because hundreds do it every day here on LF.

BTW, calling that with which you disagree a fairy tale is not an insult. Please look it up, along with ad hominem. Your analogy confirms your misunderstanding. Calling a poster stupid IS an insult  because it attacks the person instead of the message. Surely you can see the difference. A member with 7,864 post should certainly be educated about the most basic of discussion forum rules. AGAIN: discrediting a message is fine; discrediting a PERSON is not.

----------


## idirtify

> Yes.  You do.  Zionists are always complaining about "balance" when it comes to criticizing Israel.  Since you are a zionist (atheist zionist?  What an oxymoron) you should balance your attack on the Christian religion with attacks on the Judaic religion that preceded it.
> 
> 
> 
> I simply asked a yes or no question.  Now here's another one.  Since Ron Paul believes in the New Testament do you think that disqualifies him to be president?    Really the hatred against Christians given by those who claim to support Ron Paul is beyond baffling.  What's wrong?  You can't convince Gillette Penn to run for president?


Here again, you demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the difference between discrediting messages and discrediting persons. Disagreeing with Christian beliefs is NOT hatred against Christians. Im amazed that someone with so many posts would not have yet learned this fundamental difference.

----------


## The Patriot

> Yes.  You do.  Zionists are always complaining about "balance" when it comes to criticizing Israel.  Since you are a zionist (atheist zionist?  What an oxymoron) you should balance your attack on the Christian religion with attacks on the Judaic religion that preceded it.
> 
> 
> 
> I simply asked a yes or no question.  Now here's another one.  Since Ron Paul believes in the New Testament do you think that disqualifies him to be president?    Really the hatred against Christians given by those who claim to support Ron Paul is beyond baffling.  What's wrong?  You can't convince Gillette Penn to run for president?


I never proclaimed to be a zionist, there are so many differing definitions(varying form anyone who supports the existence of Israel to someone who supports a singular jewish state throughout the wets bank and gaza as well). I have always supported a two state solution. And yes, I am an atheist who supports the idea of a state for Jews, as long as of course such a state allows for religious freedom like Israel does. In fact, there are many atheistic jews and israelis(particularly among the Eastern European population).

And no, I don't think I need a jewish qualifier attack when critiquing an absurd biblical passage. This thread is about Christianity, not Judaism. If you want to make a threat critiquing the old testament, be my guest. Why do you have to bring it back to the jews? What is your obsession with them? What does Judaism have to with the context of this conversation on zombies in the new testament other than your predetermined bias to bring up the jews in every conversation? And I never said I hated Christians.

If Ron Paul believes in Zombies, than yes, I think it would disqualify him from running for President. But I doubt he believes such a thing.

And you never answered my question, do you believe in the New Testament Zombies?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I never proclaimed to be a zionist, there are so many differing definitions(varying form anyone who supports the existence of Israel to someone who supports a singular jewish state throughout the wets bank and gaza as well). I have always supported a two state solution. And yes, I am an atheist who supports the idea of a state for Jews, as long as of course such a state allows for religious freedom like Israel does. In fact, there are many atheistic jews and israelis(particularly among the Eastern European population).
> 
> And no, I don't think I need a jewish qualifier attack when critiquing an absurd biblical passage. This thread is about Christianity, not Judaism. If you want to make a threat critiquing the old testament, be my guest. Why do you have to bring it back to the jews? What is your obsession with them? What does Judaism have to with the context of this conversation on zombies in the new testament other than your predetermined bias to bring up the jews in every conversation? And I never said I hated Christians.
> 
> *If Ron Paul believes in Zombies, than yes, I think it would disqualify him from running for President*. But I doubt he believes such a thing.
> 
> And you never answered my question, do you believe in the New Testament Zombies?


I'm not a theist either, but I think you're taking this to an unnecessary extreme, bro.

----------


## jmdrake

> I never proclaimed to be a zionist,


Actions speak louder than words.




> And no, I don't think I need a jewish qualifier attack when critiquing an absurd biblical passage. This thread is about Christianity, not Judaism.


Read the thread title.  Last time I checked, Genesis was part of the Torah.   




> If Ron Paul believes in Zombies, than yes, I think it would disqualify him from running for President. But I doubt he believes such a thing.


From Ron Paul's statement of faith:

_I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator._

Now you can't honestly believe that Jesus "guides you" if you don't believe He arose from the dead.  This isn't some deist "I take comfort and guidance from the ancient teachings of the rabbi named Jesus" statement.  Also resurrection ≠ "zombie", but you seem to think it does.  By the way, that's why I asked you about the old testament since there is an example of resurrection in the old testament.




> And you never answered my question, do you believe in the New Testament Zombies?


There were no zombies mentioned in the passage you quoted.  I do believe in resurrection.  So does Ron Paul.  I guess you're part of the wrong movement.  

Anyway, here is the dictionary definition of "zombie".


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zombie 
_
Main Entry: zom·bie
Variant(s): also zom·bi \ˈzäm-bē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Louisiana Creole or Haitian Creole zonbi, of Bantu origin; akin to Kimbundu nzúmbe ghost
Date: circa 1871

1 usually zombi a : the supernatural power that according to voodoo belief may enter into and reanimate a dead body b : a will-less and speechless human in the West Indies capable only of automatic movement who is held to have died and been supernaturally reanimated
2 a : a person held to resemble the so-called walking dead; especially : automaton b : a person markedly strange in appearance or behavior
3 : a mixed drink made of several kinds of rum, liqueur, and fruit juice_

The persons you referenced were not "will-less" or "speechless".  Nice try though.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> From Ron Paul's statement of faith:
> 
> _I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator._
> 
> Now you can't honestly believe that Jesus "guides you" if you don't believe He arose from the dead.  This isn't some deist "I take comfort and guidance from the ancient teachings of the rabbi named Jesus" statement.  Also resurrection ≠ "zombie", but you seem to think it does.  By the way, that's why I asked you about the old testament since there is an example of resurrection in the old testament.


I'll further back up what Jmdrake has already said here--as a matter of fact, Ron isn't quite as neutral as a number here try to make him out to be--at the end of the day, he believes God's law always trumps man's law and that disobedience of God's law will bring havoc onto any nation.

For some more of Ron's views/writings:

http://www.theamericanview.com/dicta...6bba2e84f2dd31
http://8thcommandmentconservative.bl...m/default.aspx
http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul244.html


He also doesn't believe in evolution either:

YouTube - Ron Paul on Evolution full recording

Better to rely one a man's statements than speculate about his beliefs.

----------


## pacelli

> He also doesn't believe in evolution either:
> 
> YouTube - Ron Paul on Evolution full recording
> 
> Better to rely one a man's statements than speculate about his beliefs.


Thanks, I had never seen that before.

----------


## idirtify

> He also doesn't believe in evolution either:
> 
> YouTube - Ron Paul on Evolution full recording
> 
> Better to rely one a man's statements than speculate about his beliefs.


OMG. My respect for the man just fell drastically. Partly because he admitted belief in creationism, and partly because he based it on a fundamental fallacy; that lack of perfection equals lack of merit. Since when does the term theory denote false? I thought it meant not yet proven conclusively. I suppose we should follow the good doctor and start tossing all theories, just because they are only theories. And speaking of theory, creationism doesnt even qualify as a HYPOTHESIS let alone a theory. He threw out the whole process of relative comparison, where merits are judged on an evidentiary basis. IOW, of course evolution is a theory; but because it has the MOST and the BEST evidence, it is the BEST theory.

But lets look on the bright side. At least this helps to both explain and discredit his position on abortion, and at least his position on keeping the government out of these things will hopefully insulate his personal religious fallacies from doing any kind of real damage.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> OMG. My respect for the man just fell drastically. Partly because he admitted belief in creationism, and partly because he based it on a fundamental fallacy; that lack of perfection equals lack of merit. Since when does the term theory denote false? I thought it meant not yet proven conclusively. I suppose we should follow the good doctor and start tossing all theories, just because they are only theories. And speaking of theory, creationism doesnt even qualify as a HYPOTHESIS let alone a theory. He threw out the whole process of relative comparison, where merits are judged on an evidentiary basis. IOW, of course evolution is a theory; but because it has the MOST and the BEST evidence, it is the BEST theory.
> 
> But lets look on the bright side. At least this helps to both explain and discredit his position on abortion, and at least his position on keeping the government out of these things will hopefully insulate his personal religious fallacies from doing any kind of real damage.


It doesn't follow that a lack of belief in evolutionary theory makes him bad at policy.  He would leave the issue to the States.  What makes you think he would push a creationist theory instead?  Can a person not be agnostic in regards to this issue without people going into such hysteria?

----------


## idirtify

> It doesn't follow that a lack of belief in evolutionary theory makes him bad at policy.  He would leave the issue to the States.  What makes you think he would push a creationist theory instead?  Can a person not be agnostic in regards to this issue without people going into such hysteria?


You are largely correct. It would be pretty hard for him to eliminate the public education system and advance creationism. But the historical problem with religion is that it maintains a higher authority in the mind of the believer. So the principle of separation of church and state naturally conflicts with the religious belief of the believer  and the higher authority often triumphs over any sworn oath to some lowly constitution.

----------


## The Patriot

> Actions speak louder than words.
> 
> 
> 
> Read the thread title.  Last time I checked, Genesis was part of the Torah.   
> 
> 
> 
> From Ron Paul's statement of faith:
> ...


Actions speak louder than words, what does that mean? what actions have I taken, am I a fundamentalist Israeli settler or something? 

I was never talking about Genesis though, I am talking about the Absurdity of the New Testament.

Even if  were to accept the Jesus Zombie story, it wouldn't qualify him as divine, because the passage I cited shows, several people rose from the dead according to Matthew, "and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many."
Yes there are zombies, these people rose from the dead and walked around. Either you didn't read the passage, or are a lying Christian, which is kind of hypocritical, because your zombie leader disparaged lying, and proclaimed that you must accept the doctrine and accept the fact that people are going to mock it and call it absurd. If you genuinely think thousands rose from the dead and walked around, than I would have to say you are insane. And you still didn't provide a quote form Ron Paul saying he believes thousands rose from the dead an walked around, thus, at this point, he cannot be disqualified from running. All you provided was a quote saying he believes in Jesus, which is a common accepted and entrenched myth in our culture, but even rational Christians wouldn't at face value accept the absurd claim that thousands rose form the dead when Jesus floated up to heaven, especially since there is no documented evidence of such a phenomenon occurring. 

And definition number 2 fits the biblical passage perfectly, thank you for providing a definition to clarify the accuracy of my remarks. They were walking dead people, with a markedly weird behavior for a dead person as they were talking to people.

----------


## jmdrake

> Actions speak louder than words, what does that mean? what actions have I taken, am I a fundamentalist Israeli settler or something?


Your goal line defense of everything Israel even to the point of slandering those who think American servicemen who claim to have been machined gunned in their lifeboats might not be crazy after all.  But that's another subject.




> I was never talking about Genesis though, I am talking about the Absurdity of the New Testament.


And the "Old Testament" is somehow less absurd?  But you can't reject the Old Testament without rejecting Israel's primary claim for why it "owns" the land it's now on.  Let's see, in Genesis you have talking snakes, man being created from dirt, a woman being created from a rib, and a whole lot of other stuff that can't be scientifically explained.

And if you want what to see what you so ignorantly call a "zombie story" in the old testament, here you go.

2 Kings 13:21
Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man's body into Elisha's tomb. When the body touched Elisha's bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.




> And definition number 2 fits the biblical passage perfectly, thank you for providing a definition to clarify the accuracy of my remarks. They were walking dead people, with a markedly weird behavior for a dead person as they were talking to people.


You clearly don't even understand what you were reading.

_2 a : a person held to resemble the so-called walking dead; especially : automaton b : a person markedly strange in appearance or behavior_

Definition 2 isn't someone who was actually dead.  It's someone who was alive all along and *resembles* the walking dead.  This goes from the voodoo practice of using blowfish toxin on a live person to "zombify" him or her.

http://www.voodoomuseum.com/index.ph...=article&id=32
_Herbal Zombie: The West Africans were master chemists especially in the use of herbs and poisons.  To make a zombie chemically it is first necessary to cause he victim to appear to die, then to apply an antidote to revive them. The basic poison comes from the common blowfish. Died and powdered it is a nerve poison. It is applied mainly in one’s shoes, surreptitiously, and absorbed through the sweet glands in the feet. The poison inhibits the natural conductivity of the nervous system and causes the to atrophy and otherwise appear decreased.  This phase completes he deception of death. In the second phase the antidote, a paste from the seedpod of the angle’s trumpet flower is applied. The seedpod contains two types of active ingredients. The first is atropine, which counteracts the nerve poisoning. The second is a hallucinogenic that causes both amnesia and disorientation. The final result is a person who appeared to have died, appears to have been resurrected and is now mentally incoherent, but physically functional._ 

The New Testament story was no different from the Old Testament story of 1 Kings 13:21.  It's a story of resurrection.  Not a story of the "walking dead" or "reanimated corpses" who are "will-less and speechless".

----------


## jmdrake

> OMG. My respect for the man just fell drastically. Partly because he admitted belief in creationism, and partly because he based it on a fundamental fallacy; that lack of perfection equals lack of merit. Since when does the term theory denote false? I thought it meant not yet proven conclusively. I suppose we should follow the good doctor and start tossing all theories, just because they are only theories. And speaking of theory, creationism doesnt even qualify as a HYPOTHESIS let alone a theory. He threw out the whole process of relative comparison, where merits are judged on an evidentiary basis. IOW, of course evolution is a theory; but because it has the MOST and the BEST evidence, it is the BEST theory.
> 
> But lets look on the bright side. At least this helps to both explain and discredit his position on abortion, and at least his position on keeping the government out of these things will hopefully insulate his personal religious fallacies from doing any kind of real damage.


  Yep.  I'm sure any excuse for you to justify pulling a baby that's made it to the last month of pregnancy halfway out his mother's womb and then crushing its skull will do.

----------


## reillym

> Yep.  I'm sure any excuse for you to justify pulling a baby that's made it to the last month of pregnancy halfway out his mother's womb and then crushing its skull will do.


Any baby viable of self-sustaining life? No.

Any baby that is dependent on its mother for life? Sure, why not. A human being has a right to its own safety. That baby could be harming that women, she has a right to reject it. Simple as that.

Oh, and nice try bringing abortion into this debate, and trying to appeal to "emotion". Intelligent people are above that.

----------


## The Patriot

> Your goal line defense of everything Israel even to the point of slandering those who think American servicemen who claim to have been machined gunned in their lifeboats might not be crazy after all.  But that's another subject.
> 
> 
> 
> And the "Old Testament" is somehow less absurd?  But you can't reject the Old Testament without rejecting Israel's primary claim for why it "owns" the land it's now on.  Let's see, in Genesis you have talking snakes, man being created from dirt, a woman being created from a rib, and a whole lot of other stuff that can't be scientifically explained.
> 
> And if you want what to see what you so ignorantly call a "zombie story" in the old testament, here you go.
> 
> 2 Kings 13:21
> ...


Those are words, not actions. If you are going to use catch phrases, use them correctly.

So Christians don't believe in the old testament? I thought they believed in both. Are you a Christian, because if so, you are mocking your own faith. I agree, it is absurd, but are you only attacking it because it is Jewish, and you need to inject jews into a conversation that doesn't relate to them?

Look, you can call it what you want, you can call them "resurrected" I call them zombies, they were dead, rose from the dead, and walked out of their graves. If you wish to separate the two things and continue to be intellectually dishonest go ahead, but they are still both equally stupid, never happened, and there is no proof beyond the hearsay of a guy named Matthew(no other gospels even mention this absurd event).

----------


## idirtify

> Yep.  I'm sure any excuse for you to justify pulling a baby that's made it to the last month of pregnancy halfway out his mother's womb and then crushing its skull will do.


Apparently you are trying to continue the abortion debate from a few weeks ago. But if I remember that thread correctly, you failed to reply because you could not support your position. Now here you are making this pathetic accusation. If you truly think you are being reasonable, why not go back to that thread and pick up the ball that you dropped?

Yep, Im right. Here it is:
(split from FW thread) Abortion Debate
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...250142&page=23

See you there!!!!

----------


## jmdrake

> Apparently you are trying to continue the abortion debate from a few weeks ago. But if I remember that thread correctly, you failed to reply because you could not support your position. Now here you are making this pathetic accusation. If you truly think you are being reasonable, why not go back to that thread and pick up the ball that you dropped?
> 
> Yep, I’m right. Here it is:
> “(split from FW thread) Abortion Debate”
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...250142&page=23
> 
> See you there!!!!


That might be the way you remember it, but its hardly accurate.  You went into zombie mode and just kept repeating the same fallacies.  I explained my position over and over again and you kept dishonestly creating the same straw man so that you could continue in your lame attempt to knock it down.  I got tired of repeating myself and you dodging my questions that I quit waiting my time with you.  I guess Patriot is right.  I do believe in zombies.    You've definitely got the "mindless" part down pat.

Anyway, Ron Paul's position on abortion doesn't require a belief in God.  He points out the absurdity of holding him criminally liable as a doctor if he negligently kills a fetus and yet claiming a fetus is just a "mass of cells".  Totally logical.  But logic ain't your strong point.

Anyway, if you want to know the truth about the libertarian pro-life position you can go here: http://www.l4l.org/

They even have an unmoderated forum so you can pedal  your nonsense arguments to your heart's content.

----------


## jmdrake

> Those are words, not actions. If you are going to use catch phrases, use them correctly.


You took the "action" of defending a position.    After all, a lawyer going to court and arguing is just using "words".  And a law is just "words" written down on paper.




> So Christians don't believe in the old testament? I thought they believed in both. Are you a Christian, because if so, you are mocking your own faith. I agree, it is absurd, but are you only attacking it because it is Jewish, and you need to inject jews into a conversation that doesn't relate to them?


You were the one singled out the New Testament in a thread with the Old Testament in the title.  






> Look, you can call it what you want, you can call them "resurrected" I call them zombies, they were dead, rose from the dead, and walked out of their graves. If you wish to separate the two things and continue to be intellectually dishonest go ahead, but they are still both equally stupid, never happened, and there is no proof beyond the hearsay of a guy named Matthew(no other gospels even mention this absurd event).


Being intellectually dishonest is making up your own definition for something just to fit the argument.  In other words *what you are doing right now*!

Anyway, now that you no longer support Ron Paul (since he by your definition believes in zombies) are you going to find another forum to troll?  Just curious.

----------


## jmdrake

> Any baby viable of self-sustaining life? No.
> 
> Any baby that is dependent on its mother for life? Sure, why not. A human being has a right to its own safety. That baby could be harming that women, she has a right to reject it. Simple as that.
> 
> Oh, and nice try bringing abortion into this debate, and trying to appeal to "emotion". Intelligent people are above that.


I didn't bring abortion into the issue.  Your fellow atheist did when he criticized Ron Paul's position on abortion.  Nice example of intellectual dishonesty on your part though.  

Anyway, currently the youngest baby to survive outside the womb so far is 22 weeks.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/sto...2888874&page=1

That's within the 2nd trimester.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fet...SECTIONGROUP=2

Eventually the technology will reach the place where even 1st trimester premature babies can survive outside the womb.  And before you say "That baby's being kept alive by someone else", that's true for *all* babies.  After all no human baby can feed itself or change its own diaper or even move itself to a new position.

As for the "mother's life" argument, that's overblown.  The vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with the mother's life or health.  Have you kept up the the Elana Kagan hearings where evidence came out that she convince to AOCG to doctor their memo on partial birth abortions to make it seem like they might sometimes be medically necessary even though that wasn't the AOCG's original position?  

See: http://www.slate.com/id/2259495/

Still, allowing abortions in the few cases where it might be medically necessary (woman finds out that she has cancer and it's too early for a c-section for example) doesn't mean abortion on demand has to be the law of the land.  And the states can figure out the right balance without the interference of the federal government.

----------


## idirtify

> That might be the way you remember it, but its hardly accurate.  You went into zombie mode and just kept repeating the same fallacies.  I explained my position over and over again and you kept dishonestly creating the same straw man so that you could continue in your lame attempt to knock it down.  I got tired of repeating myself and you dodging my questions that I quit waiting my time with you.  I guess Patriot is right.  I do believe in zombies.    You've definitely got the "mindless" part down pat.
> 
> Anyway, Ron Paul's position on abortion doesn't require a belief in God.  He points out the absurdity of holding him criminally liable as a doctor if he negligently kills a fetus and yet claiming a fetus is just a "mass of cells".  Totally logical.  But logic ain't your strong point.
> 
> Anyway, if you want to know the truth about the libertarian pro-life position you can go here: http://www.l4l.org/
> 
> They even have an unmoderated forum so you can pedal  your nonsense arguments to your heart's content.


Regarding who is telling the truth regarding our assessments of our posts in that thread, in your version you call me a zombie and accuse me of dishonesty and making straw-men and being illogical and pedaling nonsense arguments. Of course instead of posting your reply in the more relevant thread, you make it here where it is more difficult to verify. But even so, it is still your burden to support your allegations. Regarding your insult, there is never an excuse for name-calling. And if you really felt as you claim (that you were wasting your time), why are you now initiating an expenditure of your time in that same endeavor  IN THE WRONG THREAD (guaranteed to be MORE of a waste for you)??

Suffice it so say that, without even so much as a peek at the content of the thread, the one who resorts to insults and hostility is usually the one who has failed to support their argument.

----------


## The Patriot

> You took the "action" of defending a position.    After all, a lawyer going to court and arguing is just using "words".  And a law is just "words" written down on paper.
> 
> 
> 
> You were the one singled out the New Testament in a thread with the Old Testament in the title.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What, you said actions speak louder than words, I have done nothing other than typing words on a computer. I have taken no action, I have only used words. You just made an incredibly stupid remark, and are now trying to cover your tracts. Just admit the stupidity of your error, and I will forgive you.

I wasn't responding to a post on Genesis, thus, it would make no sense to interject it into my response. Look, I know you have an obsession with Jews, but get over it.

No, you are being intellectually dishonest, people rising from the dead and walking around is what people consider a zombie, and as I said before, whatever you call it, whether it is rising from the dead or "resurrecting", it is stupid, absurd, and nothing but a childish myth with zero evidence.

I asked if he believes in the passage I cited, where thousands of zombies rose from the dead and walked around talking to people, you have yet to provide me such evidence, and until you do, I support him.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *What, you said actions speak louder than words, I have done nothing other than typing words on a computer. I have taken no action, I have only used words.* You just made an incredibly stupid remark, and are now trying to cover your tracts. Just admit the stupidity of your error, and I will forgive you.
> 
> I wasn't responding to a post on Genesis, thus, it would make no sense to interject it into my response. Look, I know you have an obsession with Jews, but get over it.
> 
> No, you are being intellectually dishonest, people rising from the dead and walking around is what people consider a zombie, and as I said before, whatever you call it, whether it is rising from the dead or "resurrecting", it is stupid, absurd, and nothing but a childish myth with zero evidence.
> 
> I asked if he believes in the passage I cited, where thousands of zombies rose from the dead and walked around talking to people, you have yet to provide me such evidence, and until you do, I support him.


You think typing is not a verb(action)?  No wonder you're so full of fail.

----------


## The Patriot

> You think typing is not a verb(action)?  No wonder you're so full of fail.


Typing is surely an action, but in the context of the phrase, actions speak louder than words, on an online forum, action generally means taking action other than typing words, which are considered words. By your definition of actions, the phrase, actions speak louder than words, would have no meaning because, typing or writing or speaking are actions, which are the ways we convey language(words)

----------

