Posted on 03/09/2006 6:55:14 PM PST by Greg o the Navy
'God is opposed to the proud but gives grace to the humble".
The proud man is opposed to God - His Word because he cannot understand the supernatural, so therefore, he discounts it and put their faith in man and all of man's teachings - which are ever changing. Yet, God IS, WAS and will always remain the SAME. Truth doesn't change.
When God says evening, then morning is one day, that's what it is. God spoke it all into existence. Yet, you believe in a big bang brought it all into existence. It's merely is an attempted to say there is no Almighty God, The Creator of All.
Yet, some claim they believe in God AND evolution. Impossible, they are opposing beliefs. God is the Creation of the heavens and the earth. He tells us Who He is - yet, mere men can't accept that in their prideful state. He will still be God whether they believe or don't.
Does you big bang have a blueprint as to what 'was' and what 'will be'? God's Word does and it is STILL being fulfilled according to His Word. Even when He say, "but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise (in their own eyes); and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty".
For His Word is being lived out on this thread with the beliefs of those that use dead bones in their quest to disprove The Living Word of God.
It gives the NEA access to my child's religous upbringing, and places the State in the position of constructing a curriculum built around religious beliefs, without offending the sensibilities, or contradicting the beliefs, of any one religion in doing so.
I'll repeat myself...I can pick my preacher, but I can't pick the religion of my child's school teacher, so I'd rather not let that teacher's religious beliefs influence of science, or any other subject for that matter, and by extent influence my child.
That's my job, and I will not relegate it to anyone else.
Your post to me contains only a presentation of your beliefs.
Do you have any evidence to bring to the discussion?
It was evidence that we were discussing.
There is an entire field of economics called "econometrics" (dynamics of the market writ small) concerned with computerized and mathematical models. Business hire the consultants to predict with these modelings whether a product/business/investment will fly or bomb. It's one of those fields where when you fail, you don't necessarily get blamed. There are a lot of semi-science fields that are interesting, but ultimately cannot be called, IMO, real science. This "population dynamics" sounds rather similar. I'd say they're random enough to be considered ... random.
I truly am sorry for the ease with which you are confused. Hopefully the condition shall pass. And sarcasm does convey a meaning, you seem to be making some attempt at it, but I believe your irony and satire get in the way and poke you in the eyes.
it is the Doctrine of the Heaping Helping, demonstrating the Abundance of the FSM.
You are not in sin, merely in error.
Ramen.
I'm thinking of dynamics of a much lower level of complexity and symbolism than economics.
Whether you like it or not, science entails the application of shaping principles which in and of themselves are not scientific. The details of life as it transpires before our eyes give plenty of substance for any public school science cirriculum to deal with. But when the bigger picture is presented as to who, or what, is generally responsible for the course of life as we know it, everyone steps out of science and into philosophy or theology.
If it concerns you so much that every thing taught as science must be wholly provable, empirical, immutable fact, then you must be willing to see the presumption that life is the result of unguided causes withdrawn from science class as well. Not only so, but the unscientific notion that science may only treat of natural phenomenon. But science limited to wholly provable, immutable fact is sterile. The greater part of science is reasonable conjecture. Too bad so many evolutionists are not convinced of as much and instead pass themselves of as sole keepers of the truth when in fact they are but pompous, philosophical conjecturers.
I fail to see how the mere mention that organized matter might best be understood as a product of intelligent design must be equated with establishing a relgious cirriculum in public schools. What I do see, however, is a knee jerk response to what has already been a well-established means of conducting science in the first place, namely under the assumption that the universe is intelligently designed, and will therefore demonstrate intelligible processes.
You blindly believe that YOUR concept of ID will be the one taught to children by people who, by the mere fact that they chose to teach science as a way of life, rejected what you want them to lead children on a "fair and open discussion" of.
That's just moronic.
Not only that, but this "fair and open debate" of the alternatives to evolution, will relegate Biblical Creation to stand as an equal with every other Creation MYTH, and the idea of aliens seeding the cosmos.
Why on Earth would you work to lower Biblical Creation to the level of a myth, have the government sanction that, and the teacher's unions control the message?
That's just nothing but a bad idea.
*grins*
No, I just want anything taught as science to be backed by a consensus of scientists.
We're discussing the curriculum for high schoolers, not researchers. They need to learn what is, and is not, accepted as science.
If some philosophers have problems with the underpinnings of science, that's fine; but it doesn't make sense for anyone to discuss this sort of thing until they have a large body of facts and examples at their command.
High school is the place to start learning these concrete examples, and the theories that attempt to explain them.
... but the unscientific notion that science may only treat of natural phenomenon....
It works.
For that though, the benediction is Parmesan Be Upon Them.
May your fork never twist emptily.
Ramen
I foresee a Great Schism between those who believe a spoon my be used in conjunction with a fork, and the fork-purist extremists.
and now...
400 prime
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.