No "Real Science" = No Diploma!

Discussion in 'Homeschooling in the News' started by JenniferErix, Apr 20, 2008.

  1. Biologist

    Biologist New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, I went from answering productive questions to answering non productive questions. Which are very irritating to answer because they are asked and answered on such a frequent rate anyone who bothered to research the material for more than five seconds would find a very good answer very quickly and nicely organized. If she had raised any point not answered on talk.origins, I would have answered it. What she did manage to do was set up a post full of strawmen, arguments from ignorance, bad analogies, red herrings, and non sequentor conclusions, really it was her who made the first insults.

    Not when her opinion is full of logical fallacies. She didn't make one accurate statement about the theory of Evolution, and disagree with it. She made warped and false statements, and disagreed with those. Which by definition is an ignorant and uninformed opinion. If she had raised points that accurately describe Evolution and disagree with those, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
     
  2. P.H.

    P.H. Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tiffany, did you notice that after you posted, he lifted the ban? The portion Jen quoted is now edited from his post, with no explanation given.

    I wonder when our society first swallowed the redefinition of what science is? Newton and most of the earlier scientists (whose works are admired by both sides of the present discussion) were able to do good scientific research precisely because they believed in the Creator God of beauty, perfection, and order. Knowing the Designer, they found it logical and edifying to discover the laws He made which govern the universe. Without this option, we get bad, self-limiting science.

    This widely-accepted, self-limiting "science" says, "We can't study any theories which lie outside of our definition of what science is." Ironically, their very definition of science is unscientific. What more obvious, blatant example of the way they use the ban to limit thought than was illustrated on the Spot last night--"Agree with my religion or keep silent!" Again, NOT good science! Maybe that was embarrassingly obvious, and that's why it was erased.

    To me, it looks like many people are allowing themselves to be silenced by close-mindedness. What are we afraid of? Here's to freedom of inquiry! Here's to upholding a higher definition of science! Here's to welcoming magnanimous debate!
     
  3. JenniferErix

    JenniferErix New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    4,497
    Likes Received:
    0
    Inquiring minds want to know...
    Biologist, why did you edit your post?


    Sits waiting with a big 'ol bag of buttery popcorn............
    [​IMG]
     
  4. P.H.

    P.H. Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yipes! I didn't know Bio's post referred to in paragraph 3 had been changed when I wr

    That looks like such fun! I am laughing out loud and thinking how it would feel to be agile enough to catch a few like that. But maybe it's a boy thing. My brothers used to throw one at a time into the air and catch them that way, too.

    Well, while we wait, Jen, we may as well keep the conversation going. I have some confessions to make.

    Maybe I should mention that my husband also has a degree in science. He is an international agriculturalist. He agrees with one of biologist's former posts that there are theories and experiments about change and adaptation at higher levels of academia that would be difficult for laymen to comprehend. But these deal with change within species, (micro-evolution). The belief in macro-evolution, (ideas about how things may have changed from one specie to another) offers no help or benefit to any area of inquiry, including medicine. As one advances from one level to another, theories of macro-evolution become more and more far-fetched and preposterous. So, to claim that "uneducated people" can't deeply understand evolution is a slight-of-hand magician's trick. "Now I use this definition of evolution. Now I use another. Now you see it. Now you don't."

    When this illustrious husband of mine and I were married, we were both deeply steeped in that mindset, ourselves. He was the first to risk looking at other theories beside the monkey-to-man theory. He's always wanted to be open-minded. He's a risk-taker. He constantly pushes me off the cliff of being comfortable. However, it took him years of saying things like "Oh! THAT's how this could have happened!" And "THAT makes more sense than anything I've ever heard before!" "Wow! Would you look at the evidence!" before I'd even give him an ear. Evolutionism is so arrogant--as I was! Yes, I'm ashamed to admit I sneered at him. "Go ahead," I told him, "But you'll just be going backward in your reasoning." His questions haunted me, however, and his delight in a liberated mind, newly opened to look at all possibilities made me wonder. A highly intelligent, creative, well-respected man getting more and more enthusiastic over being able to look at life from a different perspective is impossible to ignore forever. Oh, and have I ever mentioned how good-looking he is! *smile*

    Then we began to meet other scientists on the same liberating journey--imagine! The journey back to being willing to consider that design has a Designer! That effect has a Cause!



    Last edited by Biologist : Yesterday at 12:15 PM.

    Wait a minute! Where did that other post of biologist's go? Did you notice he edited another post? Edited to remove some of the revealing narrow-mindedness of the theory, I do believe... I believe the former post said something about most people not being able to understand it... ie. not being smart enough to comprehend it until the graduate level?

    Anyway, maybe his former post should have been rephrased to say: Only after having been indoctrinated for about twenty years of life, can a formerly rational, logical-thinking human being be conditioned to consider that the fairy tale of macro-evolution has any merit or use in the study of real science today. On the web-site he recommended, the word "absurd" was used to describe things the authors couldn't understand. Yes, I believe the study of creation without the Creator would seem absurd. Almost unbelievable now, I once had learned to live with that absurdity, myself. So, am not trying to scoff at individuals here--only the absurd belief system, unless I include pointing a finger at myself in that scoffing. Please no one think I think less of any person in this discussion. It's the mindset. OK?

    And, BTW, changing posts in the middle of a discussion without an explanation is another sleight-of-hand illustration--now you see it. Now you don't!

    I'd ask you to pass the pop-corn, Jen, but I'm checking in and out of your great thread as often as I can, and now I've got to run again. 'Hope 2 C U soon!
     
  5. MonkeyMamma

    MonkeyMamma New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    7,678
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow.

    This is too funny to me, it really is. How dare we creation believing homeschoolers have anything worth while to say! I love a healthy debate but this is not one of them. It's basically like talking to a brick wall. The name calling and lowdown comments, along with the slight of hand tricks and edits from someone so very above us in knowledge is laughable.

    I am going to continue to read whatever is posted here but I am going to try and refrain from posting (unless someone dogs out my friends) because like I said...brick wall.

    Before I recuse myself from this situation I would like to just state my position.

    I do not care what a "scientist" says. I do not care what website someone demands I read before posting. I do not care what is taught in public schools. I do not care if someone thinks I am wrong. I do not care what anyone teaches their children. I WILL NOT abandon my faith in my wonderful Creator because of what anyone else thinks. I will not ever change my position on what I believe. I think evolution is ridiculous and that my God created this world and everything in it. Don't be offended by it. Just let it be.
     
  6. JenniferErix

    JenniferErix New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    4,497
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah!

    I think you're all crazy!
    Hahahah!

    Science just shows us HOW God did it!
    Bwaaa haaa haaa!
     
  7. MonkeyMamma

    MonkeyMamma New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    7,678
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey! What's wrong with being crazy?!?!?!
     
  8. Biologist

    Biologist New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now, who is antaganizing who? Someone accused me of being a 'knowitallass.' However, I do have evidence that the reverse is true. First off, I'm educated in Biology, no one else here has stated they have credentials in Biology. Lets assume everyone here is intelligent and well educated in some way. I have respect for other fields of study, because I have been through a decade of study, first in general Chemistry and Biology, then in Cellular and Molecular Biology. I know, that I'm not informed enough to make decisions on what's good Psychology and what's bad Psychology. In fact, even in science, I can't tell you the specifics of Physics, or even many parts of Chemistry, and I studied that for four years. Even in Biology I'm limited to my expertise in only parts of Biology the other branches of Biology are only well studies hobbies. So I'm well aware that I don't know it all. But for someone else to come in here and make false statement after false statement proclaiming Evolution as stupid and unscientific after watching a couple of films and reading a few paragraphs on AiG, acting like he/she is an expert on every experiment and study and up to date on every conclusion of Evolution, that is your real 'knowitallass.'

    If all you want is one species forming another species then fruit flies are what you seek. Scientists have sucessfully observed generations of fruit flies decending from a single species of fruit fly that are unable to breed with one another, which by the definition of species they are separate species, and this makes the very definition you gave for macro-evolution true. Now, I bet you are thinking "but they are still fruit flies" but that would be a definition change on your part from species to family. And we all know how bad switching definitions is. It isn't scientists playing the bait and switch game, because every paper and textbook you read has clear definitions and very good experiments and studies to base its conclusions on. Fortunately for creationists this information takes years of study to uncover and most people won't look into it that much so they can play the innocent critic of the material people do manage to study and play like many experiments and studies don't exist. If you were asking for anything more than the fruit fly example, you should have been more specific.

    I can respond to every question everyone here has about Evolution, but please don't bombard me with questions. Do like Prarie home did and go into detail on one question you have.
     
  9. MonkeyMamma

    MonkeyMamma New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    7,678
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm the one who called you a knowitallass because that is how you come off.

    My proclomation about evolution isn't a false statement. It is my opinion and my belief. I don't need to read an article or watch a film because no film or article is going to shake my faith in my God and creation.

    What you don't seem to get is that for christians our faith isn't debatable.

    You want to throw around your degree, your knowledge of the field of science and links to websites we must all check out before posting here apparently but the fact is none of that matters a hill of beans to a Bible believing christian.
     
  10. Jackie

    Jackie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    24,128
    Likes Received:
    6
    It also matters very little to homeschoolers who are sick and tired of "educrats" who "know" what's "best" for our children. We welcome dissenting opinions, but not opinions that put us down and inform us how ignorant we are, simply because WE don't have YOUR "credentials". You have made it perfectly clear that WE are not on YOUR level, and thus we must accept every word you say as absolute truth. That's pretty arrogant to me!
     
  11. Shelley

    Shelley New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,396
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not wanting to get into this discussion on a message board, which hinders debate due to a lack of tone or facial expression, I'll just post this apologetics site that addresses some evolution issues: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5319

    And, no, I don't intend to debate these points. If you want to debate the points raised there, contact those authors.
     
  12. Biologist

    Biologist New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just don't appreciate some of the slander against the scientific community people have been throwing around in this thread. I don't mind it when people say "I don't believe in Evolution, because of my faith." But I do mind false statements against science and people calling scientists narrow minded, and getting called a 'knowitallass' just because I think I know a little bit more about Biology then other people here. Did you also just openly admit that no matter how much evidence there is for Evolution you still wouldn't believe it?


    No I haven't said that at all. I just expect a person who disagrees with the scientific concensus to have a list of valid reasons and to be well informed on the topic at hand. So far it's been a lot of poorly constructed strawmen arguments and other false accusations against Evolution and the scientific community. Which aren't dissenting opinions of Evolution, they are by definition ignorant opinions.
     
  13. Jackie

    Jackie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    24,128
    Likes Received:
    6
    My point exactly! You consider us all "ignorant". As for what you HAVE said, since you've deleted half of it, how are we to know for sure? It's been your overall attitude.

    There are areas in which I am more knowledgeable than others; I'm sure all of us have these areas. But I don't consider others "ignorant". If they have questions or misconceptions, I will listen and instruct. I will NOT tell them to "do their research and stop asking ignorant questions"! That shows arrogance and a lack of patience for others.
     
  14. MonkeyMamma

    MonkeyMamma New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    7,678
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep!

    Sure did.

    You can show me all the evidence in the world and nothing you say or do or show me is going to change my belief that God created the whole entire universe and everything in it.

    Does that satisfy you? Is that worded in a way that is pleasing to you? Or does that sound ignorant too?
     
  15. MonkeyMamma

    MonkeyMamma New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    7,678
    Likes Received:
    0
    And this my friends is what I can a knowitallass.
     
  16. Emma's#1fan

    Emma's#1fan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    15,478
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will admit to not being "educated" in Biology. I have copied these questions before and those who claim evolution is "fact" or "almost fact" have not given clear answers that enlightened me in my ignorance regarding evolution. These are interesting questions that I would like to have answered. These are questions that no person has been able to answer, as a fact, for me, regardless of how much "proof" scientists have to validate their "theory" or they are very broad with their answer. Biologist, clearly you are educated in this area. I am hoping that you can provide the answers I have been looking for.
    The questions and more can be found at www.drdino.com. I really appreciate you being so helpful and enlightening. Perhaps I can finally understand what no person, teacher, or scientist has yet been able to clearify and help me understand. Thanks in advance.



    (1) Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?



    (2) Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn't it?



    (3)Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?

    4) How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?

    (5) Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?

    (6) How did life develop from non-life?

    (7) Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?

    (8) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?

    (9) What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?

    (10) Why are there 2 sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here?

    (11) If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow? Isn't evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?

    (12) How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring?

    (13) Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don't evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed? (An animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)

    (14) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50% of offspring are male and 50% are female (based on 50% X-chromosomes and 50% Y-chromosomes)? Again – is there some sort of a plan here?



    (15) Where did the law of gravity come from? Did it have a beginning? Isn't it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter?

    (16) Where did this energy come from? Isn’t the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator?

    (17) Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?

    (18) Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the 3 main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy, and the origin of life?

    If you believe in evolution:

    (19) Can you give us just one coercive proof of evolution, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life?

    (20) Isn't it true that rather than proofs of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are evidences for evolution to someone who already believes in evolution?

    Let's see some answers to important questions such as these, rather than a discussion of what is science and what is religion. That type of discussion is entirely irrelevant. What we seek is the truth, and creationism is a far more reasonable and logical explanation of the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life.

    Students: Make a copy of this CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTIONISTS and ask your teacher or professor to give you answers to these questions. If they cannot, you have a right to be skeptical that what they are teaching you about evolution is true. Also, give copies to your fellow students so that they too will be aware that there are huge flaws in the theory of evolution. And of course it is still a theory, not a "fact".

    Robert H. Congelliere

    Comments? Students: Let me know what your teacher or professor said after they looked over these questions. Did they give you any answers?

    rhcongelliere@yahoo.com
     
  17. Biologist

    Biologist New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    I intend to answer all the questions but time is working against me so here's some I've answered so far. My answers will get more detailed when I have time to work on it, but really all this typing in exhausting.


    No, the lack of evidence for X is not evidence for Y. That is what we call a combination of negative evidence and the either/or fallacy and they are both logical fallacies. It's like the statement, since you don't have a thousand dollars in your pocket, I must have a thousand dollars in my pocket. You must derive your conclusion from positive evidence.


    Fussion of small atoms in the centers of stars. And some exist only in by fission done in labs. Can't give very many specifics because I'm not a physicist and I fail to see the relevance to Evolution this question has.

    The combination of atoms into molecules and molecules into more complex molecules.

    Chemicals in the brain that cause us to react to situations in a way which benefit our survival.


    It's far simplier for complex organisms to develop in symetry because it requires fewer genes, not to mention it's more beneficial to be symetrical.

    Primarily because those are the animals we can actively observe evolving. We do have explainations for how these animals developed, but it's incredibly hard to condense and simplify the information so that it can fit in two chapters of a textbook for 9th graders.

    Well first off, this is a simple model of human reproduction(that 50/50 are born). In reality more male children are born than female children, but sperm are made with a ratio of exactly 1:1. To answer your question it has to deal with the way cells undergo meosis humans have 23 pairs of chomosomes in females you have two X's for the 23rd pair so when female reproductive cells undergo meosis they only produce cells with X chromosomes. But since males are born XY their cells undergo meosis and produce two cells with the Y(sex determining) chromosome and two with the X chromosome. It's simple genetics and the simplest route for organisms to undergo sexual reproduction. It would require significantly more complexity to make sperm at any other ratio.

    We don't know, we aren't even sure what causes gravity. This is probably an unknowable question but since it is entirely unrelated to Evolution I have no problem not being able to give you the answer you expect to find.

    This steps outside the realm of science and you will not find support for any explaination be it the Christian god, the flying spaghetti monster, or it just existing. No matter which of the many possibilities is true, no of them would have an effect on Evolution because Evolution doesn't describe where energy comes from.

    We 'evolutionists' have never really been given the chance to formally peer review the work of Creationists. Creationists play a nasty game of publishing anything they write as soon as they write it. Which is why you can see 'scientific' articles written last week on many of their sites. They rarely attempt to take a normal route of peer review and revision. Not to mention the fact that they rarely do research, if at all, for these articles. And when they do attempt to conduct a research product, they do it in the most absurd manner possible. One study I remember reading on the Helium content of Zircon crystals had the statement "unfortunately the original calculations are unavailible." In a real scientific study you show every calculation you use in your paper. The omissions of calculations alone would make your paper meaningless in the scientific community because you need to show how you got these numbers for these graphs for which you are basing your conclusion on. This isn't even counting the fact that the researchers couldn't come up with a unifying way on which to experimentally test these samples. The numbers they supply in their charts yielded up to a +/- 1000% margin of error which gave a negative age, several ages in the millions, and yes it even gave a roughly a 6000 year age if you fudge the numbers just right! And the way they set up the experiment was just pathetic, instead of testing their samples in pressurised solids to simulate being buried deep in the ground, they put them in a vaccuum because that would fudge the numbers closer to what they wanted. Yet they want "serious consideration."


    First off, you are starting with the assumption that there is design involved. There are patterns, yes, but that is not evidence for design.


    I can give very strong evidence for Evolution, but you have to be specific because I'm not going to write a library.

    No the discussion of what is science and what is not science is entirely relevant when discussing science. Science is a tool and yes it is limited in it's observation power because it can only observe what is observable. I know that sounds silly, but what creationists are trying to assert as 'science' isn't science, even if it is truth. They use dishonest tactics to use the credibility of science to promote psuedo-science. If creationist would like to develop a new tool to study the universe that superceeds science they should, but so far they are empty handed so they keep trying to hijack science.
     
  18. dawninns

    dawninns New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope. I thought something similar until I looked into the matter more. Here's a good quote (from here) that sums up the matter:

    I think the problem around understanding theories is a problem with creation science where I do feel it's often misrepresented but also with science at large. Shucks, science education in many public schools simply sucks. Where did you and I learn our mistaken ideas of what theories are afterall?
     
  19. dawninns

    dawninns New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    Self-educated here which some would probably count as not educated. :D

    Mind-bendingly outrageous. But I bet that if I figured out the odds of me ending up as a homeschooling housewife with an interest in algebra and comic books, a Hyundai Elantra, 2.5 acres of property and a staple remover about an inch and a half away from a 15 inch CRT monitor then I'd find they were also mind-bendingly outrageous.

    Long odds don't indicate something is impossible. They point to exactl the opposite, that something, however unlikely, IS possible.

    Because design demands a supernatural creator. Science can't address supernatural beings.

    The question might as well be, "Why do Ice cream stands summarily dismiss my demands for a hamburger?"

    None of those three things are covered by evolution and that site is being dishonest in implying they are. Evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next..

    That's it. That's all. Evolution presupposes matter, energy and life (that's abiogenesis). There's nothing in evolutionary theory that can explain any of those three. Again, it's expecting hamburgers from and ice cream stand.


    If you believe in evolution:

    The first two don't fall into the scope of evolution. Human life? I don't think there is one coercive proof. There's a lot of evidence that exists which evolution explains better than any other theory to date.

    It's true there are no proofs. Demanding truth or absolute proofs from a theory is misguided. A theory is an explanation. The best theories provide the best explanations of all the evidence. As for the rest of that, it isn't true. It's an opinion with no data or research behind it. It's not a scientific argument, it's rhetoric an sophistry.

    Creationism presupposes a supernatural deity that created the world by magical means that have no foundation in science. That's not reasonable in terms of science.

    This last quote again misrepresents the meaning of theory. The claims about flaws don't follow logically from the questions since most of the questions were related to physics, cosmology and chemistry and had nothing to do with evolution.

    I didn't answer most of the questions because I think the answers are pretty accessible. A Google search will tell you how the elements are forged in stars for instance. That's part of what puzzles me. Why is the focus on confronting 'evolutionists' rather then consulting sources and texts?

    And I hate the term evolutionist. I had a JW visit me yesterday. One of the first things she started telling me about was how those evolutionists don't believe in God. I can't help but feel the term is used in an attempt to exclude Christians who accept evolution from the Christian fold. The lady is wonderful and we usually have some good chats (I know she thinks she's going to convert me! :twisted:) but I got a little heated at that suggestion.

    Anyhow, I honestly think there's an unreal expectation of science in creationist circles and it's looked at through a religious paradigm without the realization of how different the standards and demands are. Or else that creationist science is a very different animal from science in general and that difference isn't acknowledged.
     
  20. dawninns

    dawninns New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that's what I want to hear from creationists (to be blunt). That the matter isn't about science at all, that it's a faith-based decision.

    Ideally I'd like to see the science stuff dropped. In part because I think it misrepresents science but also...We've lost the idea of a life led by faith I think.

    I don't know if I'm making myself clear but we don't seem to think that a life led by faith is enough anymore. You can't decide that the world was created in 6 days simply by faith, you are told you have to justify it with science. You can't pursue social justice just on the basis of the demands of your faith, you have to justify it in terms of money or benefit to society. I don't know how to explain this better.

    We're expected to live by reason, not faith. Faith is seen as primitive and misguided.

    I have a few people I carry with me as models of a faith-led life and funnily enough, one of them was a baptist who was also a creationist. I knew her on an AOL forum and she was one of the most forgiving and grounded people I've ever known. Her approach to creationism was different too. She ignored the debates, read nothing of creation science. She simply believed because that was her faith.

    But I have biases and maybe I have this opinion because I don't think much of creation science, evil dudette that I am. Still, that woman has a powerful presence in my thoughts to this day.

    And so MonkeyMama, I have a lot of respect for what you just said. I don't think it's ignorance at all but shows a profound knowledge of your faith and beliefs.
     

Share This Page

Members Online Now

Total: 75 (members: 0, guests: 68, robots: 7)