We're giving the government a reason to regulate homeschooling

Discussion in 'Homeschooling in the News' started by Cornish Steve, Mar 7, 2010.

  1. seekingmyLord

    seekingmyLord Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    5
    Yes, well, wordy....you could have simply stated that one purpose of an experimentation is to test existing theories or new hypotheses in order to support them or disprove them. That works, right? Also, it could be said that most tests are reduced to a positive or negative result.

    Interesting, though, that you put it in that way: "it is easier to try to break it"...my thoughts exactly.

    You said science is ruthless, so is law, because both try to get to the truth, although we like to get pretty wordy in explaining our version of the truth and bias it. We like to establish credibility with our audience and not look like the bad guy with unpopular ideas. So, when asked a concise yes or no question, we tend to appease the crowd with what we think will persuade them to like us regardless of what we believe.

    Now attorneys have to strip all that away to unveil raw truth. So, even if we don't like the way it is worded and the strictness make us squirm, the answer can only be yes or no...and when something is honestly not known, perhaps an "I do not know," which must be further tested. So, I have a theory and this is part of my experiment to test it.

    To help you, pretend you are on the witness stand and the attorney asking the questions instructed you to answer with a simple "yes" or "no" answer or one word answers, kind of like multiple choice on a test only you have just two answers from which to choose. Then you are asked these same questions by her:

    • Do you believe that evolution and Young Earth Creationism can both be true? (yes or no only)
    • Is the theory of evolution true? (yes or no only)
    • Is the theory of Young Earth Creationism true? (yes or no only)
    • If evolution (I am assuming that is the one you chose here) is true the other is false, correct? (yes or no only)
    • If something is false, it is contrary to the truth. Would you say that something contrary to the truth would also be called a lie? (yes or no only)
    • Do you believe that anyone who believes in Young Earth Creationism believes in a lie?
    • One source of Young Earth Creationism as Christians believe in it is described in the Book of Genesis the Bible, correct? (yes or no only)
    • Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? (yes or no only)
    • Do you believe the creation as it described verbatim in the Bible to be a lie? (yes or no only)
     
  2. squarepeg

    squarepeg New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    722
    Likes Received:
    0
    <insert standing ovation>
     
  3. P.H.

    P.H. Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    While people are still standing and clapping, I'll mention a false dichotomy:

    The Bible says that spiritual things are discerned spiritually. It didn't take spiritual discernment for me to switch from an old-earth creationist to a young earth creationist: it took evidence. Scientific evidence, if you will, including the facts which point to a world-wide flood, like billions of fossils all over the world, which were apparently laid down quickly by water. Yes, facts that can be observed with a person's five senses.

    'Doesn't take any more "faith" to look at that evidence than it does to look at evidences for long years. I therefore respectfully disagree with the post I quoted here.

    It does take faith to believe that the divine God-Man who created me in the first place also provided a way to cleanse me from sin. This is the type of thing which is discerned by faith.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2010
  4. Cornish Steve

    Cornish Steve Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,534
    Likes Received:
    7
    So all of a sudden, you're an attorney and I'm in the dock. I'm accused of "appeasing" and "squirming" and being a "bad guy" who is "looking to establish credibility with the crowd." Apparently, I'm trying to "persuade everyone to like me." You ask two very loaded questions and then accuse me of being "wordy." Let's just consider them again:

    If I answer yes, I'm clearly a heretic. If I answer no, I suddenly embrace your viewpoint. It's a false question. As I pointed out, evolution and ID are two alternative scientific theories, and we can test their underlying assumptions and predictions. But you don't like that answer.

    If I answer yes, I'm clearly a heretic again. If I answer no, then I must be rejecting evolution. Once again, it's a false question. I went to great lengths to explain the real issue, but you don't like my answer.

    Your new questions have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Instead, you're trying to enforce some type of new orthodoxy. To put it bluntly, you're questioning my faith. Well, I refuse to be drawn into this. I follow a Savior who tells me to "judge not".

    It's now impossible to continue this conversation: You've made it a test of faith. Respectfully, I bow out. Sorry to others who wanted the thread to continue. For everyone's Sunday afternoon enjoyment, though, I recommend the following little excerpt. ;)
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2010
  5. P.H.

    P.H. Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    Back to this post, which sounds good and does have some truth in it; but trying to contrast the two theories, as one fitting a scientific realm and the other, solely a faith realm, is a false dichotomy. The differentiation does not exist. They are both faith or belief-based, and they both look at scientific evidence that we "can uncover with our five senses." (Quoted from the above post, where I emboldened it in the text.)

    Neither theory can be dismissed with integrity by claiming it falls solely into the realm of faith or a belief and the other does not, nor that one is more scientific than the other.

    That assertion is illogical and invalid at best, dishonest and unethical at worst, because it is often used as a diversionary tactic to avoid looking at real, empirical evidence that we can see and touch for the young earth side of the debate, thus, essentially trying to kick that side out of any rational or scientific conversation, when in reality it stands up under true scientific scrutiny as well as, if not better than the other side.

    Let's insist upon fair play and not change the definitions of science or faith at will in order to fit our favorite theory or to prejudice people toward one side or the other. 'Not saying anyone here is doing that, but this type of false dichotomy often has the tendency to do so. Let's not let it happen among us.

    This has been a thought-provoking thread. However, I see that some may feel the need to part, agreeing to disagree. What a disappointment: I was hoping that, given enough time and just the right combination of events and presentation of intriguing facts, that others might become convinced to see things more the way I see them--the logical way, of course! *smiling again, though waving good-bye as some may be fading into the distance...*
     
  6. seekingmyLord

    seekingmyLord Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    5
    It was not a matter of liking or disliking your answers. They were well thought out and impressive. On the flip side, you did not like my questions. These questions were not false, they only only stripped away all else to reveal the truth about what you believe, without the diplomacy and politics, which ideally science is not suppose to have....but it does because science is not science without people.

    Jesus questioned the religious leaders of His time in a way that stripped away the religion to reveal the faith.

    I am not judging you for how you believe. As I said before, I am completely at peace that people can and will believe whatever they want to believe regarding the origin of the earth and man. I am not interested in persuading anyone one way or the other and it is just not even a point worth arguing about to me, but it is to you and that is why you started this thread, is it not?

    With everything stripped away, as it should be time to time so that we can fully examine ourselves spiritually, the Christian life boils down to faith. All things are a matter of faith, Steve, all things. We just need a reminder now and then.
     
  7. peanutsweet

    peanutsweet New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    522
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you are in affect saying that your answers to these 'faith' based questions would challenge your evolution beliefs, and that your answers would contradict each other... This is just like the cliche' notion of separating politics from religion. It simply cannot be done, just as our beliefs in science matters cannot be separated from our religious beliefs. They are hand in hand for the individual. Maybe not for the 'science world' but for each individual person, these answers have to match up, you cannot ride the fence so to speak. It doesn't work in the area of personal convictions. Thus the reason, we as Christians cannot teach evolution as fact.
     
  8. Lindina

    Lindina Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    6,102
    Likes Received:
    11
    What do any of you make of this? http://www.evolutionofacreationist.com/excerpts.html
    The notion that a Zen Buddhist agnostic evolutionist would be transformed to a Bible-believing creationist by reading the Bible AND examining examples of animals that contradict evolution rules... contrary to his dental/scientist training... "the realization that evolution, just like creation, is in fact a faith system - in other words, it takes just as much faith, perhaps more, to believe in the Darwinist theory of evolution as it does to take as simple, profound truth the Bible's clear explanation of a world and a universe brought into existence by the mere thought process of Almighty God."

    http://www.biblicaldiscipleship.org/Creation_vs_Evolution/TheEvolution_of_aCreationist.pdf
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2010
  9. P.H.

    P.H. Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    This book takes a look at animals that break all the evolutionary "rules." It examines the many problems with evolutionary theory and shows why the Bible is an excellent book of science.

    THE EVOLUTION OF A CREATIONIST

    by Dr. Jobe Martin
    This book describes Dr. Martin's personal journey from an evolution-trained scientist to a Bible-believing creationist. Dr. Martin examines many of the claims and theories of prominent evolutionists, comparing their often incredible, inconsistent, pseudo-scientific explanations... to the clear and simple description of the Creation as depicted in the Bible.

    (That is copied from the site, with the additions of emboldening of certain key words. It says you can read the first chapter by clicking on a link in the left-hand side-bar. 'Looks interesting, but I couldn't get it to let me read that chapter.)
     
  10. Lindina

    Lindina Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    6,102
    Likes Received:
    11
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2010
  11. P.H.

    P.H. Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks! I've not read it all yet, but wanted to get back and say that I enjoyed the quote by Philip Johnson on p. 25 and the discussion of Mark 10:6 on p. 28.
     
  12. peanutsweet

    peanutsweet New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    522
    Likes Received:
    0
    It takes faith to believe in anything, or even to believe in nothing. What if I believed in nothing, and was wrong? I still have to have faith that I am right, whatever it is.
    Even atheists, believe something, and believe it on what? They cannot prove there is no God. They have faith then that there isn't a God.

    Evolution leaves so many questions unanswered, that it takes a good deal of faith to swallow it.

    Nothing in the Bible that I am aware of eludes to an evolution process?
     
  13. mandiana

    mandiana New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2009
    Messages:
    595
    Likes Received:
    0
    Atheists don't necessarily believe that there is definitely not a god. Personally, there just are no gods I believe in. And you are correct, faith is an important thing to have in your life. I have faith that if there is a god out there, and that god feels it's important to let me know about him/her, he or she will let me know. I also have faith that I'm a good person that is perfectly capable of having a lovely life even if there isn't a god out there. I have faith that most people are good, and I find peace and comfort from the wonderful people in my life and the beautiful world we live in.
     
  14. peanutsweet

    peanutsweet New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    522
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that the term to best describe that train of thought is agnostic?
    Agnostic is defined as one who neither disbelieves or believes in God, saying that there could be a God, but it is not provable. (in other words they are undecided if God exists or not)

    Websters defines Atheist as 'one who believes there is no deity'

    But anyway, my idea was that whatever a person believes, it is based on their faith that they are correct. None of this can be proven scientifically ?
     
  15. gatty2010

    gatty2010 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like your sharing a lot ! So friendly, Thanks for your exp shring ! So great!
     
  16. momofafew

    momofafew New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    0
    Every creationist curriculum I have seen teaches all about evolution. Every evolution based curriculum fails to even mention creationism or holes or alternative theories or possibilities.

    Simply refusing to tell your children about anything but evolution will not give anyone a step up. Often, certain facts are omitted when teaching like that. I grew up only knowing about evolution. I never even heard of intelligent design or creationism. My education was very limited. Now, with my own children, we used creationist curriculum and they are learning way more about evolution than I ever did. Of course, the more I have learned has led me to convert to being a creationist.
     
  17. mandiana

    mandiana New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2009
    Messages:
    595
    Likes Received:
    0
    I used to use the term Agnostic, but then I decided that didn't really fit my beliefs because I believe that if there is a god, it would be knowable (or provable as you put it). Any god could just say, "Here I am", and most, if not all, faiths claim that that will, at some point, happen.

    Because it is absolutely possible to know if there were a god, and I do not believe in any gods, I am an Atheist. I don't believe in gods in the same way I do believe in scientific theories. I just haven't found any evidence to start believing in any god, however, I, along with many other Atheists, am open to any kind of proof of the existence of a god.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2010
  18. Cornish Steve

    Cornish Steve Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,534
    Likes Received:
    7
    I had every intention of not posting again to this thread, but can I be allowed just one exception? :)

    If there is a God who exists outside of our space-time fabric, and if he wanted to reveal himself to us, I can think of only two convincing ways to do it:

    • Speak outside of the time dimension. In other words, communicate something rather specific a few hundred years before it happens.
    • Prove that you're outside the confines of this world by overcoming the inevitable. The most convincing choice would be overcoming death.
    When it comes down to it, these are the only "objective" proofs that would be convincing. It's at least worth taking a look when "someone" appears to have done both things.

    Now back to my vow of silence for this thread. :)
     
  19. mandiana

    mandiana New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2009
    Messages:
    595
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with you, Steve :) Except, I think there are a few things that I would consider more onvincing than resurrection. The exact moment of death is not something we can really pinpoint. I think seeing someone create a human out of dirt or a woman out of a rib would be much more convincing.
     
  20. P.H.

    P.H. Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    Or maybe like making a uniververse and everything in it from nothing?


    BTW, mandiana, thanks for sharing your viewpoint.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2010

Share This Page

Members Online Now

Total: 64 (members: 0, guests: 63, robots: 1)