The point is a student must assume that the class is going to require answers that show an awareness of the material being taught. And, at some age a student must become aware of that. Suggesting that students must continually be reminded of that is, at some level, total nonsense. It shows a serious weakness in the student - an inability to argue within a system, an inability to study a system even though some aspect of the system doesn't conform to the student's religion, an inability to argue an opposing view, for example. That defecit needs to be addressed, as it is serious. Besides, it's horseshit anyway. "Oh, Mr. Science teacher, you didn't tell me you wanted a SCIENCE answer! So, I'm going to call my lawyer and have you prosecutied under state law for not telling me that!" Really???
In post #122 you mention witnesses. You don't suggest what was witnessed, but if it wasn't creation then I don't know how it would apply.
So there were no human witnesses to the creation of life on earth, which is a statement written in post #124 by Truth and Justice, which you agreed to on post #126. So which is true? was man last creature on earth, or was he a witness? Can't be both. Please get your story straight.
It's not a faith. I believe in evolution, but not because of faith. I believe in God because of faith.
The law in the OP is a case in point. A whole state legislature can't figure out what is being taught in a sciece class!! If that's not a monumental deficit I don't know what is. And, that has real impact, as how is that legislature ever going to understand what science has to offer on various topics that are important tot he residents of that state if they think one can legitimately substitute religious ideas for elements of the science they are presented, or if they think science is an assault on their religion?? This is an example of the abject failure to understand what science class even IS. Science class is NOT a religious debate forum. It's an opportunity to understand how SCIENCE works. And, this isn't just about science. A course in communism isn't a debate forum, either. An instructor may ask the class to write a paper arguing in favor of communism vs. capitalsim or socialism. Etc. The student doesn't get to say, "Well, I don't believe in communism, so I can ignore this assignment."
Man is not the witness i am talking about. God is the witness and He made sure the accout was preserved the way he wanted it.
You'll have to explain That's if I accept your premise in fact value that a whole state legislature can't figure out what's being taught in science class. And I don't. You'll have to make a more compelling case for it. I have to accept your premise for this to be argumentive, and I don't, at least not with your assertion and nothing else. Again this is dependant on me accepting your assertion.
God is not part of the natural world. We have no supporting evidence for the above, except for faith.
God created the natural world ,everything in it and all the natural processes in it. Including evolution, plate techtonics and the decay of carbon..
That's a logic error. The bible is a collection of text compiled in the 4th century. It's a work of fiction and of plagiarism since most of its content was lifted from other religious text about different primitive gods. There's just about the same amount of proof for the existence of Sauron than there is for your silly god.
Nope the truth. Why do you think mankinds observations are better than God's first hand knowledge.. you better thsn God?
Of course, but that's not science. There is no way we can prove or disprove that. I personally agree that evolution is God's process, and that it took him billions of years to do it. Time is not very important to an infinite being.
Im not here to argue my points but to state them because peoples minds are made up on the issue. I think the world appears billions of years old because it was created in an adult state..
