|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 11:23:58 AM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:ktquote:
You never heard of Socrates, Archenemies, et al. ?
I am aware of a Greek philosopher named Socrates. Please enlighten me. Which field of modern science did Socrates father?
Of course your other example makes your position much more clear.
“ArchEnemies is a comic book mini-series put out by Dark Horse Comics from April 05, 2006 until July 05, 2006.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArchEnemies
Your view of science does seem to have come from a comic book.
quote:
quote:
Please provide your materialistic explanation for the origin of the universe that isn’t just a lot of scientific sounding gobbledygook designed to validate your beliefs.
Why would theoretical physicist care about validating my beliefs?
Thanks for verifying that all you have is gobbledygook. But that begs the question. What makes your gobbledygook acceptable as science?
quote:
Science does not claim to know the origin of life. It does have a theory that explains how primitive life evolved to become the life we know today.
Isn’t that theory supposed to be scientific? That’s the lie that is being pawned off on school kids. TOE is even less scientific than Dark Horse Comics.
quote:
What science can say, with absolute certainty, is that there is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence that life, the earth, and the universe have been around for BILLIONS of years.
Absolute certainty? ROFLOL!
quote:
What your saying is that science is being force-fed to school kids in the guise of science.
Nope. I know the difference between dogma and science. You obviously don’t.
You even admitted “Science does not claim to know the origin of life.” School kids are taught that life arose via abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is NOT science, but rather it is materialist DOGMA being forced on school kids in the GUISE of sience.
It's pretty simple UM. Well over 99.99% of natural scientist of merit on the entire planet generally agree with my point of view and disagree with yours. Every single living Nobel Prize winner and nominee in the Natural Sciences generally agrees with my point of view and disagrees with yours.
Abiogenesis is the scientific study of the origin of life. It has not identified the specific process that allowed this to happen, it simply accepts that it did happen, and happen it did. At some point in time around 3 billion years ago their was no life capable of reproduction, at another point there was.
Science is a secular endeavor. It has to be. It has to assume a natural explanation for every natural phenomena. Anything else is not science, but philosophy or theology. So when science studies the origin of life, it can ONLY search for a natural phenomenon. When children are taught science, they should be taught science, and leave theology and philosophy to religion and philosphy classes.
If theologists can provide conclusive proof that the origin of life came from the hand of God, more power to them. At the moment theologists can't even agree on the basic nature of God, the time that life originated, or the million other questions that has divided theology in to a hundred of different schools of thought about every important matter.
BTW: Did I mention that every single living Nobel Prize winner and nominee in the natural sciences generally agrees with my point of view and disagrees with yours.
< Message edited by KaseyTom -- 9/19/2008 11:44:27 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 3:23:14 PM
|
|
|
WesP
Posts: 2451
Joined: 11/28/2005
From: Where God needs me to be
Status: offline
|
While I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread, I do have a spot of confusion. Would someone explain to me how T(ime)=0 and T(ime)=10 at the same time? No pun intended. Thanks!
quote:
Science is a secular endeavor. It has to be. It has to assume a natural explanation for every natural phenomena. Anything else is not science, but philosophy or theology. So when science studies the origin of life, it can ONLY search for a natural phenomenon. When children are taught science, they should be taught science, and leave theology and philosophy to religion and philosphy classes.
Well, therein lies the problem. Scientists are telling school kids that they came from monkeys, and that is a theory with no factual basis. There is much supposition, but that does not relate to truth. Do not teach what you do not know. Doing so is presenting either philosophy or lies, which you yourself said has no place in science.
_____________________________
Peace,
Wes
___________________________________
<--- BTW, this is the true function of corn! It is to help the oil industry and its functionaries, not detract from them! 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 3:54:13 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
While I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread, I do have a spot of confusion. Would someone explain to me how T(ime)=0 and T(ime)=10 at the same time? No pun intended. Thanks!
quote:
Science is a secular endeavor. It has to be. It has to assume a natural explanation for every natural phenomena. Anything else is not science, but philosophy or theology. So when science studies the origin of life, it can ONLY search for a natural phenomenon. When children are taught science, they should be taught science, and leave theology and philosophy to religion and philosphy classes.
Well, therein lies the problem. Scientists are telling school kids that they came from monkeys, and that is a theory with no factual basis. There is much supposition, but that does not relate to truth. Do not teach what you do not know. Doing so is presenting either philosophy or lies, which you yourself said has no place in science.
Did someone suggest that T=0 and T=10 are the same time?
T=0 is a theoretical concept representing the beginning of the Universe (and hence the beginning of time). T=10 is 10 units (seconds, years, whatever) after the beginning of the universe.
As for scientists telling school kids they came from monkeys, they are not. Scientists claim that humans and apes share a common ancestor. This is plainly evident from studying the genomes of humans and apes and supported by buildings full of physical evidence.
What do you think kids should be taught in science class, that they are descendants of Adam and Eve and the masses of scientific evidence to the contrary should all be disregarded?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 4:18:52 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
While I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread, I do have a spot of confusion. Actually, I laughed myself silly reading the last page of posts!
quote:
Scientists are telling school kids that they came from monkeys Oh come on, Wes, get it straight. We came from apes, before that it's the apes that came from monkeys, and before that monkeys from lemurs, and before that lemurs from protoprimates, and before that...
quote:
What do you think kids should be taught in science class, that they are descendants of Adam and Eve and the masses of scientific evidence to the contrary should all be disregarded? You know, KT, I'm up for one last round with you. How about the following:
Good morning, science class. Today we will begin our discussion on the origins of Homo sapiens, commonly known as modern human beings. This is a very controversial area of science because there is no observational data to provide irrefutable evidence for the various hypotheses of origins. Indeed, the interpretation of the available evidence must always involve certain philosophical presuppositions and assumptions. Presently, the two most studied theories of origins are called Neo-Darwinian evolutionism and Creationism. The former (NDE) requires the philosophical presupposition of uniformitarian naturalism. The latter (creationism) requires the presupposition of supernatural agency associated with the well-proven process of intelligent design. Let's begin our scientific study of origins by examining these two vastly different paradigms so we can better understand how the existing evidence supports (or not) each theoretical position. This will sharpen your analytical skills rather than forcing you students to accept so-called masses of scientific evidence without questioning their interpretation.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 4:29:06 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
Well, therein lies the problem. Scientists are telling school kids that they came from monkeys, and that is a theory with no factual basis.
Evolution is a theory with factual basis.
quote:
Do not teach what you do not know.
Science accepts the scientific theory that best explains the available evidence; this acceptance is always provisional, allowing for the possibility of new evidence; no theory is ever proven. For more than a century, evolution has been the best scientific theory for certain biological phenomena. To teach otherwise is to teach non-science.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 5:16:33 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
Evolution is a theory with factual basis.
There are many underlying suppositions that cannot be proven. That is not fact; it is a guess.
All science rests on assumptions. All knowledge rests on assumptions. A scientific theory is far better validated than a 'guess'.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 5:20:07 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 956
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:ktquote:
It's pretty simple UM. Well over 99.99% of natural scientist of merit on the entire planet generally agree with my point of view and disagree with yours.
And when 99.9% of those concerned believed that moon dust had to be several feet deep did that make it so? Majority rules in politics, not science.
quote:
Abiogenesis is the scientific study of the origin of life. It has not identified the specific process that allowed this to happen, it simply accepts that it did happen, and happen it did.
You are confirming the validity of my observation that you don’t know the difference between science and dogma. Abiogenesis is faith based speculation void of any observational support. It is therefore DOGMA, not science. It is sad that you are unable to tell the difference.
quote:
Science is a secular endeavor. It has to be. It has to assume a natural explanation for every natural phenomena.
The arbitrary exclusion of the supernatural is materialistic DOGMA, not science.
quote:
If theologists can provide conclusive proof that the origin of life came from the hand of God, more power to them.
If science were to ever provide any observational evidence that abiogenesis were possible then it could be considered a scientific endeavor. Until such time as it does abiogenesis is nothing more than materialist dogma. Teaching school kids that abiogenesis is scientific is force-feeding them materialist dogma in the guise of science.
quote:
BTW: Did I mention that every single living Nobel Prize winner and nominee in the natural sciences generally agrees with my point of view and disagrees with yours.
BTW, did I mention that majority rule is a political process, not scientific?
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 5:43:03 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 956
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:ktquote:
What do you think kids should be taught in science class,
I think that they should be taught the truth. I.e. science does not have all the answers.
I think that rather than teaching materialist dogma in the guise of science school kids should be taught that science cannot arbitrarily rule out any possibility simply because that possibility contradicts materialistic dogma.
quote:
that they are descendants of Adam and Eve and the masses of scientific evidence to the contrary should all be disregarded?
No. I don’t think that is what schools should teach.
I do think, however, that schools should quit teaching the materialistic dogma that you have incorrectly labeled “masses of scientific evidence” in the guise of science. I would have no objection to your materialistic dogma being taught in a philosophy class under the correct heading of “materialist dogma”. If fact I would be in favor of that as it would aid them in understanding the difference between science and dogma, a distinction you have quite obviously never learned to make.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 6:06:55 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
quote:
Abiogenesis is the scientific study of the origin of life. It has not identified the specific process that allowed this to happen, it simply accepts that it did happen, and happen it did.
Abiogenesis is faith based speculation void of any observational support.
There was a time before living things existed on the earth. Living creatures now exist on earth. You may be dissatisfied that scientists do not resort to miracles to explain the transition between these two states, but the transition nonetheless occurred.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 6:11:07 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
You may be dissatisfied that scientists do not resort to miracles to explain the transition between these two states There are thousands, nay tens of thousands, of scientists who are more than comfortable in "resorting to miracles" to explain the presence of life. Don't play the "majority rules" game with us, es! If no one was around to observe it, then it's not observational science.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 6:23:28 PM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 4932
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: online
|
quote:
All knowledge rests on assumptions.
I disagree. Assumptions aren't always correct.
_____________________________
<--Plantation house in Louisiana
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 6:48:13 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
All knowledge rests on assumptions.
I disagree. Assumptions aren't always correct. Indeed, C2G, true knowledge is truth. Jesus did not say "I assume I am the Truth" or "I want you to assume I am the Truth". He stated very clearly - "I am the Truth"!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 6:48:59 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
You may be dissatisfied that scientists do not resort to miracles to explain the transition between these two states There are thousands, nay tens of thousands, of scientists who are more than comfortable in "resorting to miracles" to explain the presence of life.
My apologies. Many do rely on miracles, but this is not a scientific position, and most of them recognize that.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 6:55:42 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Many do rely on miracles, but this is not a scientific position, and most of them recognize that. Essentially all scientists who believe miracles are the probable explanation for life's origin understand this is a philosophical position. Essentially none of the scientists who totally deny the possibility of miracles are willing, able, or honest enough to understand theirs is likewise a philosophical position. Their hypocrisy is patently absurd!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 6:59:25 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God
quote:
All knowledge rests on assumptions.
I disagree. Assumptions aren't always correct.
That's more or less my point. One can't prove one's assumptions; if you could prove them, you wouldn't have to assume them.
But to even believe in the existence of your own shoe, you have to assume that you are not hallucinating it, or living in the Matrix, or being deceived by demons...
The fact that science rests on assumptions makes it no different from any other branch of knowledge. It does not make science tantamount to 'guessing'.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 7:04:03 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Essentially none of the scientists who totally deny the possibility of miracles are willing, able, or honest enough to understand theirs is likewise a philosophical position. Their hypocrisy is patently absurd!
I don't think many scientists "totally deny the possibility of miracles". They simply don't make any use of them in their hypotheses and theories. General Relativity, the atomic theory, evolution... none of them refer to miracles in any way, either to affirm or deny their existence. Similarly, the rules of baseball do not comprise a philosophical denial of miracles.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 7:34:14 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I don't think many scientists "totally deny the possibility of miracles". They simply don't make any use of them in their hypotheses and theories. General Relativity, the atomic theory, evolution... none of them refer to miracles in any way, either to affirm or deny their existence. As I said, they are unwilling, unable, or dishonest not to understand that theirs is likewise a philosophical position!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 7:56:32 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 956
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote:
quote:
Abiogenesis is faith based speculation void of any observational support.
There was a time before living things existed on the earth. Living creatures now exist on earth.
There is no dispute that at one time physical life did not exist and now it does.
I have no problem with saying that the belief that physical live had a supernatural beginning is dogma. What I have a problem with is the denial that the belief that physical life had a materialistic beginning is dogma.
quote:
You may be dissatisfied that scientists do not resort to miracles to explain the transition between these two states, but the transition nonetheless occurred.
What I am dissatisfied with is the claim that one cannot believe in miracles and still be scientific. Materialism CANNOT provide a scientific explanation for the origin of life so claiming that science must accept a materialistic explanation is substituting science with materialistic dogma. It is WRONG to substitute science with dogma.
Observational science supports the belief that life ONLY comes from life. Therefore, belief in a supernatural origin of life is more compatible with science than belief in a materialistic origin of life.
Here is the question I would like you to answer. If my dogma is more compatible with science than your dogma is then why should your dogma be taught to school kids as the only acceptable scientific option?
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 8:22:01 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
As I said, they are unwilling, unable, or dishonest not to understand that theirs is likewise a philosophical position!
I know you said it, but it's still wrong. Cooks who write recipes that don't refer to miracles are not adopting a philosophical position on the existence or nonexistence of miracles.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 8:26:07 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I know you said it, but it's still wrong.
Actually, you said it too, es:quote:
They simply don't make any use of them in their hypotheses and theories. General Relativity, the atomic theory, evolution... none of them refer to miracles in any way, either to affirm or deny their existence.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 8:31:12 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
What I am dissatisfied with is the claim that one cannot believe in miracles and still be scientific.
I'm not making that claim. I'm just recognizing that the miracle itself has no place in science.
quote:
Observational science supports the belief that life ONLY comes from life. Therefore, belief in a supernatural origin of life is more compatible with science than belief in a materialistic origin of life.
Here is the question I would like you to answer. If my dogma is more compatible with science than your dogma...
How is a supernatural explanation of life coming from non-life any more compatible with the idea that life ONLY comes from life, than a natural explanation of life coming from non-life?
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 8:58:50 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
How is a supernatural explanation of life coming from non-life any more compatible with the idea that life ONLY comes from life, than a natural explanation of life coming from non-life? Umm, this is pretty basic. If the supernatural cause is living, then life is explained from non-life. There is no rational explanation that life comes from non-life when and if only natural, non-living causes are considered.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 11:05:34 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Good morning, science class. Today we will begin our discussion on the origins of Homo sapiens, commonly known as modern human beings. This is a very controversial area of science because there is no observational data to provide irrefutable evidence for the various hypotheses of origins. Indeed, the interpretation of the available evidence must always involve certain philosophical presuppositions and assumptions. Presently, the two most studied theories of origins are called Neo-Darwinian evolutionism and Creationism. The former (NDE) requires the philosophical presupposition of uniformitarian naturalism. The latter (creationism) requires the presupposition of supernatural agency associated with the well-proven process of intelligent design. Let's begin our scientific study of origins by examining these two vastly different paradigms so we can better understand how the existing evidence supports (or not) each theoretical position. This will sharpen your analytical skills rather than forcing you students to accept so-called masses of scientific evidence without questioning their interpretation.
If you were teaching a science class, presumably you would be a science teacher. If you were a science teacher, presumably you would have a background in science. If you had a background in science, you would know the above statement was nothing more then a poorly veiled attempt to push a personal religious and anti science agenda. Besides being unconstitutional and unethcial, the statement is simply wrong.
While there is certainly a debate about Creationism vs. evolution in the public arena, there is no such debate in the scientific community. Your statement implies such a scientific debate exists. While the public debate certainly has a place in a civics or sociology curriculum, it has no place in a science curriculum. Just as the debate over abortion or whether life starts at conception has no place in a biology classroom.
You also state that Creationism is a theory. First of all, it is you personal believe that Creationism is a fact. A theory cannot be a fact, so which is it?
Even as a theory Creationism fails. It meets none of the requirements of a scientific theory, so it has no place in a science curriculum.
So you start with a religious bias that completely disqualifies you from even being able to objectively teach Common Origin.
You describe ID design as "well proven". Well proven by who? Something is either proven or not. It is not "well proven" "medium well proven" or "medium rare proven".
You apparently don't even know the meaning scientific proof. Not only has ID not been proven, it never will be. That is because scientific proof applies to scientific questions, not philosophical question.
So you've done your introduction, now you have 59 minutes to fill. Are you going to give equal time to Creationism as you do to the evolution of humans? Are you going to spend 30 minutes reading the Bible to your science class?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 11:22:02 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Not only has ID not been proven, it never will be. This is the easiest fallacy of your numerous ones in the preceding post to correct! The very computer you post on is intelligently designed. Please show us a computer (actually any object of specified complexity) which has resulted from random, unguided processes and you can claim ID is disproven. Until then KT, your fallacies remain just that!
quote:
So you've done your introduction, now you have 59 minutes to fill. Are you going to give equal time to Creationism as you do to the evolution of humans? Are you going to spend 30 minutes reading the Bible to your science class? Are you willing to sign up for my science class and be challenged to expand your intellectual horizons OR just blow it off as another Christian gimmick to get religion into public education while remaining smugly ignorant of the faith-based naturalism you so desperately cling to?
The round is over for me, KT. Please have the final word if you wish.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
