The Miracle of Water.

[SkepticThinker]

Let's take a few bits and I will highlight the phrases that I believe you may just skip over.....I won't comment on everything but will pick some points that I believe are relevant....btw, he is not "my Mr Fernandez". He is just a man with some good points on the subject.

"Although Mr. Fernandez might wish it were otherwise, the accepted scientific view is that biodiversity -- the wide range of organisms which live on the earth -- is the result of a process of common descent, or biological evolution. This view of life is accepted by virtually every scientist working in the field now, and has been generally accepted since not long after the first publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. It has been longer still -- over two centuries -- since the young-earth creationist perspective has had any claim at being part of mainstream science."

OK, so "the accepted scientific view" is accepted by whom? Scientists of course....and anyone who wants to accept their belief system.
Who said that the "accepted scientific view" is the correct one if they don't have to prove it? Is the "accepted scientific view" somehow viewed as sacred scripture...inspired by god-like scientists?

"the wide range of organisms which live on the earth -- is the result of a process of common descent, or biological evolution....and has been generally accepted since not long after the first publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species"
Is this really an established scientific fact? Or is it an assumption based on stepping outside of what science can actually prove.....adaptation?

Has science really got evidence that "evolution above species level" is demonstrable at all? What happened in the beginning to give science this idea? How did they manage to imagine amoebas accidentally morphing themselves into dinosaurs? This is where we see the biggest vacuum where evidence is concerned. No one can ever show us the process except by suggestion in diagrams.
The foundations of this impressive edifice created by those with great minds, is made of matchsticks.

"This view of life is accepted by virtually every scientist working in the field".......so? Isn't that what we would expect to find when bullying and derision and loss of a job would follow any dissent? Better to shut up and keep your personal views to yourself.

"since the young-earth creationist perspective has had any claim at being part of mainstream science".
I am not a believer in YEC. I believe YEC is the mirror image of evolution but in the opposite direction. Both equally absurd.

"It is not clear to me that the majority of the volunteers who work on the Archive are in fact atheists or agnostics. In fact, I do not know what their beliefs are -- it's not a topic which comes up much. In the area of religious beliefs, or lack thereof, I can only speak for myself, and I am neither an atheist nor an agnostic. I am a Roman Catholic. Although Mr. Fernandez might wish otherwise, there is no shortage of Christians or of Christian denominations which feel that there is no compelling theological reason to cling to a Young-Earth view of earth history. There is also no shortage of Christians who find no compelling theological reason to object to an evolutionary view of the history of life."

"I do not know what their beliefs are -- it's not a topic which comes up much. In the area of religious beliefs, or lack thereof, I can only speak for myself, and I am neither an atheist nor an agnostic."
I would be surprised if the topic of religion was ever mentioned in the great halls of science...its a dirty word.

"I am a Roman Catholic"
Always makes me smile when I hear those attached to Christendom admit to being evolutionists. If they cannot see the diametrically opposed position that this puts them in...what is there to say? Its like saying "I believe the Bible, but not when it makes me look silly" ......its not like they don't look silly enough just by the way they conduct their worship.

"there is no shortage of Christians or of Christian denominations which feel that there is no compelling theological reason to cling to a Young-Earth view of earth history."
Can a person profess to believe in God and so easily put him away when someone provides an alternative idea that sounds more convincing? Maybe they feel as if they can have a foot in both camps.....but it never was an "either/or" issue. YEC's made it either /or by proffering their own suggestions about how creation was generated. They made no allowance for the meaning of Genesis in its original language. The Bible and science agree....because they both have the same author.

I could go on but why bother?

You can hang on to your belief and I will hang on to mine. Lets see how it all pans out, shall we?

You're just rehashing the same old claims that you've repeated ad nauseam. All of which have already been addressed, several times over. I mean, you're still going on about "proof" for Pete's sake.
I can't tell if you're just pretending like these things haven't been addressed with you over and over, or if you just can't remember.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You're just rehashing the same old claims that you've repeated ad nauseam. All of which have already been addressed, several times over. I mean, you're still going on about "proof" for Pete's sake.
I can't tell if you're just pretending like these things haven't been addressed with you over and over, or if you just can't remember.

I think its a lot of both.

 

[ecco]

Let's take a few bits and I will highlight the phrases that I believe you may just skip over.....I won't comment on everything but will pick some points that I believe are relevant....btw, he is not "my Mr Fernandez". He is just a man with some good points on the subject.

"Although Mr. Fernandez might wish it were otherwise, the accepted scientific view is that biodiversity -- the wide range of organisms which live on the earth -- is the result of a process of common descent, or biological evolution. This view of life is accepted by virtually every scientist working in the field now, and has been generally accepted since not long after the first publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. It has been longer still -- over two centuries -- since the young-earth creationist perspective has had any claim at being part of mainstream science."

OK, so "the accepted scientific view" is accepted by whom? Scientists of course....and anyone who wants to accept their belief system.
Who said that the "accepted scientific view" is the correct one if they don't have to prove it? Is the "accepted scientific view" somehow viewed as sacred scripture...inspired by god-like scientists?

How does something come to be "the accepted scientific view"? Tens of thousands of people, with specialties in many different fields, study, do research and post their findings for review and criticism by their peers. Sometimes their findings are accepted; sometimes their findings are rejected.

On the other hand, JWs took the writings of Charles Taze Russell and accepted them. They also took, or rejected, the writings of Joseph Rutherford. Perhaps you can explain the rationale for this.

Perhaps you can explain the rationale for

Further refinements of its doctrines led to the prohibition of blood transfusions by members, abandonment of the cross in worship, rejection of Christmas and birthday celebrations and the view of the biblical Armageddon as a global war by God that will destroy the wicked and restore peace on earth.​

Surely these changes in leadership and doctrine had far less applied research than changes to Darwin's original concepts. Yet you blindly accept them.

Is this really an established scientific fact? Or is it an assumption based on stepping outside of what science can actually prove.....adaptation?

Deeje, Deeje, Deeje, how can you possibly begin to understand science when you continue to believe that science"proves" things. If you cannot grasp the simple truth that science is in the business of providing evidence, then you are truly hopeless. All your protestations fall on deaf ears because they clearly come from someone who does not, and does not want to, understand science.

Has science really got evidence that "evolution above species level" is demonstrable at all?

Yes.

"This view of life is accepted by virtually every scientist working in the field"

.......so? Isn't that what we would expect to find when bullying and derision and loss of a job would follow any dissent? Better to shut up and keep your personal views to yourself.

It's really like talking to a child. One has to repeat the same things over and over and yet the child refuses to comprehend.

Did Einstein shut up and keep his personal views to himself or did he challenge the long-standing views of Newton?

Did Hubble shut up and keep his personal views to himself or did he challenge the long-standing views of Hoyle?

If a scientific concept has merit, it will come to the fore. Read up on Geologist J Harlen Bretz and the scablands.


No one has come up with an alternative to Evolution (other than the completely debunked Creationism)

"since the young-earth creationist perspective has had any claim at being part of mainstream science".
I am not a believer in YEC. I believe YEC is the mirror image of evolution but in the opposite direction. Both equally absurd.

You can reject YEC only by changing the meaning of "Day" in the Bible. You have no basis for doing this other than your own personal beliefs that the earth is older than 6000 years. In this case, you are taking science over scripture. How odd.

Although Mr. Fernandez might wish otherwise, there is no shortage of Christians or of Christian denominations ...
I would be surprised if the topic of religion was ever mentioned in the great halls of science...its a dirty word.

Are you denying that the majority of biologists and geologists believe in God? If so, you need to post support for those beliefs.

Always makes me smile when I hear those attached to Christendom admit to being evolutionists. If they cannot see the diametrically opposed position that this puts them in...what is there to say? Its like saying "I believe the Bible, but not when it makes me look silly"

All people take parts of their religion as literal fact and parts as allegory. You do this with the length of a Biblical "Day".

 

[Milton Platt]

So you agree with me that the laws are not dependent on humans, so whether man describes them or not, they exist - Absolute, fixed, unchanged. When you say man wrote them, you obviously don't mean that they depended on man, but surely you must mean that man wrote his description of them, similar to his description of stars, etc.

Yes, they are descriptions of how things work in nature. Man wrote the laws, he didn’t invent the processes. The processes existed before the laws were formulated to describe the processes,

So far as we are able to determine, the laws are fixed and work consistently throughout our universe.

Theists often point to the laws as if they are what causes the universe to behave in the ways it does. That is not the case.

 

[Deeje]

You've seen evidence. Many times. You simply brush it away. Every time.

LOL....that would be because the "evidence" is not substantive, anytime....there is no way to prove that it's true. You all know that. All the "evidence" that any of you have provided requires "faith" to believe it because it is all based on assumption and suggestion. Nothing provided disproves that fact.

It's strange to me that those indoctrinated by evolutionary science can't see that they have "beliefs" just like we do. Denying that just make evolutionists look as deluded as they think we are. Why can't you admit it? I guess you have to answer that for yourselves.

 

[Deeje]

How does something come to be "the accepted scientific view"? Tens of thousands of people, with specialties in many different fields, study, do research and post their findings for review and criticism by their peers. Sometimes their findings are accepted; sometimes their findings are rejected.

On the other hand, JWs took the writings of Charles Taze Russell and accepted them. They also took, or rejected, the writings of Joseph Rutherford. Perhaps you can explain the rationale for this.

Perhaps you can explain the rationale for

Further refinements of its doctrines led to the prohibition of blood transfusions by members, abandonment of the cross in worship, rejection of Christmas and birthday celebrations and the view of the biblical Armageddon as a global war by God that will destroy the wicked and restore peace on earth.​

Surely these changes in leadership and doctrine had far less applied research than changes to Darwin's original concepts. Yet you blindly accept them.

Deeje, Deeje, Deeje, how can you possibly begin to understand science when you continue to believe that science"proves" things. If you cannot grasp the simple truth that science is in the business of providing evidence, then you are truly hopeless. All your protestations fall on deaf ears because they clearly come from someone who does not, and does not want to, understand science.

It's really like talking to a child. One has to repeat the same things over and over and yet the child refuses to comprehend.

Did Einstein shut up and keep his personal views to himself or did he challenge the long-standing views of Newton?

Did Hubble shut up and keep his personal views to himself or did he challenge the long-standing views of Hoyle?

If a scientific concept has merit, it will come to the fore. Read up on Geologist J Harlen Bretz and the scablands.


No one has come up with an alternative to Evolution (other than the completely debunked Creationism)

You can reject YEC only by changing the meaning of "Day" in the Bible. You have no basis for doing this other than your own personal beliefs that the earth is older than 6000 years. In this case, you are taking science over scripture. How odd.

Are you denying that the majority of biologists and geologists believe in God? If so, you need to post support for those beliefs.

All people take parts of their religion as literal fact and parts as allegory. You do this with the length of a Biblical "Day".

You submitted something for rebuttal.....it didn't disappoint.

In all of that .......where is any substantiated evidence? Just more bluster as if that substantiates anything but your stubborn refusal to admit the truth. You have no REAL evidence for anything but adaptation. We have no argument with that.

Unless you have some real evidence for amoebas to dinosaurs that doesn't require belief in an assumption or a leading suggestion, I will ignore your childish diatribes. It's getting old.

 

[ecco]

It's strange to me that those indoctrinated by evolutionary science

in·doc·tri·nate
/inˈdäktrəˌnāt/
verb
past tense: indoctrinated; past participle: indoctrinated

1. teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
   "broadcasting was a vehicle for indoctrinating the masses"
   synonyms: brainwash, propagandize, proselytize, inculcate, re-educate, persuade, convince, condition, discipline, mold;

Children ages 6 - 13 get about two hours of science teaching per week for about 36 weeks per year. That's 72 hours. For all science education. Some small part of which is spent on evolution.

How many hours of religious teaching are JW children between the ages of 0 and 6 subjected to?
How many hours of religious teaching are JW children between the ages of 6 and 13 subjected to?
How many hours of religious teaching are JW children between the ages of 14 and 18 subjected to?

Please try to answer honestly.

Then we can talk about "indoctrination".

 

[ecco]

You submitted something for rebuttal.....it didn't disappoint.

I responded to your long post item by item.


You asked, How does something come to be "the accepted scientific view"?

I explained how...

Tens of thousands of people, with specialties in many different fields, study, do research and post their findings for review and criticism by their peers. Sometimes their findings are accepted; sometimes their findings are rejected.​

No response.

=======================================================

...and went on...

On the other hand, JWs took the writings of Charles Taze Russell and accepted them. They also took, or rejected, the writings of Joseph Rutherford. Perhaps you can explain the rationale for this.

Perhaps you can explain the rationale for
Further refinements of its doctrines led to the prohibition of blood transfusionsby members, abandonment of the cross in worship, rejection of Christmas and birthday celebrations and the view of the biblical Armageddon as a global war by God that will destroy the wicked and restore peace on earth.

Surely these changes in leadership and doctrine had far less applied research than changes to Darwin's original concepts. Yet you blindly accept them.
​

No response.

=======================================================
You stated that people were afraid to challenge the scientific status quo. I responded with examples of some who did.

Did Einstein shut up and keep his personal views to himself or did he challenge the long-standing views of Newton?

Did Hubble shut up and keep his personal views to himself or did he challenge the long-standing views of Hoyle?

If a scientific concept has merit, it will come to the fore. Read up on Geologist J Harlen Bretz and the scablands.​

No response.

=======================================================

You denigrated Christians who believe in evolution. I asked you to justify your own picking and choosing of Biblical truth...

You can reject YEC only by changing the meaning of "Day" in the Bible. You have no basis for doing this other than your own personal beliefs that the earth is older than 6000 years. In this case, you are taking science over scripture. How odd.

Are you denying that the majority of biologists and geologists believe in God? If so, you need to post support for those beliefs.

All people take parts of their religion as literal fact and parts as allegory. You do this with the length of a Biblical "Day".​

You had no response.

In all of that .......where is any substantiated evidence?

Sigh...There is no evidence that can penetrate the wall of JW indoctrination.

 

[Deeje]

in·doc·tri·nate
/inˈdäktrəˌnāt/
verb
past tense: indoctrinated; past participle: indoctrinated

1. teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
   "broadcasting was a vehicle for indoctrinating the masses"
   synonyms: brainwash, propagandize, proselytize, inculcate, re-educate, persuade, convince, condition, discipline, mold;

Children ages 6 - 13 get about two hours of science teaching per week for about 36 weeks per year. That's 72 hours. For all science education. Some small part of which is spent on evolution.

How many hours of religious teaching are JW children between the ages of 0 and 6 subjected to?
How many hours of religious teaching are JW children between the ages of 6 and 13 subjected to?
How many hours of religious teaching are JW children between the ages of 14 and 18 subjected to?

Please try to answer honestly.

Then we can talk about "indoctrination".

You crack me up. It's what you ignore that makes me shake my head.

Definition....
"teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
"broadcasting was a vehicle for indoctrinating the masses"
synonyms: brainwash, propagandize, proselytize, inculcate, re-educate, persuade, convince, condition, discipline, mold."

See what you highlighted?

Look what I can highlight....

teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
"broadcasting was a vehicle for indoctrinating the masses"
synonyms: brainwash, propagandize, proselytize, inculcate, re-educate, persuade, convince, condition, discipline, mold

Its funny how you seem so focused on what you believe, that you are blind to what is right under your nose.

Two can play that game.

Please try to answer honestly.

I will if you will.

All parents teach their children to believe what they do because they feel that they have made the right decision about their worldview, so it applies across the whole gamut of belief systems, including atheism. So your first point is invalid.

The school system does not encourage religious education these days (though it used to some decades ago.) Parents also influence their children as they grow, by their words, attitudes and conduct. So until they reach High School their beliefs will continue to reflect their parents' beliefs (or lack of them)

High School then begins in earnest to indoctrinate children with the "science" of evolution with nothing to counter the indoctrination if they receive no alternative education at home. Even those parents who may want to hang onto their religious beliefs will find it difficult to argue with "science". But once you know the truth about their "evidence" the unprovable part of the science looks pretty pathetic.

Sadly, by the time they reach university level, most young adults are trained to believe that only science has an evidence based system of belief and that the religious based ideas are based on myths and fairy tales. They have never been encouraged to explore the options. YEC is not the only alternative.

Most of them are never exposed to the truth.....that the "evidence" they have to substitute for God does not require "proof"...in fact mere mention of the word send them into overdrive. They are handed one belief system to substitute for another. That might be good enough to sway some, but not everyone.


I'm sorry but I find your arguments rather pathetic. Bluff and bluster.....

 

[Jose Fly]

Amazing how someone with no education beyond high school (and that was many decades ago) knows so much about contemporary higher education.

 

[Deeje]

Sigh...There is no evidence that can penetrate the wall of JW indoctrination.

Sigh...There is no evidence that can penetrate the wall of evolutionary science's indoctrination.

 

[ecco]

How many hours of religious teaching are JW children between the ages of 0 and 6 subjected to?
How many hours of religious teaching are JW children between the ages of 6 and 13 subjected to?
How many hours of religious teaching are JW children between the ages of 14 and 18 subjected to?

Please try to answer honestly.

I will if you will.

All parents teach their children to believe what they do because they feel that they have made the right decision about their worldview, so it applies across the whole gamut of belief systems, including atheism. So your first point is invalid.

The school system does not encourage religious education these days (though it used to some decades ago.) Parents also influence their children as they grow, by their words, attitudes and conduct. So until they reach High School their beliefs will continue to reflect their parents' beliefs (or lack of them)

High School then begins in earnest to indoctrinate children with the "science" of evolution with nothing to counter the indoctrination if they receive no alternative education at home. Even those parents who may want to hang onto their religious beliefs will find it difficult to argue with "science". But once you know the truth about their "evidence" the unprovable part of the science looks pretty pathetic.

Sadly, by the time they reach university level, most young adults are trained to believe that only science has an evidence based system of belief and that the regilious based idea are based on myths and fairy tales. They have never been encouraged to explore the options. YEC is not the only alternative.

Most of them are never exposed to the truth.....that the "evidence" they have to substitute for God does not require "proof"...in fact mere mention of the word send them into overdrive. They are handed one belief system to substitute for another. That might be good enough to sway some, but not everyone.


I'm sorry but I find your arguments rather pathetic. Bluff and bluster.....

I asked three questions and asked: Please try to answer honestly. You said you would. You didn't. You didn't answer them at all. Were you embarrassed to admit to the number of hours JW kids get indoctrinated?



I do understand that some religious groups encourage lying in defense of their religion. Thank you for reaffirming that.

The school system does not encourage religious education these days

That's because of our Constitution. You should be very glad of that. I can envision a "religious hour" taught by a Southern Baptist. I can envision a sixth-grader asking: "Preacher Jim, I heard that Jehova's Witnesses was the only real true religion." I don't think Southern Baptist Preacher Jim would have responded in a way you'd approve of.

But it really doesn't matter. I imagine most JW kids are home schooled to prevent them from becoming "infected" by science.

 

[ecco]

Definition....

"teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
"broadcasting was a vehicle for indoctrinating the masses"
synonyms: brainwash, propagandize, proselytize, inculcate, re-educate, persuade, convince, condition, discipline, mold."

See what you highlighted?

Look what I can highlight....

teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
"broadcasting was a vehicle for indoctrinating the masses"
synonyms: brainwash, propagandize, proselytize, inculcate, re-educate, persuade, convince, condition, discipline, mold

The definition that fits your organization the best is

indoctrinate (verb) American English definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary

to teach someone a set of beliefs so thoroughly that they do not acceptany other ideas
​

Here's another one:

indoctrinate | meaning of indoctrinate in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English | LDOCE
in‧doc‧tri‧nate /ɪnˈdɒktrəneɪt $ ɪnˈdɑːk-/ verb [transitive]

to train someone to accept a particular set of beliefs, especially political or religious ones, and not consider any others

​

But none of this matters because you fail to acknowledge that the hours that kids are taught about evolution pales in comparison to the hours of home and church indoctrination.

More important is when the indoctrination takes place. You refer to college kids. Information drilled into kids from birth to age ten is far more deeply implanted than what may be learned in college.

 

[james blunt]

There is no substance on earth as vital for life as water is.....can it be just a fluke of nature?...or is it evidence of purposeful design?

Please watch the video and see what logical conclusion you come to.....

Jehovah's Witnesses BROADCASTING

I find water fascinating , I refer to it as morthic, 4 states of matter in one thought . Solid , liquid , 'gas' and energy .

 

[ecco]

Sigh...There is no evidence that can penetrate the wall of evolutionary science's indoctrination.

To be really effective, indoctrination starts at a young age and is continuous. Like JW training that says anything that conflicts with JW teaching is wrong. That's something that JW kids hear from the time they are born.

On the other hand, most kids never hear of evolution until the sixth grade.

 

[Deeje]

But none of this matters because you fail to acknowledge that the hours that kids are taught about evolution pales in comparison to the hours of home and church indoctrination.

I always smile when you make sweeping statements like this. How much time do average "church" going (non-JW) people spend talking about God at home, do you think? How much actual time do they spend in church each week? How engaged are their youngsters? Unless you turn church into a music show, the kids aren't interested in sitting through boring old sermons anymore.

Then tell me how much time those kids are exposed to TV shows or YouTube videos that speak about God all the time? OTOH, some TV programs promote evolution as a foregone conclusion long before these kids reach 6th grade. And how many hours a day are they at school compared to time spent at home? That time at home is often hours spent without parents who probably have to work....or what about the hours they are asleep because most of their 'home time' is at night?

Are you speaking about those 'Christian' parents? Is it realistic to think that parents have to be hammering at their kids relentlessly to get them to believe in creation? All it takes is a hike in the woods! Once a child is engaged with nature face to face (living in cities crushes this) they come to appreciate all by themselves that none of it is a series of fortunate flukes. Nature speaks for itself and praises its Creator.

Our kids get a well rounded education from both school and from their parents' instruction. We reason with our children so that they see both sides of this issue. Any parent who does not impart their knowledge and experience to their children, shouldn't be parents.

You also seem to forget that once a person reaches adulthood, they can then evaluate everything for themselves and make up their own minds. Isn't that the way it should be? You can't be indoctrinated unwillingly. Adults are free willed and can make their own decisions.....don't you think that they can?

More important is when the indoctrination takes place. You refer to college kids. Information drilled into kids from birth to age ten is far more deeply implanted than what may be learned in college.

So thank God that not all kids miss out on gaining something to compare their school science class instruction with. Most kids never get to make that comparison.

Are you going to tell me that you were raised by good Christian parents?

 

[ecco]

I always smile when you make sweeping statements like this. How much time do average "church" going (non-JW) people spend talking about God at home, do you think? How much actual time do they spend in church each week? How engaged are their youngsters? Unless you turn church into a music show, the kids aren't interested in sitting through boring old sermons anymore.

Then tell me how much time those kids are exposed to TV shows or YouTube videos that speak about God all the time? OTOH, some TV programs promote evolution as a foregone conclusion long before these kids reach 6th grade. And how many hours a day are they at school compared to time spent at home? That time at home is often hours spent without parents who probably have to work....or what about the hours they are asleep because most of their 'home time' is at night?

Are you speaking about those 'Christian' parents? Is it realistic to think that parents have to be hammering at their kids relentlessly to get them to believe in creation? All it takes is a hike in the woods! Once a child is engaged with nature face to face (living in cities crushes this) they come to appreciate all by themselves that none of it is a series of fortunate flukes. Nature speaks for itself and praises its Creator.

Our kids get a well rounded education from both school and from their parents' instruction. We reason with our children so that they see both sides of this issue. Any parent who does not impart their knowledge and experience to their children, shouldn't be parents.

You also seem to forget that once a person reaches adulthood, they can then evaluate everything for themselves and make up their own minds. Isn't that the way it should be? You can't be indoctrinated unwillingly. Adults are free willed and can make their own decisions.....don't you think that they can?



So thank God that not all kids miss out on gaining something to compare their school science class instruction with. Most kids never get to make that comparison.

Are you going to tell me that you were raised by good Christian parents?

Are you afraid to answer?
How many hours of religious teaching are JW children between the ages of 0 and 6 subjected to?
How many hours of religious teaching are JW children between the ages of 6 and 13 subjected to?
How many hours of religious teaching are JW children between the ages of 14 and 18 subjected to?

Please try to answer honestly.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I always smile when you make sweeping statements like this. How much time do average "church" going (non-JW) people spend talking about God at home, do you think? How much actual time do they spend in church each week? How engaged are their youngsters? Unless you turn church into a music show, the kids aren't interested in sitting through boring old sermons anymore.

Then tell me how much time those kids are exposed to TV shows or YouTube videos that speak about God all the time? OTOH, some TV programs promote evolution as a foregone conclusion long before these kids reach 6th grade. And how many hours a day are they at school compared to time spent at home? That time at home is often hours spent without parents who probably have to work....or what about the hours they are asleep because most of their 'home time' is at night?

Are you speaking about those 'Christian' parents? Is it realistic to think that parents have to be hammering at their kids relentlessly to get them to believe in creation? All it takes is a hike in the woods! Once a child is engaged with nature face to face (living in cities crushes this) they come to appreciate all by themselves that none of it is a series of fortunate flukes. Nature speaks for itself and praises its Creator.

Our kids get a well rounded education from both school and from their parents' instruction. We reason with our children so that they see both sides of this issue. Any parent who does not impart their knowledge and experience to their children, shouldn't be parents.

You also seem to forget that once a person reaches adulthood, they can then evaluate everything for themselves and make up their own minds. Isn't that the way it should be? You can't be indoctrinated unwillingly. Adults are free willed and can make their own decisions.....don't you think that they can?



So thank God that not all kids miss out on gaining something to compare their school science class instruction with. Most kids never get to make that comparison.

Are you going to tell me that you were raised by good Christian parents?

This is a new low, even for close--minded religious fundamentalists. Children are hardwired, by evolution, to learn from the adults they have the most contact with. Children do not learn one language in their early development, and decide as adults to automatically speak another. Teaching very young children any religious dogma(no matter what belief it is), is tantamount to psychological child abuse. I have no problem with teaching children customs, traditions, history, and practices unique to their culture. But any belief espousing that they will be watched and judged by an all-powerful sky-daddy 24/7, is worst than teaching creationism in sciences classes just to provide and alternative explanation to evolution. Can you imagine just how much a young inquisitive mind could excel, without being shackled by non-factual dogma, fear, guilt, approval, and the overwhelming need to conform? Just another proud example of elitism based on ignorance. Why not just guide children, and not teach them? What are you afraid of? That your children might grow up and begin to question the rationality of your logic? You have failed to present any credible evidence or fallacy-free argument, to support any of your religious claims and veil threats(to atheists). You have also failed to provide any evidence that could support the existence of miracles, the supernatural, or the paranormal. It is arrogance to want children to believe in your delusions, simply because you do. I guess by indoctrinating children early, you are protecting yourself from more ridicule later.

My kids will always be able to mount a rational and convincing argument, whenever their beliefs are challenged. My kids will be able to convince other by being intellectually honest and logically consistent. You like most creationists, flat earthers, young earthers, etc., enjoy the attention, and simply love going the distance. Just like Trump. It would be unrealistic to expect you to honestly and objectively evaluate any evidence that would challenge your worldview, let alone expect you to understand its significance. For example.

What is the significance of a newborn being born with a tail?
What is the significance of a sequence of genes coding for only one protein, or expressed as an anatomical feature?
What is the significance of our closest siblings looking more like us, than their great ancestors?
What is the significance of genetic mutation, and why do they occur?

I don't expect any answers from you. It is much easier to dismiss everything, stay in denial, enjoy the attention, rote parrot the lack of evidence, and avoid shouldering your burden of proof.

Just for my information, what is the difference between macro and micro evolution? In your own words.

 

[SkepticThinker]

LOL....that would be because the "evidence" is not substantive, anytime....there is no way to prove that it's true. You all know that. All the "evidence" that any of you have provided requires "faith" to believe it because it is all based on assumption and suggestion. Nothing provided disproves that fact.

It's strange to me that those indoctrinated by evolutionary science can't see that they have "beliefs" just like we do. Denying that just make evolutionists look as deluded as they think we are. Why can't you admit it? I guess you have to answer that for yourselves.

That would be because you don't recognize evidence for what it is. You think you can quickly glance at a flower or a frog and get all the information you need, with no further investigation.

There is no faith required in accepting something that is observable. That is demonstrable.That is replicable. Please stop trying to drag the scientific method down to the level of your religion; they are not the same.

FYI: Indoctrination is against everything the scientific method is about. There is no blindly accepting anything in science. Science is about questioning and critically analyzing everything. Blind acceptance is discouraged.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You submitted something for rebuttal.....it didn't disappoint.

In all of that .......where is any substantiated evidence? Just more bluster as if that substantiates anything but your stubborn refusal to admit the truth. You have no REAL evidence for anything but adaptation. We have no argument with that.

Unless you have some real evidence for amoebas to dinosaurs that doesn't require belief in an assumption or a leading suggestion, I will ignore your childish diatribes. It's getting old.

Can you provide your definition of "adaptation," please?