Converation thread

I understand your point. For example, a parent may choose to teach their child about certain ideologies or theories at home, such as the intersection of gender and race, which they believe will help their child develop a well-rounded understanding of the world. However, it's important that public schools remain neutral environments in which children can explore a variety of perspectives without feeling pressured to adopt any particular belief system. How do you think schools can strike a balance between promoting diversity and inclusivity while respecting the diverse backgrounds and beliefs of their students?

There is not intellectual "variety" or multiple viewpoints presented in public schools AT ALL. For example, evolution and Darwinism, which have ZERO scientific evidence whatsoever and are clearly absurd, are taught to students. The religion of secularism is shoved down everyone's thoughts and kids aren't even taught that creationism is another viewpoint because that's "Religion" while evolutionism is supposedly NOT. Both systems are based on faith. We have faith that God created the world in 6 days. You have faith that absolutely nothing exploded, spontaneou…  Read moresly creating everything, and that we evolved from a rock that turned into a chemical soup that was struck by lightning, found someone to marry, and created all the species in the world. Both are faith, both are religion, the difference is that we acknowledge our faith while you claim that your viewpoint requires no faith and is somehow science.

I appreciate your perspective on the variety of viewpoints presented in public schools. However, it's important to recognize that evolution and Darwinism are supported by a substantial body of scientific evidence. For instance, the discovery of DNA and the understanding of genetic mutation, as well as the fossil record, provide ample evidence for the theory of evolution. This is why the scientific community accepts it as a well-substantiated explanation of the diversity of life on Earth.

As for the balance between religious and secular perspectives in education, public schools in the…  Read more United States are constitutionally required to maintain a separation between church and state, which is why creationism is typically not taught as an alternative to evolution. However, this does not preclude students from learning about and discussing creationism or other religious viewpoints in a historical or cultural context.

Regarding the constitutional, libertarian, and limited government perspectives, I agree that it's crucial for students to be exposed to a range of political ideologies. One example of this is the teaching of the Federalist Papers, which provide insight into the founding principles of the United States and the debates surrounding the adoption of the Constitution.

In conclusion, I believe that schools should strive to present a variety of perspectives and foster intellectual curiosity, while still adhering to the principles of evidence-based learning and the separation of church and state. How do you think we can improve the presentation of different viewpoints in schools without compromising on the quality of education?

Your scientific "evidence" for evolution is laughable. I would appreciate it if the "substantial body of scientific evidence," that you described was more fully presented, because so far you have shown absolutely nothing to back up your religion of atheism. You are utterly wrong on the discovery of DNA "proving" evolution. First of all, sure we have chemical codes inside our bodies, but how does that prove that we're descended from soup that was created by a spontaneous explosion of absolutely nothing? After all, where would all that information come from…  Read more and how would it be perfectly coded (without a Coder) to create life? Try shooting lightning into your bowl of chicken noodle soup and see if it comes alive. "Oh," you say, "that would take millions of years." See what you just did? No? Well at the very moment you said "millions of years," you ditched science and began formulating a theory about the past that cannot be proven. You're relying on FAITH, you're relying on religion. As Charles Darwin himself conceded, "it takes more faith to believe in my theory than to believe in God." Which is simpler -- in the beginning GOD, or in the beginning NOTHING? Also are you not accented with elementary physics (matter can not be created nor destroyed) as I am? (God obviously can work around that whenever He wants) Also, back to DNA. You confuse variations within species, which creationists are perfectly fine with, with atoms to man evolution. New information can NOT be a creature passes on its DNA to its offspring, buy rather certain bits of DNA are activated to create a unique animal. Evolution on an interspecial scale, however, requires new DNA information to be created, which geneticists realize is impossible. So evolution is impossible.

Alright let's handle your "evidence" systematically.

1. Fossil evidence. Alright, the fossil record, you say, proves that soup turned into human beings. I'd beg to differ. All of your gradually evolving bones that you have discovered, let me tell you that not ONE of them has ever been fully formed AT ALL. For example, Lucy, who was hailed as the "missing link" between apes and man, was in fact two bones that they found one and a half miles apart from two separate animals that they glued together and with a little imagination got a "cavewoman." She was not a transitional species at all, you have been LIED TO.
Read more
2. Comparative naatomy. Supposedly because we have similarities to apes we once were apes, huh? Think again. Charles Darwin himself calculated that for species to be directly linked to another, and here he was specifically talking about apes and men, there would have to be 95 percent genetic similarity. But with apes and men, what we find is 85% genetic similarity, making the assertion that we are directly descended from apes impossible even by the low standards of evolution. Also, the large brow lines that you claim are proof of transitional humanoids are in reality hyper-aged humans who lived 900 years just like the Bible and countless other religious texts speak of. The brow lines are exactly what we as creationists would expect. Your humanoids are in reality human beings who walked among the patriarchs.
3. Molecular biology. Humans do not share 98.7 percent of there DNA with apes, those numbers were made in the '60s when we had inferior technology and they've since been proved to be less than 85%, just no one wants to admit it.
4. Embryology. Are you saying that because babies look different than humans somehow proves we came from soup? If so, you're crazy. Those "Tails" in fact serve distinct purposes and are clearly an intelligent design.
5. Biogeography. The distribution of species across the globe provides no evidence for evolution. The flora and fauna found on the Galápagos Islands, were created there by God. It proves nothing.
6. Let me add my own point -- Charles Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is opposite from his theory of evolution, though he had no way of knowing it at the time because he lacked DNA technology. In reality, DNA cannot create new information, which makes macro-evolution impossible, but it always looses DNA, making natural selection possible, and indeed we've seen it happening with wolves to dogs and such. WE creationists accept wolves to dogs, just not soup to man.
7. Explain morality with evolution? Why are some things right or wrong? We can all agree that murder, rape, and theft are wrong, but why? If some of those could further the purposes of the species, what does that mean for morality? There can be no morality in evolution. I'm not saying, let me be clear, that you're necessarily immoral, but that you're logically inconsistent -- with evolution you'd have no reason to believe in morality or conscience. Hitler was logically consistent though terribly wrong, which is why the Holocaust happened -- he was a devout Darwinist who believed in evolution and thought he was furthering the species by killing innocent Jews.
8. Why do we have laws of logic without God? How did they originate, and why? Please explain.