RRC Archives

Sandy wrote:your definition of an "open-mind" and mine are quite different. To me an open mind is one that is receptive to ideas which are different or new, willing to consider them and potentially change or at least shift currently held opinions.

Nope. We agree on what an open mind is.

ZSpider

Saxman wrote:If those are real, our educational system is in real distress.

our education system is in serious distress anyway: a few months ago i helped judge a science fair (grades four through eight).. i would say about three out of fifty were even remotely close to having anything to do with science. it was really quite sad..

longlegsrule wrote:http://www.reasons.org/

{bowing out again}

do you really believe that, if there is a god, there will be any evidence of his existence that we will be able to understand or discover?

If anybody is open minded and intrested from both sides who hasn 't read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins should read it ..it introduces the case for evolution effectively for science in my opnion.... without any mocking of creationists....

whew. my brain hurts now.

ynot wrote:whew. my brain hurts now.

You're at it too early, Ynot! It's not even 7AM yet. Go back to bed.

ZSpider

I get up every morning before breakfast.

any scientist or christian want to climb on friday? I am an equal opportunity belayer.

meetVA wrote:JB- I don't think that evolution and creationism are necessarily at odds with one another.

yeah, that's not exactly what I said...

JB wrote:alan, evolution and christianity are mutually exclusive

and ZSpider chimed in to voice his disagreement as well. he does that a lot.

So i will clarify. You try not to get too wordy on here as that is "bad", but if you're not good at crafting it in short sentances, people will find fault easily... because well, that's what they're looking for. I apologize for my poor wording. I also apologize for being sorry yet again. um....

I believe the tenants of Christianity (belief in Jesus as the path to salvation), while not at odds with evolution, have little to do with it. Arguing over evolution vs. creationism in order to convice people to become Christians is like trying to convince someone to become a climber by arguing about who really invented the first camming device. I don't know why Christians push this agenda. My faith should not be chalenged by good science in the classroom.

I don't want creationism of any kind taught in schools. I believe in separation of church and state. I don't believe this is a Christian nation. I firmly believe evolution happens every damn day. I am not a fan of rap music. I do not like coconut. I don't think I should try to convince anyone to "believe" like I do. I really like ice cream. I think REM was the best band in the world between 1983 and 1987...

I really don't think any of those opinions or interpretations has any bearing on my belief in Christ. That's what I meant by mutualy exclusive... i guess i forgot to put the IMHO in front of that statement.

ynp1... you are right about me. I am a punk. I was being sarcastic and self-depricating. Of course i'm a hipocrite. See you in class.

why do we need "proof" of anything in order to help our "faith"?

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything
so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some
thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the
non-existance of God.
`The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I
exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am
nothing."
`"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It
could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore,
by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
`"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly
vanishes in a puff of logic.

-Douglas Adams