Timebuilder
Entrepreneur
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,625
I, too, thought that this horse would have already been buried by the backhoe. I've had another flight and a training day in the interim, and in this time this is starting to look like a post about ALPA and RJDC.
Truthfully, I have little to add that would really "advance" this discussion. After all, additional insights from my perspective would most likely draw more unfounded criticism. Atheism, Dawinism, even Totalitarianism are belief systems, and all require acceptance of some basic ideas. Unfortunately, not all of these basic ideas are supportable by empirical evidence. Even more maddening, is discussion of a beilief which specifically excludes any form of human-based "proof". Having established that principle, and seen that we could no longer remain civil and mature, it seemed time to give this aspect at least, a rest. Even in this rather hostile environment, airbrush has made some good observations. Someone asked why we would allow creationism to be taught in a science class beside evolution. The simple answer is this: both of those teachings are 100% theoretical. That is to say, there is no more "proof" available to us regarding evolution than there is for creationism. Does our DNA we hold in common with primates dictate that we evolved from monkeys? Many prominent scientists and theorists say that this commonality does not prove the evolutionary connection. So, since both evolution and creationism require "faith", both can coexist in the intelectually stimulating environment of a classroom. This classroom discussion could easily ask about how much human time would elapse during the six days of creation. That's one of the many questions for which we have no answer. So, while it may make someone laugh at the thought of a believer flying an aircraft, the story of creation is, by the Bible account, precisely how the God of the Bible wanted to explain our existance to us. The portion of humankind who accepts this story seems uninjured by this belief, so it can safely said that this story could be less harmful to children than the story "Heather has Two Mommies".
I'd like to thank those who kept a mature attitude throughout this thread, and chasten those who did not. I think of this environment as a place of respectful discourse, and not a schoolyard. I hope that readers who did not participate have gained some insight into the lead topic and its derivatives, and have a good basis for navigating these murky waters on their own.
Good day.
Truthfully, I have little to add that would really "advance" this discussion. After all, additional insights from my perspective would most likely draw more unfounded criticism. Atheism, Dawinism, even Totalitarianism are belief systems, and all require acceptance of some basic ideas. Unfortunately, not all of these basic ideas are supportable by empirical evidence. Even more maddening, is discussion of a beilief which specifically excludes any form of human-based "proof". Having established that principle, and seen that we could no longer remain civil and mature, it seemed time to give this aspect at least, a rest. Even in this rather hostile environment, airbrush has made some good observations. Someone asked why we would allow creationism to be taught in a science class beside evolution. The simple answer is this: both of those teachings are 100% theoretical. That is to say, there is no more "proof" available to us regarding evolution than there is for creationism. Does our DNA we hold in common with primates dictate that we evolved from monkeys? Many prominent scientists and theorists say that this commonality does not prove the evolutionary connection. So, since both evolution and creationism require "faith", both can coexist in the intelectually stimulating environment of a classroom. This classroom discussion could easily ask about how much human time would elapse during the six days of creation. That's one of the many questions for which we have no answer. So, while it may make someone laugh at the thought of a believer flying an aircraft, the story of creation is, by the Bible account, precisely how the God of the Bible wanted to explain our existance to us. The portion of humankind who accepts this story seems uninjured by this belief, so it can safely said that this story could be less harmful to children than the story "Heather has Two Mommies".
I'd like to thank those who kept a mature attitude throughout this thread, and chasten those who did not. I think of this environment as a place of respectful discourse, and not a schoolyard. I hope that readers who did not participate have gained some insight into the lead topic and its derivatives, and have a good basis for navigating these murky waters on their own.
Good day.
Last edited: